text:
U.S. Supreme Court
Scalia predicts the future, once again, in gay-marriage dissent
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Jun 27, 2013, 12:32 pm CDT
BTW - are there really state laws prohibiting masturbation, or was Scalia just intermingling church and state once again?
By Pushkin on 2013 06 27, 1:07 pm CDT
By Harry Palms on 2013 06 27, 1:23 pm CDT
By isolde on 2013 06 27, 2:01 pm CDT
Nah, just kidding, in fact I think each and every one of the things Scalia mentions *should* be legal. Well, maybe not bestiality, there's no consent there. But I'd rather see us get there democratically than by judicial fiat.
Harry @ 2, LOL. Lock me up!
By Just Some Bloke on 2013 06 27, 2:11 pm CDT
By AndytheLawyer on 2013 06 27, 2:30 pm CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 06 27, 2:35 pm CDT
By kennyg on 2013 06 27, 2:56 pm CDT
By Marc on 2013 06 27, 3:35 pm CDT
By Caesar Augustus on 2013 06 27, 4:26 pm CDT
By Marc on 2013 06 27, 4:29 pm CDT
Similarly, if a state were to declare misengynation illegal, that would be valid? Let's leave it to the states.
And if a state were to declare Christianity as an official state religion, and ban other worship, or tax adherents of other religions, that should be left to the states in Scalia's interpreation of the Constitution. NOTE THAT ON THIS PROPOSITION THERE IS NO QUESTION MARK AS JUSTICE SCALIA AS ALREADY PROVIDED HIS OPINION ON THIS ISSUE ON A PANEL DISCUSSION SHOW ETHICS AND RELIGION IN AMERICA.
By J.E. Fink on 2013 06 27, 4:52 pm CDT
Now, I think Incorporation is a good thing for all of us as citizens. But as a legal issue, it's a raw exercise of judicial power with very shaky framework.
By Anonymous on 2013 06 27, 5:00 pm CDT
By jdj on 2013 06 27, 5:43 pm CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 06 27, 5:51 pm CDT
Legally though, I am troubled. Wasn't one of the first things we learned in law school that the states have police powers including "morals." Isn't this a "moral" issue for the people who vote against it? Isn't any "morality" law necessarily going to make the people who want to engage in this "immoral" activity feel "disparaged," "injured," "demeaned," "imposed upon inequitably," and "stigmatized?" I think that is what Scalia is saying. So have we abrogated the police power of imposing morals? If so, I am fine with it. But lets be honest about what we are doing. It seems the only police powers that are constitutional now are "health, safety, and welfare." Any acts that are not consensual can certainly be precluded though those powers.
I think you are looking at this issue through an impassioned lens. I doubt you will find anything where Scalia says those things are morally similar. It seems to me the list is a list of sexual acts that are or have historically been outlawed.
Seems like you agree with me politically on this issue and I agree with you that we should have done this democratically. It is troubling that these SCOTUS decisions are so wide sweeping when it is only 9 people speaking for a whole nation of 300+ million and the decisions are often politically slanted.
By AzAttorney on 2013 06 27, 6:45 pm CDT
By Marc on 2013 06 27, 6:45 pm CDT
That is a huge simplification. You can "enter into a contract" regardless of sexual orientation. They can live together, split bills, plan their estate, own property, etc.
However, many contracts are illegal despite both parties being agreeable. Contracts for prostitution, drugs, bodily organs, indentured servitude, etc. The difference I believe is that some people see homosexuality as "immoral" like many people feel prostitution is immoral. And some people feel homosexuality is not immoral in the slightest. These two groups will never agree legally because of this fundamental morality disagreement. So if we abrogate morality as a police power (democratically preferably), there will be no argument because gay marriage does not negatively effect health, safety, or welfare.
By AzAttorney on 2013 06 27, 7:02 pm CDT
A) I don't think that's really Marc. Or maybe it's someone new who picked the same name?
B) The problem is that there's nothing about contracts at all here. In fact, many parts of marriage can be replicated with contracts under state law. The issue is non-contractual government benefits.
By Anonymous on 2013 06 27, 7:20 pm CDT
By Yankee on 2013 06 27, 7:23 pm CDT
By Tyrone on 2013 06 27, 8:13 pm CDT
By AndytheLawyer on 2013 06 27, 8:57 pm CDT
- Lee Rawles
Web Producer
By Lee Rawles on 2013 06 27, 9:05 pm CDT
By Pushkin on 2013 06 27, 9:55 pm CDT
"State laws against
ok : bigamy,
o.k. except create a word for it : same-sex marriage,
o.k. : adult incest, but in Ohio adult parent→adult child and adult step-parent→adult step-child incest is NOW unlawful
o.k. : prostitution <sigh>
o.k. : masturbation : as I understand , Ohio law forbids A.B. , age 18 from masturbating C.D., age 17.31416 ;; YET if A.B. and C.D. are both under thirteen and there is no force ; no harm no crime .
o.k. adultery <sigh>,
o.k. fornication, < SIGH ‼ >
o.k. bestiality – if animal participant is a mountain gorilla or a cape water buffalo and there is an issue of consent ,, I opine that both are well capable of communicating "No." even though unable to speak English .
obscenity it depends ::
If it is I accusing a rogue ♂ judge of having a chronic incurable Oedipus complex , then he needs to lighten up ;
If it is a rogue judge prostituting the oath of office then the obscenity is the tyrannizing by judicial fiat and he or she needs a bag job (either head or body) but such sanctions may be unlawful.
... every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision," he wrote.
Benevolent anarchy where ever person is kinder to all others than they are kind to the person would work .
By Docile Jim Brady – Columbus OH 43209 on 2013 06 27, 10:06 pm CDT
By Yankee on 2013 06 27, 10:28 pm CDT
By loathetocomment on 2013 06 28, 4:37 am CDT
By J.FINK on 2013 06 28, 4:58 am CDT
By quilty on 2013 06 28, 8:59 am CDT
By blackjack on 2013 06 28, 9:34 am CDT
By Jay Tome on 2013 06 28, 10:08 am CDT
By noel on 2013 06 28, 10:38 am CDT
Before gay marriage was legal, there was plenty of gay marriage, except that gays were marrying straight people. Now gay people can marry the people they want to marry--other gay people--and straight people have less chance of finding out that they are unwittingly in a gay marriage. Used to happen all the time.
By Smith on 2013 06 28, 11:58 am CDT
By Rachel on 2013 06 28, 12:05 pm CDT
This is a poor, emotion-based decision, and continues to call into question the relevance of the SCOTUS.
By Riffmeister on 2013 06 28, 12:28 pm CDT
By Pushkin on 2013 06 28, 12:34 pm CDT
By AltheDago on 2013 06 28, 12:35 pm CDT
By associate on 2013 06 28, 12:38 pm CDT
By Pushkin on 2013 06 28, 12:46 pm CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 12:58 pm CDT
When one of these gals or guys puts her or his right hand up and swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" what they are really saying is that 'I'll do whatever I can get away with." When the Constitution is cynically seen as a Rorchack Inkblot by the ruling class and words have no set meaning, it easy to see how this happens.
The robes, the finely appointed Courtroom, the elevated bench and stiff formality, are all props intended to convince the 'little people' that the rule of law in our nominal Constitutional Republic is alive and well. To me, this seems to be money well spend since voluntary adherence by most of the population to the rules promulgated by the instrumentalies of government, is much cheaper and more effective over the long run than compelling adherence through the force of arms.
Still, I wonder what will happen as the years roll on and more and more people wake up and realize that this is all a canard? Will there be a point in time when a critical mass of the population - - possibly whole regions - - no longer voluntarily adhere to the edicts of government such that the system, which is predicated upon voluntary cooperation, begins to collapse? If national government takes its cue from governments in other lands and other times, it will take an increasing authoritarian approach to enforcing it laws. At that point in time, the ability of a supposed government to enforce its rules would simply be a function of who has the guns and the willingness of its human agents to put themselves in harms way.
Finally, centuries from now, when historians study the nation that once existed in this piece of the North American Continent, I wonder if they will be able to connect the destruction of the family and the resulting decline of the culture, with the collapse of the constitution and the rule of law?
By Yankee on 2013 06 28, 12:58 pm CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 12:59 pm CDT
By Non-oppressor on 2013 06 28, 1:02 pm CDT
What it truly boils down to is the question of equal marriage rights for:
health benefits,
insurance discounts,
tax breaks,
and so forth. What do you think about that?
By Oliver Klosov on 2013 06 28, 1:04 pm CDT
By Jay Tome on 2013 06 28, 1:09 pm CDT
You see a glimpse of this happening in states that passed gun control legislation in the wake of Sandy Hook. Sheriffs refuse to enforce the law, often based on valid reasons (life, liberty, property). Once there was public trust that a court would do the right thing and strike down a statute that had no rational relationship to the intended societal ill; however, today, the courts are as politicized as the other two branches of government.
By CT Lawyer on 2013 06 28, 1:10 pm CDT
What, really, is being defended against? How would allowing homosexuals to be legally married do anything bad to the institution of marriage? All I see is bigoted members of the majority trying to keep people they consider to be undesireables out of their private club.
By Non-oppressor on 2013 06 28, 1:10 pm CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 1:12 pm CDT
I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, it just is. To the extent bigamy laws protect young women from coercive marriages, (1) we certainly can achieve that goal by less intrusive means and (2) how is that different from coercive marriages with a single partner?
By Tim on 2013 06 28, 1:17 pm CDT
By Hugh Palmer on 2013 06 28, 1:21 pm CDT
Interestingly, we only get *in* this pickle because of legal benefits given to persons entering certain relationship arrangements. If you cut out those legal benefits entirely and make marriage a completely non-legal arrangement, a lot of these problems simply disappear.
But of course, that's never going to happen. The federal government doesn't have the power to make that happen at the state level (nor should it), and the states probably aren't ever going to do anything like that.
When it comes right down to it, the truth is that this is way more about public tolerance and acceptance than the law. That isn't the way it *should* be, but it is. There are excellent arguments about poly-marriage and whether or not there's a rational basis involved -- on both sides. But it comes down to this: there will probably never be the groundswell of public support that it apparently (and unfortunately) takes to get the issue seriously and fairly considered before a court.
Or that's my opinion. And we all know what opinions are like.
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 1:24 pm CDT
Trimming your beard or cutting your hair at the sides is also frowned upon (19:27); cotton-polyester shirts (mixing fabrics in clothing) and Labradoodles (cross-breeding animals) are also abominations (both in verse 19:19); eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it is a sin (19:23); not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32); mistreating foreigners (maybe with different religious beliefs) - Whaaaaat? (19:33-34)
Anyways, the point is this. How does this ruling change your day? Do you need to change YOUR behavior? Do you need to do something different today? Just letting other people be happy - maybe happier than you, that is the real killer isn't it?
By Matthew on 2013 06 28, 1:24 pm CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 1:27 pm CDT
By BJJT on 2013 06 28, 1:27 pm CDT
@14 Anonymous, there is no need for your sarcasm. Free expression of thoughts is expected in a sophisticated society. You opine about everything other than the holding. Perhaps you migth re-read Lawrence v. Texas to better understand how Justice Scalia analyzes the issues. You might not agree with the Justice's reasoning, but at least you can carry on an intelligent conversation about it without the prepubescent insults. Moreover, put a name to your posts to avoid the label "coward."
Regrettably, the Court no longer has Originalist Justices. The past 50 or 60 years of liberal judicial activism is starting to rear its ugly head into the mainstream.
By MAZZLAW on 2013 06 28, 1:29 pm CDT
Scalia's originalism being an unreliable guide, I do find it possible to predict almost all of his opinions, simply by applying the general rule that "America was perfect in 1955."
By Ham Solo on 2013 06 28, 1:31 pm CDT
For example, try to reconcile Justice Ginsburg's rationale that Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is constitutional since it was renewed in 2006 with overwhelming Congressional support (390-33; 98-0). Yet, when it came to DOMA (also a federal law that received overhwleming bipartisan support), she favors states rights all of a sudden. This is results-oriented jurisprudence, plain and simple.
By CT Lawyer on 2013 06 28, 1:33 pm CDT
Judging from the immediate "you're so cute" comments responding to you the left has lost all ability to formulate a cogent argument and only has sarcasm in its arsenal.
By silencedogood20 on 2013 06 28, 1:34 pm CDT
By JRM on 2013 06 28, 1:34 pm CDT
Yes, I could have been less snarky. But really -- you can only draw opinions like that with the most shallow, C-level understanding of Constitutional Law, and I guess I just haven't had my morning caffeine yet. So I apologize for my testiness.
In my view, Mister Scalia's "analysis" consists of figuring out what his personal moral or political opinion is and finding creative ways to get there. I'm sure that reasonable and intelligent people can disagree.
I do agree with you on one thing -- there are no originalist justices left. If there were, the Bill of Rights would still apply only to the Federal Government, after all. I would go further -- there have NEVER been "Originalist" justices on the Court. Not even in the beginning.
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 1:38 pm CDT
I'm fine with criticizing the writing or the reasoning, but his summary of it is just flatly incorrect.
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 1:39 pm CDT
I'm sure you also agree that slavery should still be legal, right? Leviticus 25:44-46; Exodus chapter 21
By AtticusFinch on 2013 06 28, 1:48 pm CDT
It is always hard to be legally correct when people instead want to force their moral opinion on someone else.
And Yankee - I agree with you but I think it's the politicians we need to worry about more than the the Supremes. The Supremes are only given what legislatures give to them.
By Two to Beam Up on 2013 06 28, 1:57 pm CDT
By Ham Solo on 2013 06 28, 1:57 pm CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 2:02 pm CDT
By Wortmanberg on 2013 06 28, 2:08 pm CDT
By rosslaw on 2013 06 28, 2:09 pm CDT
By adel on 2013 06 28, 2:19 pm CDT
The reason we have legal recognition of marriage, which is properly regulated by the states as the decision recognized, is to provide a legal framework for the equitable division of property after dissolution of the relationship or the death of one of the parties and for the care of minor children resulting from the relationship. Are there spiritual reasons for entering into a marital relationship? Of course, but adopting a particular religious viewpoint of marriage is not necessary to provide legal recognition of rights and responsibilities of the parties by society.
I don't see how encouraging loving same-sex couples to formalize their commitments to each other hurts society. The DOMA decision strikes me as being pro-State, pro-marriage and pro-family.
By Moderate Maven on 2013 06 28, 2:19 pm CDT
By Healthynut on 2013 06 28, 2:53 pm CDT
By JT Leone on 2013 06 28, 2:55 pm CDT
Gay marriage has been legal in some states for quite awhile now. And I assure you that in those states, people are not out in the streets molesting whatever is unfortunate enough to happen to be in the vicinity.
Maybe -- just maybe -- we could actually draw on objective experience, rather than bandwagoning around (or even against) Scalia's bizarre and completely speculative apocalyptic prophecies?
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 3:00 pm CDT
By John on 2013 06 28, 3:00 pm CDT
By JT Leone on 2013 06 28, 3:10 pm CDT
By AndytheLawyer on 2013 06 28, 3:13 pm CDT
Limiting legal marriage to one person (of whatever gender) makes it clear who the spouse is for numerous benefits and decision-making powers, and doesn't violate equal protection. Expanding legal marriage to an unlimited number of co-spouses interferes with those legitimate interests, and likely violates EP.
For example, can the state allow legal polygamy but say 'only the first spouse gets to be claimed as spouse for purposes of tax deductions, all other spouses have to file separately'? Not likely - that's giving unequal protection to legally married persons who don't happen to be the first (or oldest, or whatever). Same with decisions - if the law is going to recognize multiple spouses, then what happens when 2 say 'pull the plug' and 2 say 'keep alive at all costs'? The law will have to recognize all as equally valid. Even if it's 2-1, the law isn't giving the 1 the same protection that spouse would have in a 1-1 marriage if it says 'majority rules.'
Religious marriage is different - have all the spiritual spouses you want. But the law has good reason to recognize only one of those for legal purposes.
The government doesn't have a legitimate interest in denying people the right to legally marry the one person of their choice simply because that person is the same gender. It does not follow that the government doesn't have a legitimate interest in limiting legal marriage to one person; in limiting legal marriage to persons who are separated by a number of degrees of relationship; in limiting the age at which one can consent; or in limiting the species that can consent.
By KJS on 2013 06 28, 3:14 pm CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 3:19 pm CDT
By You call this coffee!? on 2013 06 28, 3:35 pm CDT
What we should be talking about is how access to federal money has been expanded and what will likely happen to reduce those benefits. Means testing?
Justice Scalia has been ranting in his schoolboy snarkiness forever...so what?? I agree that it's more a demonstration of his own egocentricity than legal analysis. It's embarrassing. Or it should be but then he's the center of his own world. He should have join the priesthood and then been a member of the Curia.
The comment equating a vagina to a purse is ludicrous! You must be a man.
By o'yeh on 2013 06 28, 3:36 pm CDT
By OP on 2013 06 28, 3:47 pm CDT
Further, there will be a cost, to every taxpayer. We will all pay more, as a new class is awarded federal benefits. There is nothing to keep this from being extended to plural marriages, and certain incestuous marriages. It doesn't take a groundswell of public support to change the longstanding will of the people, only an activist judge.
The now inherently political nature of the SCOTUS demeans the institution and calls into question its future relevance.
By Riffmeister on 2013 06 28, 3:58 pm CDT
In the historical context, there was a dispute over the reach of the power of the federal government. The people in the blue uniforms won. Sorry.
The histronics started in the Slaughterhouse Cases shortly thereafter, when the SCOTUS was taken over by folks who didn't like black people. We've been living with that (and having to do gymnastics around it) for over a century.
Who gets it? Justice Thomas for one, in his dissent in McDonald v. Chicago.
By Incorporation? on 2013 06 28, 3:59 pm CDT
It seems also that members of the Gay community who are engaged in a monogomous relationship have recognized that a percentage of heterosexual married couples choose not to or cannot provide new productive members of society, and yet they receive the same governmental benefits as those who do. This appears to involve some unfairness on its face, and Gay couples would also like to reap the benefits that non-child bearing heterosexual married couples receive. Reason would dictate that if anyone should be complaining of unfairness in this regard, it should be those who have sacrificed. Rather than bestow benefits upon couples who have not made a significant sacrifice in time and money to provide future productive citizens, would it not be more logical and fair to take measures to take benefits away from those who should not be entitled? If part of the result of this decision is the granting governmental financial benefits to an additional class of people who have not made the contribution that the benefits were designed to acknowledge, that result will financially benefit only the additional class of people who have not made the contribution, and society in general will pay the bill to provide this financial benefit.
By Gerard on 2013 06 28, 4:01 pm CDT
This is and always has been the case. It's called prosecutorial discretion.
Your recourse is to vote in a different administration . . . provided you can get 'The People' behind you. Good luck getting more Mormon money for the campaign.
By Ham Solo on 2013 06 28, 4:15 pm CDT
It is patent, however, that mere recognition of legal equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals is not the real goal of the homosexual movement. Rather, practicing homosexuals actually want recognition of equality of homosexual sex acts with heterosexual sex acts. To me and many other people, however, it is personally quite offensive that (i) a relationship between two people that cannot reproduce involving purely recreational oral sex, anal sex and other homosexual acts ever be equated in any measure to a marital relationship between a man and a woman capable of human reproduction, and that (ii) such a homosexual relationship ever be termed a marriage in any sense of the word.
Homosexuals indeed are entitled to legal equality of non-practicing homosexuals and heterosexuals, but not equality of homosexual sex acts to those sex acts of heterosexuals, nor to their immoral relationship in any way ever being called a marriage any more than the recreational sex relationships between a prostitute and a John or a farm boy and a sheep in any way ever being called a marriage. Such a proposition is very, very offensive to many, many heterosexuals that are married, and practicing homosexuals should be more sensitive to those heart-felt feelings.
Roger T. Yokubaitis
Houston, Texas
By Roger Yokubaitis on 2013 06 28, 4:16 pm CDT
Let's imagine that the government adopts your position, and grants legal benefits (tax, insurance, inheritance, etc) on the basis of the presence of children in the household. You find yourself dealing with all those gay couples who've adopted kids or had children through surrogates. Will you fall back on anti-gay sentiment, or will you stick with your stated principles, and grant them the "legal' benefits of marriage?
By Ham Solo on 2013 06 28, 4:25 pm CDT
By Ham Solo on 2013 06 28, 4:33 pm CDT
Let's think abou this for a second -- if I am married in Hawaii, and move to Georgia, I don't need to remarry because the presumption under the FF&C is that my marriage is also valid in Georgia. Once a resident of Georgia, however, it seems a stretch to me (and I haven't researched this, and am going solely on 17 years of intution) that Georgia can thereafter force me back to Hawaii (or some other state recognizing same-sex marriage) to (as only one example) obtain a divorce. In addition to the equal protection and due process considerations, such a decision would compromise a host of other Constitutional provisions. To the extent Georgia grants my application for divorce, it would implicitly recognize the validity of the marriage, raising the question as to how Georgia might enforce a ban against marriage between two individuals of the same sex in the first place. Seems straightforward to me. And I think that's what Scalia sees around the corner. I mean, suppose I'm gay, marry in Hawaii, adopt two kids, move to Georgia, and die 20 years later. Are my spouse and adopted children now divested of rights arising under Georgia state inheritance laws? Does Georgia have to apply Hawaiian law, even though I've been gone 20 years? That's a pretty convoluted result.
Given the glacial pace at which lawsuits take place, and absent any further rightward shift in the Court's membership, my guess is that any state prohibition against same-sex marriage will be declared unconstitutional within the next 6-7 years. The principles of the FF&C are simply inconsistent with state-specific prohibitions against marriage.
Frankly, it seems to me that the only (possible) recourse for so-called conservatives who desire to maintain the "sanctity" of traditional marriage is to call a union between a man and a woman "marriage" while calling a union between two people of the same gender a "union," yet still grant both unions equal legal status, on the premise that a party would be hard-pressed to make a claim for discrimination stick where he or she or they are entitled to equal rights and benefits and protections, and are simply arguing about how the state refers to his or her or their status. But the recent decision even seems to call that "solution" into question.
All this being said, I am unconcerned, and I struggle to understand those who believe that same-same marriage impacts their own marriages. I especially struggle to understand Scalia, when the day before the DOMA decision he ignored Congressional judgment, effectively concluding that discrimination against African-Americans is over -- because he knows better than Congress, who cannot save themselves from their collective judgment because of political considerations -- and that Section 4 of the VRA is no longer necessary because, well, he and four other judges say so. He's a hyprocrite of the first order.
By GALITIGATOR on 2013 06 28, 4:38 pm CDT
By JT Leone on 2013 06 28, 4:43 pm CDT
Furthermore, "more than 40% of US children are now born out of wedlock," according to, Catholic Online! http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=48320 - so no, marriage does not necessarily bring forth children, as you yourself recognized.
Then also please read the article as it explains the harms to children and society of children in single parent homes.
Then maybe put it all together and recognize that gay people will be gay whether or not their marriages are recognized. They will procreate with straight people if they want children, or they will adopt unwanted children, but those who don't want children will not have children, regardless of their sexual orientation. We should encourage children being raised by two loving adults, as opposed to one adult, or in orphanages, or by two abusive "straight" parents, etc...
Even if you are right that the recognition of and reward for marriage was designed for the provision of productive citizens, this purpose, again as you yourself point out, has long passed into oblivion. Second marriages without children? Third ones? Elderly getting married? nearly half of kids being born out of wedlock? Finally, there are far more than financial benefits bestowed to married couples (which are not that great to cause you to so worry about society footing the bill) - and nothing to prevent gay persons from providing children or caring for unwanted children.
I cannot understand the mentality (not saying you have it) of "you must have children" almost immediately followed by, "once that child is born we are socialists if we care for them."
I realize my thoughts are kind of all over the place, but your post was so strange it made me kind of crazy. I mean, really? You said,
"Those who engage in this relationship and fulfill their responsibility are rewarded by the many joys that come from thier children, but practically speaking, this comes only with a great expenditure of time and money, often including career sacrifice, with much of the benefit going to society by virtue of the offspring who become productive contributors."
There were no "careers" for women until not too long ago - I can't figure out if you are kidding or maybe you just are not in a marriage with children, your idea of the whole thing is so 'textbook' but I'm not sure which book you've been reading. Maybe you can enlighten us?
And P.S. LOL: rewarded by the many joys that come from their children. Children come with far more than "many joys."
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 4:45 pm CDT
The sentiments of my comments were not intended to be anti-anything other than anti-unfairness. Considering your hypothetical, if the proposed law was a Federal law based uon presence of children in the household, for example, because the children are presumingly being provided for and there is a governmental interest in this, then by defenition, all individuals with children in the household should benefit.
Analogizing this to the current situation, what if after the law was enacted, a State decided that "the presence of children in the household" also meant "the presence of more than one person in the household." Would it be appropriate or fair for a household in that State with only 2 adults to benefit from the Federal law?
By Gerard on 2013 06 28, 4:58 pm CDT
Just as important, in parallel with this undeniable biological reality is that men and women are ontologically different, and yet wonderfully complement and complete each other. Traditional marriage is the most perfect expression of this union and the very best vehicle to preserve and advance the human race into the future. This being the case, it is not surprising that traditionally governments have cooperated with Godband nature in supportingnand elevating Traditional Marriage. In contrast to what God has created, Gay Ideology is sterile, lifeless and pathetic.
God had it right.
Justice Kennedy not so much.
By Yankee on 2013 06 28, 4:59 pm CDT
@90: We actually do have tax deductions for dependents, child credits, etc -- on further reflection, I realize that my hypo isn't all that hypothetical. From the point of view of fairness, I agree there's not much justification for giving tax breaks to people merely on the basis that they're in a marriage. Inheritance laws and insurance benefits are a different matter, and marriage in order to obtain those benefits is not at all uncommon these days.
Not sure what your analogy is getting at, though. If a Fed law says "child", it will certainly have a definition of the term. States might extend their own state benefits to non-children, but they wouldn't be able to deny children the federal benefits, nor grant the federal benefits (e.g. a federal tax deduction) to non-children.
By Ham Solo on 2013 06 28, 5:20 pm CDT
When Justice Scalia engages in prepubescent insults by equating homosexuality to bestiality and incest, it is hard to respond to his position with an intelligent conversation. The only intelligent response to such a preposterous viewpoint is to laugh at it.
By NoleLaw on 2013 06 28, 5:28 pm CDT
Your narrow view of marriage and its allegedly limited purpose profoundly insults me and my wife of 40 years, who for biological reasons could not and did not have children -- as well as countless millions of others worldwide.
By AndytheLawyer on 2013 06 28, 5:33 pm CDT
What you also know is that heterosexual couplings are qualitatively different from the physical encounters that homosexuals may have.
By Yankee on 2013 06 28, 5:54 pm CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 6:02 pm CDT
By Meauxmo on 2013 06 28, 6:03 pm CDT
I was presuming only that the government would not enact laws impacting marriage without a legitimate governmental/societal purpose. I was addressing whether the impact of the Supreme Court decision on the laws it affected would be consistent with what would probably have been the rationale for at least some of those laws. I was also addressing whether the result of the decision would ultimately be fairness.
By Gerard on 2013 06 28, 6:10 pm CDT
Define what you mean by "naturally conceived."
I realize you run away every time you are asked to explain what you meant by a particular term or phrase but please show some spine this time around.
By Doodle Dandy on 2013 06 28, 6:36 pm CDT
Is that what you see, Andy?
I see only sin and death, a world building on the body count of the last century which witnessed Godless governments continue to build their secular utopias.
And it will end the same way . . .
By Yankee on 2013 06 28, 7:17 pm CDT
By NoleLaw on 2013 06 28, 7:20 pm CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 7:23 pm CDT
By PamelaR on 2013 06 28, 7:36 pm CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 7:37 pm CDT
@103 - Your nonsensical non sequitur gave me a good chuckle, so thank you. Also, please look up the definition of sodomy. Chances are you do (or have) regularly engaged in it yourself. It usually leads not to feelings of superiority as much as relaxation and somnolence.
By NoleLaw on 2013 06 28, 7:42 pm CDT
By pamelaR on 2013 06 28, 7:43 pm CDT
I wouldn't bother responding to the troll, I shouldn't have either. If she wants to raise an actual legal point, let her.
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 7:51 pm CDT
By NoleLaw on 2013 06 28, 7:55 pm CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 7:57 pm CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 7:59 pm CDT
By PamelaR on 2013 06 28, 8:02 pm CDT
As for the religious arguments, religion should have nothing to do with the Court's decision. This country is based on the government not forcing a particular religious belief on its citizens. Half my ancestors left Europe to escape religious persecution. Yankee at 100 chastises us for Godless governments, I would refer him to the Holy Office of the Inquisition and the Thirty Years War, and existing theocracies such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Do those who constantly cite religious belief as their basis for opposition to the Court's ruling believe they have a right to force their religious beliefs on everyone else?
By George Sly on 2013 06 28, 8:28 pm CDT
By PamelaR on 2013 06 28, 8:43 pm CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 8:47 pm CDT
Now, whether or not he ordered the fire set in the first place is an open question...
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 8:55 pm CDT
DOMA sought to insure that laws enacted under a rationale that applied only to traditional marriages would not be applicable under a subsequent definition of marriage to which the laws were never intended to apply. If the rationale for those laws was sound, and I beileve my prior comments suggest a sound rationale, injustice results where a change in the definition of marriage has the effect of broadening the applicablity of the laws to cover individuals to whom the laws were never intended to apply.
By Gerard on 2013 06 28, 9:41 pm CDT
1. Broadening of application =! injustice.
2. Broadening of application = justice when the application was limited in order to exclude a group in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 9:48 pm CDT
"njustice results where a change in the definition of marriage has the effect of broadening the applicablity of the laws to cover individuals to whom the laws were never intended to apply."
Injustice? Seriously? What do you think "equal treatment" means?
Once upon a time, a whole lot of black people suddenly got the benefit of laws not originally intended to benefit them. As I recall, there was some fairly noisy complaining about that, too, before American society was seen not to be collapsing into a mongrelized heap of depravity. Gays are people, married gays are married people, and in spite of Scalia's fever-dreams, the world will not end because of it.
Cheer up. Think of the boost to the economy (albeit only in certain select states) provided by all those *fabulous* weddings! It's likely to be the only noticeable impact.
By Ham Solo on 2013 06 28, 10:41 pm CDT
Those are Scalia's words . . . Kennedy, of course, said no such thing.
By Ham Solo on 2013 06 28, 10:47 pm CDT
You left out my qualifier "if the rationale for the laws were sound." When sound rationale for a law limits its applicabiliy, injustice can result from broadening its applicablitiy on an arbitrary basis, such as when a State's changing of the meaning of the term that represents the class to whiich the Federal law applies means that the Federal government now is required to apply the prior law in that State under the new definition.
With respect to equal treatment, I disagree with the concept that claiming that different things are the same is, on its own merit, a rational basis for treating them equal. Can we also define marriage as any 2 siblings who would like the Federal laws to apply to them? Would their marriage then, by virtue of the new legal definition, be the same as a heterosexual married couple. Should they then be entitled to equal treatment under laws designed to acknowledge the benefits to society of "traditional" marriage? Why not just define marriage as any 2 people who want the marriage benefits that the law grants. If we change the definition in that manner, would it be fair to grant them equal treatment too?
By Gerard on 2013 06 28, 11:42 pm CDT
The restriction is not based in a naked will to discriminate against people for no rational purpose beyond naked morality and "ick factor."
By Anonymous on 2013 06 28, 11:57 pm CDT
I'm curious to know, who do you think suffers the "injustice" when some small percentage of "husbands" don't have the usual male anatomy (if you peek into their pants)?
Interesting concept, granting federal "married couple" benefits to any two people willing to enter into a legal marriage contract. Two siblings living together, raising a child ... sounds vaguely creepy until you realize that many single parents, widows, etc. probably do exactly that: move in with a brother or sister who's willing to help out. Call it something other than "marriage" and you can probably sell the idea of a legal agreement between the adults, in exchange for tax, insurance, and inheritance benefits. (If the siblings are the biological parents, that's a whole different problem, and different laws exist to address it.)
That last point brings up an inconvenient truth: conservatives are simply waaay too concerned about what's going on in people's bedrooms -- and most of them won't admit that that's the problem.
By Ham Solo on 2013 06 29, 12:32 am CDT
Scalia wasn't personally endorsing or disapproving any of the particular acts. Rather, he was making the legal-historic argument that the Constitution is silent on these matters, that it reserves the power to the states. The states and the people in them can decide whether same-sex marriage, prostitution, bestiality, masturbation, and all the rest of it, promote good morals.
I don't recall a referendum stripping the states of this aspect of the police power.
The question then is, whose morals? The morals of the Harvard and Yale set? The morals of the Vatican?
I think Scalia would reject both of those. Instead, he would profess agnosticism and say the morals that matter are the morals as expressed in the legislation.
Naturally, this won't appeal to you if you think the police power includes morals. Furthermore it won't appeal to you if you think that the Constitution DOES say something about same-sex marriage et al. Scalia, and many others, think the equal protection clause is silent and that substantive due process is at work.
By LexLoci on 2013 06 29, 12:40 am CDT
And the body count of the so-called theocracies you mention, pale in comparison with the many well-know Godless governments of the 20th Century - - - Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China.
This is an argument that you'll lose by the numbers, George.
By Yankee on 2013 06 29, 12:59 am CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 06 29, 1:04 am CDT
So, you are stating that he would betray his oath to the Constitution?
If you are then, in a way, you are proving Scalia right. For in his DOMA dissent he wrote, "It is hard to admit that one's political opponents are not monsters."
If you think someone's a monster then it's easy to think the worst.
By LexLoci on 2013 06 29, 1:21 am CDT
I think he's many things, but I don't think he's a monster.
By Anonymous on 2013 06 29, 1:26 am CDT
The morals of the citizens of New York, Massachusetts, Delaware, etc. ARE expressed in the states' legislation. Scalia's problem, clearly, is that they're not abiding by HIS morals. The man belongs in the Vatican, not on the Supreme Court.
@124: "They all do it, so it's OK"? Can't imagine what other point you're making.
By Ham Solo on 2013 06 29, 1:31 am CDT
By PamelaR on 2013 06 29, 1:42 am CDT
Justice Scalia dissent.
By PamelaR on 2013 06 29, 1:48 am CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 06 29, 1:49 am CDT
As more and more people realize that their own marriages are not an iota weaker by reason of same-sex neighbors who marry instead of coupling out of wedlock (and probably realize that their own marriages are stronger by reason of married heads of neighboring households);
As more and more people get past their "ick factor" involving gays (the way a majority has already done with their revulsion, morbid fascination, etc at so many other demographic groups like the disabled, developmentally delayed, and interracial couples);
the "morality" prevailing in America will evolve to the point where people will stop focusing on the genders or genitalia of their neighbors, and on the quality of the heart and soul in their households.
I think the widespread incidence of gay marriages is not merely inevitable. I believe it must inevitably result in an overall decline in promiscuity, in divorces of parents who way too belatedly face their own homosexuality, in bullying of orientationally-questioning adolescents, and in the stereotypical forms of gender-based domination or manipulation within marriages.
In other words, I think the rise of gay marriage will make everyone else's relationships of many types (not just life partnership) stronger and healthier.
By Avon on 2013 06 29, 2:07 am CDT
By Avon on 2013 06 29, 2:08 am CDT
He must have thought of SOMETHING over the intervening 10 years, right? I mean, he didn't join the majority, so there must be SOME legal basis for treating different people differently, depending on whether or not the sex you assume they're having is not the kind of sex you'd like to have yourself.
Is Justice Scalia in favor of revoking the right to marry from heterosexuals who engage in various acts of sodomy within the marital bedroom?
By James Pollock on 2013 06 29, 2:32 am CDT
Oh, wait! I misunderstood. He is FOR the Supreme Court declaring corporations are people to the extent they can spend unlimited funds to jam up our political system (Citizens United). What a homophobic hypocrite.
By Nerissa Belcher on 2013 06 29, 3:13 am CDT
Or if you please, whether as a state you invoke morals or not, you should still have to pass intermediate scrutiny in order to discriminate on the basis of gender. The federal EPC still applies to all state law, constitutional or otherwise (and not even Scalia has been arguing that it shouldn't).
By NoleLaw on 2013 06 29, 3:29 am CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 06 29, 3:32 am CDT
You all might be intrigued to consider that Scalia was a dissenter in the Hollingsworth decision to deny standing to the Prop8 proponents. In other words, he joined three liberals in voting to decide whether there's a Constitutional equal right to marriage that bars Prop 8 - and, presumably, bars other states' efforts to ban same-sex marriage.
Presumably, he knew what he was going to say about that issue on the merits, and was as eager to say his piece as were those who would find exactly such a Constitutional right. I myself would love to know just what he'd argue.
By Avon on 2013 06 29, 4:11 am CDT
You know exactly what conclusion he would reach -- the argument is only a sideshow.
By Anonymous on 2013 06 29, 4:16 am CDT
Scalia dissects their pompous pedantic buffoonery with such a deft hand that just leaves the Misandrists (those Hateful to Men & Boys, Masculinity and Normal Heterosexuality) here nothing to do but avoid his words and mau mau some more of their separatist / exterminationist rage against the hated Y-DNA BioManPigOppressor'
Academentia is indeed a pathetic farce, and legal education all the more so.
When I graduated McGeorge (w/ Dist) I was threatened with extreme violence by a 'martial artiste' professor for Supporting in a Conn Law class Scalia's top notch stick it to em Dissent in Kennedy's prior incarnation of Dred Scott - "Romer v Evans"
I was also notified near the end of classes that I was nominated for the 'prestigious' Anthony Kennedy 'Inns of Court' -
Sadly, before I could turn them down with an equally scathing observation on 'mr kennedy' and his shortcomings - I was notified my nomination was almost immediately blackballed by the same Gaystapo Buffoons who Censored Scalia's discussion of them and their bigotry from the legal text books.
Talk about disappointment - Like any self respecting Marxist (groucho) I wouldn't want to join an organization that would have someone like me as a member, but doesn't mean I wouldn't have liked the opportunity to tell ole Phony Tony so.
By Mike McD on 2013 06 29, 4:34 am CDT
By NoleLaw on 2013 06 29, 5:25 am CDT
To those younger attorneys - please bear in mind that this is a strictly liberal forum - that is to say, the FAR left is treated as mainstream - and the reasoning used to get to that liberal result is entirely ends-oriented.
Scalia is far too consistent in his reading, and corresponding application of the law to be appreciated here (i.e. he doesn't change his view of the law for one case just to get a popular result). And when he points out how someone is wrong, he is usually impossible to successfully argue against. Too many here have tried and failed, so now they no longer try - they just skip right to trashing the guy.
The ABA is great for resources on many legal topics - Constitutional is most definitely NOT one of them. Why do you think that almost no one outside the ABA cares anymore how the ABA rates judicial nominees?
I'm not saying to avoid the site completely, I'm pointing out that the organization has become less than credible in the sight of many respected and very competent attorneys, judges, and other lawmakers-conduct yourself accordingly...
By john on 2013 06 29, 12:07 pm CDT
By Chauncey Gardner on 2013 06 29, 12:43 pm CDT
As many posters on this board will find out on that Last Great Day, hell does not have to pass any man-made rational basis scrutiny test.
The Constitution may be dead, but God is not.
By Yankee on 2013 06 29, 1:55 pm CDT
By NoleLaw on 2013 06 29, 2:50 pm CDT
It is a plain fact that you can predict his decisions without knowing a thing about Constitutional law, and if that doesn't tell you something's wrong, you're not thinking very hard at all.
By Ham Solo on 2013 06 29, 3:09 pm CDT
By Slaw on 2013 06 29, 4:11 pm CDT
By Science Anyone? on 2013 06 29, 4:36 pm CDT
By Mike McD on 2013 06 29, 5:00 pm CDT
And congress only seems to get the deference you speak of when they actually write a law the way they intend it to be enforced. -i.e. when they "mean what they say"
Sure you can predict many of Scalia's conclusions because they're usually the right thing and properly follow from reason and what the text of the Constitution and law actually say. (but I'll bet you could not "guess" exactly how he will choose to state his argument - and given it ahead of time, would be unable to find it actually logically inconsistent).
As it appears that a result based on what the Constitution actually says seems to be inconvenient (especially with that pesky thing of having to deal with delayed gratification while waiting for Congress to write a Constitutional law, combined with the not being able to take credit for that result), you must be a "fair weather fan" of the Constitution. That's when you just don't think at all, at least not with your brain - you just look at a case, decide which result you want, (forget the what the Constitution and/or the US Code actually says), tell a clerk "that so and so should be allowed to do this, or not allowed to do that - now go and make me up an argument - heck invent a few new rights and feel free to change the actual text of some laws while you're at it! Just make sure my special interest group back home can pat me on the back."
By john on 2013 06 29, 5:09 pm CDT
By anonymous on 2013 06 29, 5:14 pm CDT
By PamelaR on 2013 06 29, 5:25 pm CDT
Or you could actually make a legal argument about why it's wrong. Just sayin'. I mean, you don't actually impress anyone just by going "WHAAARRGARRRBBL LIB'RALS!" It's seriously a cop-out.
By Anonymous on 2013 06 29, 5:37 pm CDT
I was not aware that "studies" had been done about personal opinions and the mainstream.
And "I know y'all aren't fond of facts and data" - seriously. Either you're actually from the south - which is not how your comment appears, or you've made my point about attacking the person. LOL.
Life is too short - I'm glad you just had to go ahead and make any further discussion pointless.
By john on 2013 06 29, 6:06 pm CDT
And yes, there are polls and metrics for tracking the movement of social consensus on issues facing our society.
My point is only this -- the ABA position, and that of the pro equality posters -- is, in fact, now mainstream.
You may not agree, but you should make legal arguments. Not simply deride the ABA and others for being "liberal" just because you disagree with the outcome of a legal development.
By Anonymous on 2013 06 29, 6:33 pm CDT
It is also true that support for SSM is continuously and rapidly increasing. Interestingly, this Gallup poll also found that while a majority of Americans support SSM, a majority do not think there is majority support for it. That last category is where you land, #154.
By NoleLaw on 2013 06 29, 6:33 pm CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 06 29, 6:35 pm CDT
It is a matter of simple logic that truth can not be discerned from opinion polls.
Particularly, an opinion poll of a population increasing made up of adults from the 'Whatever Generstion' large numbers of which grew up in Fatherless homes, and understandably cannot understand the nature of traditional marriage.
A basic indifference to civilization and the future should not be mistaken for an increase in "social conscience"
By Yankee on 2013 06 29, 6:51 pm CDT
By NoleLaw on 2013 06 29, 7:19 pm CDT
By noel on 2013 06 29, 7:25 pm CDT
By Redwood on 2013 06 29, 8:31 pm CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 06 29, 8:44 pm CDT
By PamelaR on 2013 06 29, 10:38 pm CDT
By PamelaR on 2013 06 29, 10:58 pm CDT
The downfall of this particular brew is its blandness. Most of the flavors are repeats from the past with little variety. The deep, rosy roar of cognitive dissonance and a magical ability to pretend that saying something makes it true does add a distinctive new background to these old repeat flavors. But it isn't enough to reinvigorate them or make them appear less recycled.
This vintage will forever rank among the famous ones -- but it won't ever be the best due to its lack of originality. Altogether, though, Fundamentalist Tears Aficionado gives this vintage a rating of 93.
It is worth noting that the vintage will likely improve with age due to the tendency of the childlike anger at not getting one's way to increase as society inevitably moves towards justice and the apocalypse fails to occur as predicted. Unfortunately, the increase in flavor will plateau as the wrathful, equality-resenting generation dies off. See our previous article on the aging process of the "Loving Vintage" and the "Brown/Board Vintage" for notes reminiscent of how we expect this vintage to age.
Fear not, however -- as the flavor increase plateaus, the next generation will find some new group of people or element of social justice to irrationally resent. The cycle will repeat as it has so many times, and thus a similar vintage can be expected within the next fifty years.
By Anonymous on 2013 06 29, 11:04 pm CDT
How do I get this web page to quit sending me e-mail of everything posted here?
By Roger Yokubaitis on 2013 06 29, 11:59 pm CDT
I agree that the morals argument can't be the end-all of the constitutional analysis. That, however, does mean that such an analysis would determine that the Constitution governs or, that if it does govern, that the regulation is impermissible.
If you want a rational basis for DOMA I'll offer this. Congress recognized that there is debate as to the meaning and/or purpose of marriage. For instance, is marriage about the joining of families for political purposes, the life-long committment of two (or more) people; a form or female suppression; an institution to productively channel the sex drive; or an institution to promote child-bearing and child rearing? On and on it goes.
Congress also recognized that -- to use Mr. Clement's words -- Congress is a big player in the debate. Federal incentives can influence the debate.
DOMA's purpose was like that of a TRO or Preliminary injunction: it was to keep the status quo -- to allow the debate to happen without the issue of federal benefits getting mucking up the works.
It's not animus to say, "We don't know where this same-sex issue is going. Let's continue doing what we are doing because it's worked for our civilization for hundreds of years; and we don't know if same-sex genie will be a good genie or a bad genie when let out of the bottle. If we feds put our thumb on the scale then we have a Full Faith and Credit issue that we're not ready to handle." That…that may be misguided…but it's not animus.
A problem people have with the judiciary's role in the same-sex marriage issue is that -- well, it's easy to conclude that no rational basis exists for discrimination when we can't come to terms on the purpose and meaning of marriage.
If marriage is about life-long committment, then I can't see how same-sex discrimination rationally advances that goal. But if marriage is about sex, child-bearing, and role-modeling of male-female relationships, then I can see why the state would discriminate against certain couplings.
The judiciary has lifted the debate from the hands of the people. Rather than letting the people decide what marriage is about, the court has made that determination. Concluding that marriage is about committment, naturally the Court finds the tool of same-sex discrimination to be ill-suited, irrational, unjust, unconstitutional means to accomplish that end. But where did we as sovereign cede to black-robes the right to determine the meaning and purpose of marriage?
By LexLoci on 2013 06 30, 12:09 am CDT
Nor would I expect anybody to question that, since that is part of the natural order - - - as is the different and complementary nature of males and females - - - and should inform from a natural law perspective the question at hand.
2. @161 "Yankee has no more ability to divine god's will than anyone else."
Fortunately, I have never sought to "divine" God's will.
God will on this issue is not only part of Holy Tradition but also is evident in nature itself.
3. @165 I haven't seen such long-winded, flowery, affected prose since "Another Andy" posted on these boards.
By Yankee on 2013 06 30, 1:11 am CDT
We are all colleagues. Our discussions become heated, (and since we're not in court, we can go pretty far off topic in our responses to each other) and at times personal.
We are nonetheless members of the group who will represent how legal issues/matters are to be handled to those who end up reading about them on FoxNews and MSNBC.
I would just like to point out - especially to younger attorneys - that ,as heated as this gets, many of us get along quite well outside of these forums. That does not mean we compromise our positions (I maintain steadfastly that the ABA has been a very politically liberal organization for decades (one of my points at 142)); on the contrary we argue. Unfortunately, and too often in an unproductive manner (see what has happened to this series of comments).
However, many of us know, and the younger generation must understand, that our conduct has more influence than we often anticipate. Yes I criticize (and on a blog - often based on prior experience and not a set of cite-checked notes). I am also aware that I will likely be the object of similar types of criticism.
But as this country is seemingly becoming more divided (in a harmful way), I ask and (if you are like those I have had debates with as a law students and later as attorneys and counselors in a courtroom) I would expect you all - and myself to work to keep things civil - if not for the integrity of our profession, then as professionals who have taken a oath - sometimes several- regarding the upholding of the Constitutions of State and Country. And if not civil, then at least "professionally uncivil."
Yes, Yes, I know y'all probably don't like where I'm from (a point where we all seem to have been reduced to describing states by color rather than name). And probably a lot of much worse terms as well.
But when we leave these forums - in the interest of not provoking some insane Constitutional Convention, please let's try to disagree in a manner that reflect to lay persons that, yes there are fights and mud-slinging going on, there is a group of people educated in government who are interested in keeping this country together AND getting the right things done by the PEOPLE ( yes, even though there are agreements about that too).
It is, in a very real sense, more than "just an argument" where some of us are concerned. A lot of the stuff we do and say goes further than a computer screen.
Well, I've said my peace, God Bless you all (even the ones who don't believe - and you should know there'll be no changing my mind on that) have great night - let's actually try to find where it is that we can work together. But as for me - I'm taking the rest of tonight off.
By john on 2013 06 30, 3:35 am CDT
The big mistake the religious right made was in trying to paint gay marriage as a "threat to the institution of marriage." Rational people could see that it doesn't affect their marriages in the slightest, and that DOMA was ridiculous on its face (or at least in its title.) Calling it a "mistake" is, perhaps, not quite fair; the only alternative argument is a marginally more polite version of the Westboro Baptists' "God Hates Fags" lunacy. That argument, Scalia notwithstanding, is a non-starter in any U.S. court of law.
The battle to prevent miscegenation was lost, and the battle to prevent same-sex marriage is being lost in front of your eyes, but you really should just chill out -- progress on these fronts will not lead to the end of the American Empire As We Know It. It may, with luck, lead to less influence of religious intolerance on government policy. Fundies, btw, are now explaining the absence of the expected fire and brimstone and California earthquakes with "God is turning his back on America." (No doubt He'll be back, and paying attention, with the next round of climate-related - I mean, gay-rights related - monster hurricanes.)
Good luck with the "rational basis" bit when the gay equivalent of Loving v. Virginia comes before the Court.
By Ham Solo on 2013 06 30, 4:27 am CDT
By Ham Solo on 2013 06 30, 4:29 am CDT
for an increase in 'social conscience' "
A basic indifference to your point of view should not be mistaken for indifference to civilization and the future. (See: "The Renaissance". See also: "The Enlightenment".)
By Ham Solo on 2013 06 30, 4:36 am CDT
All I would ask of you is this: Don't just assume that the next person who disagrees with you is a "liberal" and just has reached the conclusion for that reason. Realize this: That person MIGHT in fact have a well-reasoned legal argument that a reasonable person would not find absurd. You could legitimately ask the same of me -- though perhaps it's moot now that the Court has answered.
You know what's worse? A lot of us who disagree with you *do* believe. We would never want to change your mind about that. We just... don't believe that your opinion on the matter accurately reflects our religion, its history, or the original language of the texts on which it is based.
And you know what? That's fine! It's ok! It's ok, as a member of any religion, to allow the government to treat legal rights separately. And at the same time, you can believe whatever you want to believe or have whatever opinion you believe your religion requires.
It's ok to say: "I disapprove morally, but I will leave it to God to sort out eventually. I recognize that you have an equally reasonable legal argument and, you know what, yours won out this time. Please live a happy life."
I would ask you to consider one other thing with regard to the ABA. The ABA will die if it does not recruit new members in each generation. It is an indisputable, objective fact that each new generation (or perhaps even "class" in law school terms) agrees more than the last that it is an obvious violation of the Constitution to discriminate against their homosexual loved ones, friends, and colleagues. Whether you agree with that legal conclusion or not, the fact that the opinions are shifting every year is not legitimately open to dispute. The ABA cannot survive if it does not keep step with them. Is the position regarding equality objectively right? Even if it isn't, would the ABA be making the right move by adapting? I offer that equally reasonable, moral, and professional people could disagree on both questions. But I say this only that you could understand why (if not *agree* with) the ABA may be shifting.
I would also ask that you try to at least consider whether this might not be part of a broader pattern. People reacted the same way every time social conservatives have inevitably lost on every issue. And then a generation later, we're still a strong country, our religions still survive, and we're ashamed of those last few generations.
I agree, we could all do better. We all must do better. In fact, neither of us have been on our best behavior. But I see hope in you, and I see it in me. If you'll hope for that for me, I'll hope for it for you.
By Anonymous on 2013 06 30, 4:46 am CDT
By CASpark on 2013 06 30, 8:32 am CDT
By Ham Solo on 2013 06 30, 10:03 am CDT
First, my comments are not a direct response to any recent Court decision - you'll notice that I did not bring any of the court's recent activity up. Second, I am using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in a more neutral manner than it appears they are being read here (i.e.. the way they were generally used 15, 20 or more years ago.
The way these terms are now used are a large part of the problem, if not the source of a complete misunderstanding. Part of this is because the ABA is a "liberal" organization, it always has been - in much the same way that the AARP is also a liberal org.
The terms used to be tolerated and were useful in making a broad description.
Example: Ginsberg is a liberal judge (alway has been) (don't believe it, read few things she wrong in her pre-judicial career (I'm thinking about her recommendation about the what the "age of consent" should be - 12 14 yrs? I think?. Anyway Clinton nominated her, the ABA (which used to provide an evaluation of the fitness of a person to perform judicial duties) gave here a very high, if not the highest possible rating. Now look at to two key federal nominees by Reagan - Posner and Easterbrook - both with experience on par with Ginsberg, but very conservative - both "not qualified" according to the ABA . They were both approved (7th Cir.) and are now among the most frequently cited judges in the country.
The ABA has earned itself its own "brother organization" - a part of the Federalist Society that does nothing but sit back a watch them.
It really is not going out on a limb or even making a stretch to say the ABA is liberal.
IMO that affects credibility on Const. Law issues.
BUT, as I also said above, the ABA is a great resource for just bout and other are of law - Anyone interested in Bus/Commercial law; real estate and probate, tax law, antitrust, etc., etc..... really needs to become acquainted to the journals that the ABA produces in those legal fields.
Regarding Scalia, I believe I was pretty direct. Most dislike for the guy comes from a "he's good but he's not on my team" mentality. Nearly everyone that I have spoken with respects him. A small number really dislike him, though I've noticed that many disagreements that people have about what he says occur either 1) after he forcefully and openly points out a very serious flaw in their reasoning, or goes out and loudly restates a convoluted pages long academic argument in a brief paragraph or two. An example of #1 is his opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (If the majority had submitted that one in law school they would've flunked based only on a look at what they state to be stare decisis. An example of #2 is his opinion in the Virginia Bankshares case.
By john on 2013 06 30, 3:24 pm CDT
By Will on 2013 06 30, 4:54 pm CDT
By Michael A Sullivan on 2013 06 30, 7:52 pm CDT
After having won at the ballot box they were betrayed by their own leaders (Schwarzenegger was Blackmailed over his 'secret' Extra Son, while in office)_- and got their teeth kicked in in court, and when they turned the other cheek - got that kicked down the stairs by Tony kennedy and klan.
In short - it pays to remember that the Courts are Misandrist (Hateful to Men & boys, Masculinity and Normal Heterosexuality) because Law School is even more Misandrist than the rest of Academentia - and serves as a Filter of politically un-good views sullying their dys-topia:
"How the pro-family movement botched these cases.
"We are reluctant to sound unkind to the pro-family legal people who worked hard on these cases. But this is such a horrible outcome that something must be said. (Mass Resistance)
Both of these cases suffered from an unaggressive and short-sighted approach that bordered on incompetence. The pro-family side did not present a credible case in either of these cases.
They were deathly afraid that telling the truth about homosexuality might offend someone.
By not effectively countering the absurd arguments and assumptions by the homosexual movement, they made it easy for the judges to rule as they did...
A larger problem in the conservative movement
The cowardly nature of the pro-family movement has wrought terrible consequences and continues to be a huge problem. The DOMA case represents the tip of the iceberg.
This unwillingness to address the underlying issue of homosexuality itself -- the behavior, its associated health risks, the profound moral issues, and the "born gay" myth -- gives that movement free rein to continue its march through our institutions.
As comfortable an argument as it is, we must stop deluding ourselves that this war is about the definition of marriage or children needing both a mother and a father.
It's a bare-knuckles battle about truth versus lies that we cannot afford to continue to lose.
By Mike McD on 2013 06 30, 9:18 pm CDT
No matter what anyone may claim to the contrary, the essence of marriage cannot be redefined. Its meaning is intrinsic, grounded in human nature (i.e., both biology and the ontological different but complementary nature of a man and a women) and discoverable by human reason with or without the aid of faith. Homosexuals may be successful in changing laws so to have the legal status of married, but from an ontological sense they will always come up short - - and in their hearts they will recognize this.
Although homosexuals will claim to be vexed by their homophobic fellow citizens, their real beef is with God and the nature He has created.
By Yankee on 2013 06 30, 9:21 pm CDT
I agree "the essence of marriage cannot be redefined." (at least not in the way that many other legal terms can and have been redefined.
Based on my understanding of the from Constitution to employee benefits (with spousal and dependant benefits). I have no problem whatsoever with same sex couples being allowed those same legal benefits/ status as that created legally by what most people would refer to as a marriage. Actually, if the those seeking same-sex marriage are sincere about this in the manner that they claim to be, the the call should be to allow a civil union between two people - without regard to race, sex, creed, or whatever -INCLUDING the allowance of two same-sex HETEROSEXUAL persons who wish to enjoy these benefits. I believe that to be the most equitable and honest law to pass - if you are wanting same-sex marriage. To be careful about the first amendment - just don't call in marriage (that itself would end most of the legitimate legal objections that I've encountered. Of course, having practicing in family law, I must say that this is an ideal opportunity to streamline family law (especially when it comes to non-married persons who have been living together and are now splitting up and suing each other seeking a remedy that has traditionally been reserved for divorce actions. Anyone who has dealt with even one of these cases, is probably aware that many courts are just making this up as they go along and that the legislature may do well to address it.
The "same-sex" marriage crowd loses its credibility to the extent they oppose this type of move - demanding instead that everyone be required to call them married. If marriage is as religious a term as I know that it has been traditionally, and will likely become more so the case as many turn to the first amend. as an argument opposing same-sex marriage, then it only seems appropriate. Let heterosexual, couples get a civil union from the state and a "marriage" from whatever church or religious organization they belong to.
The only type of union that it really makes sense to prohibit is one between close relatives who intend to reproduce - that's a public health issue well within the state's interest to prevent.
The states need to leave marriage to those who want a union in religion.
Based on how states treat these unions they really are economic joint ventures. Looking to my own state - that much is obvious from all the rules that make things like earning power relevant. I also point to the rule that allows 1st cousins to get married so long as they're both over 65 yrs old.
Change the name, and let people have the economic benefit.
Those insisting so fervently that the term "marriage" be used fail to understand the actual purpose of the law currently in effect. They also scream "we are not sincere in our motive" - kinda like the gay groups that sued the Boys Scouts about 20 yrs ago - a suit that wasbrought such a manner that it was like saying "we're gay and we demand to be alone with your 10 year old son the woods at night."
By john on 2013 06 30, 11:29 pm CDT
By NoleLaw on 2013 07 01, 12:06 am CDT
By Doodle Dandy on 2013 07 01, 8:25 am CDT
By Doodle Dandy on 2013 07 01, 8:27 am CDT
Come up with a theory that meats the rational basis test on consensual adult prostitution.
It exists legally in other places and has been found to cut down on the abuses of the workers and the diseases. The only argument against it is a moral one.
By AzAttorney on 2013 07 01, 6:03 pm CDT
By NoleLaw on 2013 07 01, 6:04 pm CDT
Public health seems better served by regulation and documentation.
Although I suppose a reasonable legislature could decide otherwise. I'd need to know what the actual data are on it.
By Anonymous on 2013 07 01, 6:15 pm CDT
I thought it had already been established that sexuality was genetic. But what if there is a genetic component to violence? What then?
Simply answering "its genetic" doesn't seem to resolve anything.
By AzAttorney on 2013 07 01, 6:21 pm CDT
By NoleLaw on 2013 07 01, 6:22 pm CDT
By Yankee on 2013 07 01, 6:38 pm CDT
(And I don't know what the field says on that question.)
There may also be other rational bases based on sociological research of prostitution. Or maybe most of the conclusions we'd expect to be there are actually NOT true and come from our naked moral condemnation searching for a legitimate anchor. I'm not sure.
It's a good question though, and I think this is a great line of inquiry. Because even if we disagree, it moves us towards a society that tries to anchor its laws not in subjective social, moral, or political opinion, but in facts and recognized science. And yeah, science isn't perfect. It changes. I mean, they can't seem to decide whether eggs are healthy for us or not. But as a species, it's the best we can do -- and it sets a precedent that says "No, despite our flaws, we do the best we can to govern ourselves rationally rather than ignorance and baseless speculation."
By Anonymous on 2013 07 01, 6:56 pm CDT
By NoleLaw on 2013 07 01, 7:07 pm CDT
But I do think that even that version of the test is subject to the lesson of Romer and Lawrence -- that you need something other than naked morality.
By Anonymous on 2013 07 01, 7:31 pm CDT
By Augustin Ayala on 2013 07 01, 7:42 pm CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 07 01, 7:52 pm CDT
@194 - None of this is about sodomy. If it was, I suspect that there would be even more support for the outcome here, since I'd bet many more Americans support/engage in sodomy of one form or another than support same sex marriage.
By NoleLaw on 2013 07 01, 8:01 pm CDT
So you would be fine then if states across the nation banned gay sex for "public health reasons?" I doubt that! Furthermore, incidents of AIDS have been more prevalent in the gay community, so there would actually be data to support that claim whereas with prostitution, as I have said, communities that have legalized it and regulated it have less "public health" issues.
I agree, 194 does sound tolerant. "To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit." "To put up with; endure."
Although it could be that you were being sarcastic...
I don't think I would go as far as him personally. Saying, "I want nothing to do with them" is harsh. I have friends that are gay and have never done anything to make them feel "less than." But I don't "get it" and therefore it seems very strange to me. But I find other sexual behavior strange as well. Are you all aware of a thing called "furries?" Weird, but who am I to judge? As I have said previously though, I look at it practically and I do not think I should tell another adult what to do if it isn't hurting anyone.
By AzAttorney on 2013 07 01, 8:16 pm CDT
By NoleLaw on 2013 07 01, 8:26 pm CDT
You are preaching to the choir on the "ick factor." I thought I made that clear.
I still don't see a distinction with regards to prostitution. All you need is one guy that says the way he expresses love is to pay for the service. He would argue his form of love should be given equal respect as other people's form of love and he shouldn't be judged by what happens in closed doors in his bedroom.
By AzAttorney on 2013 07 01, 8:53 pm CDT
Frankly, I've never understood why it makes any sense that it's not legal to pay someone to have sex with you, but it's perfectly fine to pay two people to have sex with *each other* for the purposes of filming it and selling it.
But maybe there are statistics linking legalized prostitution to actual, objective social ills? I don't know, I'm not going to waste my time looking for it, but I can allow for the fact that it's possible that the facts support a rational basis for prohibiting it.
I'm just alright with confronting the possibility that our objection to prostitution may, in fact, be irrational.
By Anonymous on 2013 07 01, 8:58 pm CDT
By Mike McD on 2013 07 01, 10:24 pm CDT
@200 - A ban on prostitution easily passes rational basis, regardless of whether it is good policy or not.
By NoleLaw on 2013 07 02, 12:39 am CDT
The whole "Identical twins are not both gay" tale, cited and re-cited and re-re-cited, has spread like a cancer through right-wing and religous web sites and blogs. Seeing it everywhere, you might think it's got to be true, but it all tracks back to a single source: self-described "Christian writer" Dr. Neil E. Whitehead, who cherry-picks his sources and has done no actual research in the field. Actual science, as opposed to "Christian writing", does in fact show a significant genetic component: Bailey JM, Pillard RC, Neale MC, Agyei Y (1993). "). Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women." Archives of General Psychiatry 50 (3): 217–223. A more accessible summary is here:
It's all quite reminiscent of creationist and "intelligent design" pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo, which likewise starts with pre-ordained results and mangles scientific observations in a hopeless, procrustean attempt to make them fit. (The parallels to the case at hand, of course, are not a coincidence.)
PS: your posts are insulting, which is why they get removed. Five-dollar words don't buy you a pass on gratuitous name-calling, and they certainly don't impress this audience.
By Ham Solo on 2013 07 02, 12:41 am CDT
By Mike McD on 2013 07 02, 1:51 am CDT
By Mike McD on 2013 07 02, 1:57 am CDT
By NoleLaw on 2013 07 02, 2:33 am CDT
By Anonymous on 2013 07 02, 2:45 am CDT
By Ham Solo on 2013 07 02, 6:06 am CDT
Yes, Justice Kennedy said that marriage has historically been left to the states -- but two or three times that he said that, he immediately followed that statement by the words "subject to constitutional requirements". That's what Loving v. Virginia was all about, so Justice Kennedy (who cited Loving) was not saying that he states will always have the last word about who can and cannot get married. We recognized there are federal constitutional limitations.
Also, Justice Kennedy wrote that he didn't have to decide the DOMA case on the basis of federalism (ie, whether the federal government unconstitutionally interfered with the states who recognize same-sex marriage) because he declared that the basis for DOMA was an unconstitutional intent, unsupported by legitimately stated goals, to single out gay people for second-class treatment by denying them -- based on their sexual orientation -- something that the federal government otherwise recognizes, i.e., a state-sanctioned marriage. This was his Due Process finding.
For those of you who disagree with Justice Kennedy's rationale, please at least read what he said and correctly characterize it. If you read it carefully, and look at every word, it is well-reasoned and well-written, though you can disagree with his reasoning.
By Jake on 2013 07 07, 12:47 am CDT
I am a heterosexual person with a spouse and grown children, and my belief is that my marriage is just fine, thank you, without needing my government to discriminate against any other marriages. Sure, they may not be like me, but who cares. Marriages contribute to societal stability, and theirs don't hurt mine one iota.
Not only does my marriage not need any kind of "protection" from gay marriages (as if the gay relationships would just go away as soon as you destabilize them a bit?!), but God - in whom I also believe - doesn't need our protection from the forms of sincere human love and devotion. In fact, God doesn't need our protection even from sinners; God's has ways of dealing with them.
Beliefs are fine. It's the hubris that accompanies them that is getting my goat here. Not to mention, driving away the more reasoned commentators.
By Avon on 2013 07 09, 2:20 am CDT
A thought on the bigamy issue posed earlier in these comments - to me, there has always seemed to be a simple answer as to why bigamy is different from gay marriage. If gay marriage is allowed, everyone is being treated the same - you have the right to marry one person at a time. Since everyone is being treated the same, there is no equal protection issue.
If we, as a country, decide later down the road that bigamy should be legal, then that's a different conversation. Bigamy, however, historically comes with a LOT more problems for society than gay marriage. While I'm sure there are loving and secure bigamist homes in our nation, I'm also quite aware of the abuse that can be perpetuated in such cultures.
By RecentGrad on 2013 07 09, 1:52 pm CDT
1. ". . . God . . . doesn't need our protection . . ."
That's absolutely right. But, nobody is questioning that.
Rather, preserving the institution of marriage as God intended it - - one man and one women for life - - protects our culture, and is the very best vehicle for transmitting civilization to the next generation. Put another way, experience teaches that Humankind is always better off when it is following God's will than when it isn't.
2. ". . . forms of sincere human love and devotion . . ."
There are many "forms" of "human love and devotion" that may or may not be "sincere," that do not serve the function, or merit the status of marriage. Marriage is so much more than a committed relationship among adults.
Instead, marriage is the institution created by God to bring a man and a women together in a partnership for life directed toward their mutual suppoert and the generation and education of children. Marriage is grounded in human nature (i.e., men and women, although different in nature, complement each other physically, spiritually and emotionally) and biology (e,g., two guys can't make a baby) and discoverable by human reason without the aid of faith.
3. Just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that thet are not a "reasoned commentator."
By Yankee on 2013 07 09, 2:36 pm CDT
Your reply to my points is relevant and logical.
I just don't accept that God's will is what you say it is.
I've read the key verse in Leviticus, and the five other spots in the Bible that arguably say the same thing. But I've also taken to heart Jesus' message of non-judgment of heathens, love for the sinner, and rendering unto God what is God's. In worship and in community life, I have come to know that gay and straight marriages are equally holy.
I know what it is to be divided as to God's will. In my city, millions disagree emphatically as to whether it's evil to cut the hair on the sides of the head (Leviticus requires sidecurls), or to cook meat in butter (ditto), or to eat beef (Hindu law), or to have figurative as opposed to abstract art (Commandment against idolatry). The African branches of my own church are mostly deeply aggrieved by the fact that so many of our American branches solemnize same-sex marriages, and it's painful to be on either side of that divide. I just have faith that humanity - or at least, all people of faith - will find healing and be restored in unity.
By Avon on 2013 07 09, 5:42 pm CDT
You make reference to "non-judgment of heathens" and "love for sinners." Those words/sentiments were jarringly out of place in his particular discussion since it is clear from your comment immediately above that you don't find homosexual sodomy to be sinful whatsoever. Likewise, those words/sentiments were not remotely responsive to my last comment since my opposition to same sex marriage is not predicated upon the sinfulness of homosexual sodomy, but rather on the nature of marriage itself.
By Yankee on 2013 07 09, 6:24 pm CDT
I define "sin" as violating or disregarding God's will.
I don't think there is any such thing as "the nature of marriage itself." Certainly, married Americans of the same sex these days " complement each other physically, spiritually and emotionally" in the same ways as married opposite-sex couples do, and they have all the kids they want. Those indicia are much more different between American heterosexual married couples and those in many other places I could name than they are between American heterosexual and homosexual married couples. The nature of marriage has not remained constant since civilization arose, just as it is far from constant across geographic distances. It's way too much of a moving target to serve as a standard by which to judge suitable public policy today - or the ideal legal policy for our future.
By Avon on 2013 07 09, 8:47 pm CDT
1. "I don't remember commenting on sodomy . . ."
If I misunderstood your earlier comments, I am sorry, but strongly implicit in your comments was that these same sex couplings of which you approved had a sexual dimension. If you were talking about a platonic, brother-and-sister relationship that is obviously something else.
However, if I was correct in my understanding, "sodomy" is indeed the correct term.
2. ". . . they [can] have all the kids they want . . ."
Actually, no.
It is a biological fact that no child throughout human history has been conceived from a homosexual coupling. Not one.
Put another way, every single child being raised by homosexual couples in the United States has a biological mother and a biological father. The fact that the court systems in our country have declared pairings of homosexuals to be the legal parents of particular children, does not change this inconvenient biological fact.
3. "The nature of marriage has not remained constant since civilization arose."
This is only true if marriage is not a divine institution, created by God Himself, as described beginning in the earliest passages is Scripture.
By the way, your lack of a belief in the divine and settled nature of marriage is why (referring to your comment @213) that you will never again be in communion with "[t]he African branches of [your] own church . . ."
By Yankee on 2013 07 10, 9:45 am CDT
I also didn't say gay couples can conceive all the kids they want. If you define "have" as "conceive" you're not addressing my point. The adoptive children I know best are parented by one male-female marriage and one male-male partnership. They certainly don't NOT "have kids"!
(I do predict, though, that within several years same-sex couples will be offered the technology to conceive their own genetic children. When I married, I never would have seriously believed that by now in-vitro fertilization would be so readily available. If "infertile" people can now become pregnant, with their own zygotes if they've got 'em, then it's a futile game to try to predict who can conceive and/or bear children in the future.)
God existed long before Scripture. Communion within a church can transcend different members' current convictions as to which words of Jewish Scripture are God's will and which are not necessarily. All things are possible when we're talking about communion in mankind. I have hope and faith.
By Avon on 2013 07 11, 12:46 am CDT
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.Commenting is not available in this channel entry.


text:
IACRL 2012 Conference
March 16, 2012
DoubleTree Hotel, Oak Brook
Join IACRL, a forum of the Illinois Library Association and a chapter of ACRL, for a statewide conference for academic librarians in Illinois. The conference will offer inspiration as well as practical tips for academic librarians in all types of institutions.
Keynote: Steven Bell
ACRL 2011-2012 Vice-President
Associate University Librarian for Research and Instructional Services, Temple University
Conference Schedule
Thursday, March 15:
3:00 p.m. Registration Opens
Early Registration will be available for those attending the CARLI Discovery Forum.
5:30 – 7:00 p.m. Cocktail Reception
Early Registration will move to the reception room at 5:00 p.m.
7:30 p.m. Dinner with Colleagues
Sign up information will be available prior to the conference.
Friday, March 16:
8:00 – 9:00 a.m. Breakfast
9:15 – 10:15 a.m. Breakout Sessions
10:30 - 11:30 a.m. Breakout Sessions
11:45 a.m. – 1:30 p.m. Luncheon Keynote and Poster Sessions
1:45 – 2:45 p.m. Breakout Sessions
3:15 – 4:15 p.m. Breakout Sessions:
4:15 - 4:45 Wrap-up
Conference Hotel
A block of rooms has been reserved at the DoubleTree Oak Brook. Please contact the hotel directly to make your reservation:
DoubleTree Hotel Chicago-Oak Brook
1909 Spring Road
Oak Brook, IL 60523
Phone: (630) 472-6000
Reservations: (800) 222-TREE or http://doubletree1.hilton.com
Single/Double/Triple/Quad Rate: $117
Reservations must be made by February 23, 2012
Conference Registration Information
Early Bird Registration: $125
The Early Bird Deadline is February 17, 2012
Advance Registration: $150
Registration between February 18 and March 9
Late Registration: $175
Registration after March 9
Student Registration: $60
Sponsor-a-Student: $15
Your contribution will help underwrite the cost of attendance for a library school student.
Payment is required for online registration.
Premininary Program now available!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Thunderstorm in distance, evening birdsong with light traffic.
0 comments
Please log in to comment
920 x 245
481 x 86
375 x 30
We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By browsing our site you agree to our use of cookies.
For more information check out our cookies policy.


text:
Criss Library will be undergoing a limited remodel beginning July 11 and lasting through approximately mid-September. Remodeling will occur on the first and second floors.
When all the noise is finished and the dust settled, Criss Library will have three new spaces for patrons to enjoy. Archives & Special Collections will have an updated space on first floor, and the second floor will be home to a new classroom and the expanded Creative Production Lab.
The library will be open during construction, so please pardon this temporary inconvenience.


text:
Tokyo Jungle, a quirky animal-based action-survival PS3 exclusive, has won Week 23 of the Japanese software charts.
The title moved 110,309 units, besting last week's winner, Dragon Quest Monsters: Terry no Wonderland 3D, which saw an 84% dropoff from its lofty Week 22 heights.
Tokyo Jungle is interesting. It features a pair of unlikely character leads, a Pomeranian and a Thoroughbred, and set in an urban jungle.
The game's Story mode is mission-based. 'Why have humans left the planet?' is the overarching question that drives the narrative.
In the other mode, Survival mode, players pick an animal type and survive as long as they can… either in packs or solo (depending on your animal).
Crocodiles, tigers, lions, hippos, giraffes, chimpanzees, chickens, cheetahs, gazelles, foxes and beagles have all been confirmed as animals in the game, which will be coming to North America and Europe.
On a superficial level, I'm reminded of the very fun Impossible Creatures, though similarities to the Relic-built RTS seem to end there.
Sony has called the game, "wacky".
Kidou Senshi Gundam Seed: Battle Destiny for the Vita took home the bronze.
The only notable movement on the hardware side of things was that of the Vita, which nearly doubled its output from last week, jumping to 13,383 units. The aforementioned Kidou Senshi Gundam Seed: Battle Destiny turned out to be something of a system seller.
The 3DS settled back into its comfortable range at nearly 65,000 sales following the Dragon Quest bundle boost last week, which saw the handheld eclipse the 100,000 mark.
NeoGAF: Media Create Sales, Week 23


text:
Additional Images
- Overview
- Specs
- Reviews
Fi'zi:k Antares VS X Road Bike Saddle K:ium Rails Black/RedEverything you love about the Antares and everything you love about the Versus can now be found in one extremely comfortable, high-performance saddle: the Fi'zi:k Antares Versus X K:ium Saddle. Chameleon design has increased width and curvature for riders with medium flexibility. Ergonomic, 20mm deep central groove with low density padding maximizes stress reduction on sensitive areas. Wing Flex shell flexes where the inner thigh contacts the saddle to enhance pedaling efficiency. Thermo-welded cover feels smooth and won't chafe while the Thigh Glides guide you into a pedaling form that's easier and more comfortable. K:ium rails are lighter, stronger and provide better vibration damping than titanium.
- For the Chameleon: Medium Spine
- Nylon Carbon reinforced base is light, stiff and uses a 270° carbon structure between the shell and cover for additional protection
- Wing Flex shell flexes downward in the critical area where inner thighs contact the saddle, allowing for a more efficient, full-range movement while pedaling
- Thigh Glides allow the thighs to slide easily over the saddle
- Thermo-welded Microtex cover provides flat transition between different panels
- Low density padding with relief channel reduces pressure on sensitive areas
- K:ium alloy tubular rails are 8% lighter than solid titanium and feature high strength-top-weight ratio and high corrosion resistance
- Integrated Clip System at the base allows quick attachment and removal of I.C.C. accessories, such as the Fi'zi:k Saddle Pa:k and Blin:k light (not included)
Fi'zi:k Antares VS X Road Bike Saddle K:ium Rails Black/Red
- cover:
- Thermo-Welded Microtex
- dimensions:
- L=10.83" W=5.59" (L=275mm W=142mm)
- rails:
- K:ium
- weight:
- 209g
- rating:
- 4


text:
GoDaddy Promo Codes and Coupons
Save today with a GoDaddy coupon for your domain and website needs and feel safe with GoDaddy SSL certificates. High quality and low prices get even lower with a GoDaddy coupons, the latest GoDaddy promo code and FatWallet cash back. If you're looking for a GoDaddy renewal code, search the discounts below.
= Cash Back is Available
Restrictions for Use


text:
UL basketball signee Devonta Walker dribbles down the court for Western Texas Junior College.
- Filed Under
Texas Western coach Larren Silver is developing quite a connection with the Acadiana area and he's starting to like it.
A week ago, Silver signed a pair of Comeaux High standout basketball players in Xavier Ledet and Traylin Prejean.
On Wednesday, Silver's star forward Devonta Walker signed up to join coach Bob Marlin's reigning Sun Belt champion UL Ragin' Cajuns basketball program. ...


text:
VCA students make a difference
Valley Christian Academy students help the Salvation Army during Community Day, Friday. Noah Vernau Photo
Valley Christian Academy students spent their Fridays displaying a heart of service during the school's 10th annual Community Day.
Cory Cogdill, superintendent and high school principal, said that above all, Community Day is an opportunity to provide help where it's needed.
"We've been focusing on ministry at this campus, and on our other campus as well," Cogdill said. "This is an opportunity to practice what we've been preaching — what we've been talking about at this school, going outside of these doors and making a difference in this community."
VCA kindergartners spent the day Login to read more
Related Posts
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
« Wool Lead features fluffy friends Hugh Hambric teaches competitive marksmanship, tells students to have fun »


text:
- Musician's Friend Best Selection, Price & Service. Guaranteed.
Call our Gear Heads
at: 800-449-9128
Call our Gear Heads
at: 800-449-9128
Results 1 - 1 of 1 matches
Get more wireless for your money with this complete setup.
Our product catalog varies by country due to manufacturer restrictions. If you change the Ship-To country, some or all of the items in your cart may not ship to the new destination.


text:
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Neiman Marcus Inc. is in the final stages of its sale to a team of private-equity firm Ares Management LLC and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, according to The Wall Street Journal, which cited unnamed sources. The deal, which was ongoing and still could fall through, may total more than $6 billion, The Journal reported Sunday. Private-equity firms TPG and Warburg Pincus LLC, are the current owners of the department-store chain, after buying the company for $4.9 billion in 2005. Neiman Marcus reported sales of $4.5 billion in the 12 months ending April, down from $4.6 billion in 2008, one reason potential buyers are concerned about the company's growth potential, according to The Journal report.
Market Pulse
Neiman Marcus purchase deal in final stages: WSJ
More News from MarketWatch
Top Stories


text:
MINNEAPOLIS -- Minneapolis Police Chief Janeé Harteau married her longtime partner.
The openly gay official tweeted a picture late Saturday of her and her partner writing, "Yes it's true! I married my soul mate of 25 yrs last night."
Harteau thanked everyone for their support.
Her marriage comes just over two weeks after gay marriage was made legal in Minnesota.
Read or Share this story: http://kare11.tv/1bcrN6z