The ‘Emerging Awareness’ Continues

Posted on | January 14, 2014 | 105 Comments

Same-sex marriage was illegal in all 50 states as recently as 2003. That was the year in which Justice Anthony Kennedy invoked the “emerging awareness” doctrine in the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas ruling:

In all events we think that our laws and traditions in the past half century are of most relevance here. These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.

From this decision — premised on the oddly arbitrary claim that “laws and traditions” antedating 1953 are invalid or irrelevant “in matters pertaining to sex” — it was a swift race to the point at which a federal judge appointed in 1994 by President Clinton could declare that a state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional:

A federal judge in Oklahoma ruled Tuesday that the state’s constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage violated the federal Constitution, the latest in a string of legal victories for gay rights and one that occurred in the heart of the Bible Belt.
The state’s ban on marriage by gay and lesbian couples is “an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit,” wrote Judge Terence C. Kern of United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, in Tulsa, deciding a case that had languished for nine years. The amendment, he said, is based on “moral disapproval” and does not advance the state’s asserted interests in promoting heterosexual marriage or the welfare of children. . . .
The Oklahoma amendment under question, stating that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman,” was adopted by referendum in 2004 with 75 percent of the vote.

So, the votes of 75 percent of Oklahoma’s citizens are invalid, because the “emerging awareness” doctrine declares that 5,000 years of human tradition constitute “an arbitrary, irrational exclusion.”

Category: Gays, Marriage

Comments

105 Responses to “The ‘Emerging Awareness’ Continues”

LillyHammer
January 14th, 2014 @ 10:03 pm

Who cares if 75% of Oklahoma’s citizens voted for a ban on gay marriage? Civil rights issues should never be decided at the ballot box. Just imagine if we had let Southern voters decide on segregation back in the 1960’s? These issues always need to be decided by reason based on the law and not the prejudice and passions of your average person. Second of all, Kennedy is correct. The times change and along with them morality. That should be obvious to anyone that’s even briefly glanced at world history and we should be no exception to that rule.
RhymesWithRight
January 14th, 2014 @ 10:10 pm

So, I assume that any law based upon moral disapproval is now invalid? I guess that means that the Dread Pedophile Kimberlin can safely prowl the parks and day cares of the nation for dates.
robertstacymccain
January 14th, 2014 @ 10:14 pm

Democracy is hate!
War is freedom!
Oceania has always been at war with East Asia!
Colorado Alex
January 14th, 2014 @ 10:32 pm

We’ll see polygamy in five years, probably earlier than that in a few states.

So now society cannot ban things based on moral disapproval. That’s absurd. Moral disapproval isn’t some empty concept; we find something immoral because it has negative effects on society.
LillyHammer01
January 14th, 2014 @ 10:38 pm

Yeah, proves you know a lot about the Constitution. it is that document that was created to stop the kind of mob rule or “tyranny of the majority” that you seem to endorse.

Try reading the Federalist papers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
Lillyhammer002
January 14th, 2014 @ 10:42 pm

If i recall plenty of people created slippery slope arguments for the abolition of slavery, civil rights, a woman’s right to vote, etc.
RS
January 14th, 2014 @ 10:43 pm

Aside from the fact that the Founders intended any “emerging awareness” to emerge in the legislature and not the courts, Kennedy’s pronouncement was as fatuous as the always popular “you can’t legislate morality.” Oh really? There’s an entire chapter of my state’s criminal code parsing the injunction, “Thou shalt not steal.” Query, if society cannot order it’s personal relationships in order to protect families, and by extension future generations and society’s own future, what good is it?
concern00
January 14th, 2014 @ 10:43 pm

The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves. Isaiah 3:9

Yep, that seems to fit nicely.
LillyHammer002
January 14th, 2014 @ 10:45 pm

Um stealing hurts another person, same with murder, rape, assault, etc. Smoking dope and consensual sodomy do not hurt other people. Im sure you’ll want to argue that in the abstract they do but let’s talk about concrete examples only.
RS
January 14th, 2014 @ 10:46 pm

Your comment assumes a fact not proven, towit that people who practice gay sex are some sort of protected class, akin to racial groups. Further, your “times change” remark is clearly idiotic given that 75% of the people of Oklahoma weren’t buying it.
RS
January 14th, 2014 @ 10:50 pm

You’ve changed the argument. No one is talking about behavior. The argument is societal sanction of said behavior. Have gay sex all you want. Hell, have sex with an avocado, which, in that certain light, reminds you of Farrah Fawcett. Knock yourself out. I don’t care. That does not mean, however, that society must embrace that relationship and sanction it.
LillyHammer02
January 14th, 2014 @ 10:50 pm

Obviously you’re not acquainted with the concept of federalism which is their to protect minority groups from mob rule. And i dont care what 75% of Oklahoma’s citizens decide on a civil rights issue. Their prejudice is irrelevant here and is not to decide civil rights or US law.
Lillyhammer02
January 14th, 2014 @ 10:53 pm

Again, at one point society overwhelmingly didnt want to sanction interracial marriage, civil rights for blacks, or giving women the right to vote. It is not for the majority to decide.
RS
January 14th, 2014 @ 10:54 pm

I quite well acquainted with Federalism. You still haven’t dealt with the core issue: Societal sanction of behavior. Oklahoma did not make gay sex illegal. Oklahoma defined marriage, which has always been within the rights of the various states to regulate.
RS
January 14th, 2014 @ 11:01 pm

And again, the question is about societal approval and sanction of behavior. Do what you want. The minority does not get to demand societal approval. That’s what the issue of gay marriage is about. It is not about doing anything or being anything.
G21
January 14th, 2014 @ 11:20 pm

Well, there is some good news globally.

In addition to Russia banning all forms of sodomite propaganda and India re-criminalizing homosexual sodomy, Nigeria has begun to put forth the force of the state against those who march under the filthy rag of Sodom.

Thanks to the ideology of liberalism, Nigeria, Russia, and India each enjoy more moral authority than these states.

Interestingly – as far as I can tell – the only ideology/culture under which homosexual sodomy has ever been embraced is the ideology of liberalism here in these states.
Cube
January 14th, 2014 @ 11:30 pm

Times change, truth doesn’t. – Charles Colson
Mike G.
January 14th, 2014 @ 11:38 pm

Smoking dope and consensual sodomy do not hurt other people.
Some concrete examples for you:

Tell that to the guy who doesn’t know his partner has Aids or some other STD and then has unprotected sex with someone else and on and on…see where I’m going with this? So in reality, it is not a “victimless crime.”

And as far as the person who smokes dope or does other drugs, he may not necessarily hurt himself, unless he/she OD’s, but they can hurt their family members because of addiction, job loss or being incarcerated, lawyer fees, ect.

Your argument has so many holes, it should be called Swiss Cheese.
Zohydro
January 14th, 2014 @ 11:49 pm

Let’s not forget the recent unsuccessful attempt in Australia to slip homosexual “marriage ” in through the backdoor, as it were…
G21
January 15th, 2014 @ 12:16 am

From what I’ve read, sodomites are very well known for intentionally infecting others with their filthy diseases.

If that’s not pure evil, I don’t know what is.
concern00
January 15th, 2014 @ 12:40 am

The great thing about this topic is the wealth of double entendres available for our use.
LillyHammer001
January 15th, 2014 @ 12:48 am

You’re going nowhere with it because a straight person with HIV could do the same. And maybe you’re not familiar with what “in the abstract” means but that’s what your arguments are and comparing them to things that directly effect someone like rape or murder is idiotic. Your argument doesn’t even rise to the level of swiss cheese. Try again.
LillyHammer001
January 15th, 2014 @ 12:49 am

Really? is that what they’re known for? Ive heard of straight people doing the same thing too. Try again, loser.
Lillyhammer
January 15th, 2014 @ 12:51 am

Christ, you’re a disgusting being and a perfect example of why the majority of the human race is pure trash and not worth saving. Do the noble thing: cut off your nuts, stop breeding, and then hang yourself, you ignorant red neck piece of trash.
LillyHammer
January 15th, 2014 @ 12:52 am

You mean your biblical “truth” which is pure rubbish and not even worth considering.
LillyHammer001
January 15th, 2014 @ 12:57 am

And we can make dumb arguments like yours about driving cars, listening to loud music, drinking alcohol, watching porn films, etc. In fact we can find negative effects and tie them to negative effects on others for everything under the sun, but they are not murder, rape, or assault where the sole intention is harm, you fucking half wit. This is not even a liberal or conservative thing, because Im not a liberal, I just absolutely loathe ignorant, puritanical shitbirds like you and dont give a good fuck about what you want, your beliefs, your values, or you. As far as Im concerned you’re dog feces and should simply disappear.
Mike G.
January 15th, 2014 @ 1:03 am

.You’re going nowhere with it because a straight person with HIV could do the same.

Of course they can and it is just as bad as what I mentioned before. You’re the one who wanted concrete examples, not the abstract sweetums.
Mike G.
January 15th, 2014 @ 1:04 am

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? When you’ve lost the argument, resort to ad hominem…how progressive of you.
Bradoplata
January 15th, 2014 @ 1:07 am

Much like your post.
Mike G.
January 15th, 2014 @ 1:07 am

Holy crap “lady”, you would make a salty sailor blush.
LAM
January 15th, 2014 @ 1:11 am

Intentionally infecting someone with an STD is a malicious act and not what you would classify as “consensual sodomy”. And is that seriously you’re argument? Really dumb. And we’re talking about marijuana which isnt addictive and not heroin or meth. And even if we were it is not a definite that family will be disturbed by drug addiction and we can also apply those consequences to abuse of alcohol. Your argument is nowhere, clown. Now run along and play your filthy elitist golf game.
LillyHammer
January 15th, 2014 @ 1:13 am

That the public shouldnt be deciding civil rights issues that effect minorities? No, that’s called the US Constitution. Your Bible is your business, not mine, so keep it out of mainstream society. Or burn it? I can care less what you do with it.
Mike G.
January 15th, 2014 @ 1:14 am

Straight or gay, knowingly transmitting an STD to another person without their consent is against the law and will be prosecuted with jail time, fines and restitution to the victim(s) as well as having to register as a sex offender.
LillyHammer
January 15th, 2014 @ 1:16 am

That’s not a concrete example, dummy, and not an argument for the prohibition of gay sex. Your weak sensibilities are your problem, sweetheart.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
January 15th, 2014 @ 1:17 am

I do not recall the Federalist Papers endorsing same sex marriage. Maybe you can find that cite for me, LillyHammer01.
LillyHammer
January 15th, 2014 @ 1:19 am

Im not a progressive, but you’re definitely a half wit and an asshole and I dont respect you one bit so will speak to you in any way I choose to. And I won the argument. We dont decide civil rights issues by “mob rule” or based on the average idiot’s prejudice. That’s what federalism is and everyone from Madison to Ayn Rand has written about it. You dont like it? Try Uganda.
Adjoran
January 15th, 2014 @ 1:25 am

You remember “slippery slope” arguments on the abolition of slavery?

If you’re that old, no wonder you’re suffering from dementia.
Mike G.
January 15th, 2014 @ 1:27 am

Aw jeez, another troll crawls out of it’s hole.

You’re right Marijuana isn’t physically addictive, but it is psychologically addictive. I know that for a fact, having more than a little experience with the “herb.”

If you want to explore the “Hershey Highway”, in the privacy of your own home be my guest. But I don’t have to condone it and certainly don’t need it shoved in my face all the time by the more radical members of your clique.

And really, golf isn’t an elitist game. It teaches ethics, good sportsmanship and patience as well as other desirable attributes a person needs to get through life. I’m just a working man like many others who comment on this blog.
Mike G.
January 15th, 2014 @ 1:31 am

Well good on you, the lack of respect is mutual. Oh, we’re still waiting on that cite from the Federalist papers that condone same sex marriage.

By the way, nice sock puppet.
Adjoran
January 15th, 2014 @ 1:31 am

The real lesson here is ELECTIONS MATTER.

A lot of people angry with GHWB over breaking his tax pledge and failing to get the promised spending cuts in return voted for Perot or stayed home, allowing Clinton to be elected. They got for their trouble more spending, a bigger tax hike, and this judge and hundreds of others.

Similarly, if white Christians had only voted in 2012 in the same percentage they did in 2004, Obama would not have been reelected and be appointing judges today who will deliver even more decisions 20 years from now.

People who get frustrated at having to choose “the lesser of two evils” often forget the alternative is the greater evil.
RKae
January 15th, 2014 @ 1:34 am

One flaw: the terminology. Same sex marriage wasn’t “illegal.” Unless someone can link me to a story where some gay people were having a ceremony and a SWAT team burst in and arrested everyone.
Adjoran
January 15th, 2014 @ 1:34 am

Good ol’ Wombat is like a traffic light sometimes. We struggle to get through him, but when he’s gone, he’s sorely missed.
concern00
January 15th, 2014 @ 1:36 am

‘cut off your nuts’

Because trannies are ok aren’t they?
RKae
January 15th, 2014 @ 2:10 am

And then comes the gay polygamy. I can’t wait until five guys go into a “hip” church to get married and the “hip” church tries to say, “Um… Well… we’re going to have to draw a line on this one.” Yeah. Good luck.
RKae
January 15th, 2014 @ 2:13 am

If you’re that old, then tell me: Why are people like you sputtering angrily at anyone who doesn’t want gay marriage… but you weren’t sputtering like that a few short years ago? If it’s so OBVIOUSLY a “basic human right” and “just like slavery,” then why did it appear out of the blue so recently? Why did all of you have to be TOLD that it’s “just like slavery”? Why didn’t you see it for yourselves?
RKae
January 15th, 2014 @ 2:15 am

So “times change” and “morality changes”? Then why be so angry at people who consider homosexuality to be a sin (the religious argument) or a mental disorder (the scientific argument). Do you demand that everyone alters their morality to fit the times? What sort of wishy-washy people do that?
Wombat_socho
January 15th, 2014 @ 3:05 am

Your understanding of the Constitution is worthless and weak.
Wombat_socho
January 15th, 2014 @ 3:07 am

You’re done here.
Bradoplata
January 15th, 2014 @ 3:21 am

When they make the fag prenatal test, biblical people will look pretty good to homos. #bornthatway.
Anon Y. Mous
January 15th, 2014 @ 3:39 am

In every state that I am aware of, you are required by law to have a marriage license in order to get married. Up until 2003, a same sex couple would not be issued a marriage license in any state. Hence, if they went ahead and attempted to get married without the license, they would have been breaking the law. It was illegal.