Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Family Research Council has joined the American Family Association in recently coming out boldly in favor of criminalizing homosexuality, in response to the push to allow gays to openly serve in the military. On Hardball, one of their spokesmen had this exchange:
Matthews: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?Sprigg: Well, I think certainly..
Matthews: I'm just asking, should we outlaw gay behavior?
Sprigg: I think the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place in this country for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.
Matthews: So we should outlaw gay behavior?
Sprigg: YES!
Here's the video:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Politics
Comments
Hrm... I feel that the best response to pieces of garbage like this is to either point-and-laugh or point-and-mock, since ignoring them doesn't seem like a feasible option. Somehow, though, I can't figure out which one I should do.
Posted by: mercurianferret | February 8, 2010 9:31 AM
If the next question would be:
Do you think homosexuals should wear pink triangles on their coats?
Would that invoke Godwin's law, or is it called for?
(Just as jews were required to wear the david star, homosexuals were required to wear a pink triangle)
Posted by: Konradius | February 8, 2010 9:31 AM
What'd you think of the FotF Super Bowl commercial? I thought it was pretty benign, didn't even mention the words abortion, pro, life, or choice. But I can see how people might be annoyed on principle.
Sure coulda done a lot of the Lord's work for 2.6 million dollars, though.
Posted by: Brandon | February 8, 2010 9:34 AM
I tried skipping through, but the video kept freezing. Did Matthews follow up with "and what criminal sanctions do you consider appropriate for private, consensual sexual behavior between adults?" Because I'd really like to know. Also whether anal, oral and manual stimulation would be out for the heterosexuals, too.
Posted by: snurp | February 8, 2010 9:36 AM
I think it is getting to be about time we change the constitution to outlaw public displays of religion. That'll show 'em. (And no, I don't really believe we should do this.)
Posted by: Woody Tanaka | February 8, 2010 9:44 AM
I think it's important to note that when Rick Warren finally conceded on the Ugandan effort to institute a death penalty that he was very careful to only condemn that particular sentence. He did not reject the criminalization of homosexual behavior.
The fact that people like Mr. Warren and Ms. Palin are able to leverage the power of the media bully pulpit without having to also have their arguments totally exposed to well-framed scrutiny continues to aggravate me to no end.
Chris Matthews likes to argue he distinguishes himself in this regard where I'd instead grade his efforts a D+ while admitting most of the media deserves a failing grade.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 8, 2010 9:48 AM
Gotta wonder how long it will be before another one of these guys winds up being caught out with some manwhore.
Brandon:
Wrong thread. You need to peddle that tripe on Ed's StuporBowl commercial thread.
The ad was stupid, condescending and WASTED on the audience that watches the game. They're looking for wardrobe malfunction not chastisement.
Posted by: democommie | February 8, 2010 9:51 AM
I guess the days of "hate the sin, love the sinner" are over.
I don't really know what to say about these inhuman toads anymore. Since it seems doubtful they are going to get the force of law to back up their bloodlust (at least in this country), how long before we see the first holy warrior strap on some explosives and head on down to the local gay establishment?
Posted by: Rick R | February 8, 2010 10:03 AM
The nomeclature for marking of non-Nazis was a bit more complex than pink triangles and yellow stars. For example, a gay Jew would wear a pink triangle overlaying a yellow triangle.
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badges
Posted by: David Waldock | February 8, 2010 10:09 AM
Well I guess you have to give Sprigg credit for being honest about criminalizing homosexual behavior.
Usually spokesmen for these Dominionist groups couch their words for public consumption.
He's bigot but at least he's honest about his bigotry.
Posted by: Lance | February 8, 2010 10:51 AM
@ democommie, looking at the timestamp on Brandon's comment (9:34am), it's quite possible that he didn't see Ed's post on FotF's ad (posted at 9:30) before posting his comment...
(Of course, if Ed could just have all four, five, or six stories posted at 9am - instead of spreading them between 9am and 9:30am - then perhaps situations like Brandon's wouldn't happen.... and we wouldn't be left hitting the refresh button at 9:28, waiting for that last post.)
Posted by: Umlud | February 8, 2010 10:55 AM
Shortly after last year's election, I remember reading a pronouncement from some prominent religious wrong leader (or was it someone from the RNC? And is there a difference anymore?) that the culture war battleground was moving on to homosexuality, as the war to criminalize abortion in America was more or less lost. James Dobson? Tony Perkins? Michael Steele? Pat Robertson? Sarah Palin? Who can keep the tardensity straight anymore?
And, true to their word, the hate rhetoric has really ramped up in the last year.
Posted by: Rick R | February 8, 2010 11:02 AM
snurp:
According to Nan Hunter, since Lawrence v Texas has a specific exception for "commercial sexual encounters," New Orleans has begun charging prostitutes who offer oral or anal sex with felony sodomy.
To quote her
And gee, by some strange coincidence, it seems to be only black and transgender prostitutes who are so charged. And it isn't just the inclusion on the sex offender list that is harmful. Again from her story:
(If you don't recognoze Nan Hunter, she is both the compiler of the main casebook on gender, sex, and the law, and the companion -- hopefully soon to be spouse -- of Chai Feldman.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 8, 2010 11:50 AM
Well if that's the case, then the RR is really in trouble. I would argue that the RR/forces of social conservatism have been far more successful in scoring anti-choice goals than they have in scoring anti-gay goals (with the noted exception of the issue of gay marriage, that is). Let's face it, there's nothing they can do about the fact that LGBTs are gaining more and more acceptance, particularly among young Americans, by the day. That's a train that they can't stop. Abortion rights, on the other hand, is an issue that they have been much more successful in swaying large numbers of people to their side. Part of it is dishonest framing and misrepresentation of their stance: the "pro-life" position seeks to impose forced childbirth onto every woman in America, yet the leaders and framers of the anti-abortion movement discuss the issue in markedly pro-choice terms (i.e. "Choose life," "Your mom was pro-life" [simply because she gave birth, as if that determines whether one is "pro-life"], "Your mom chose life," etc.). Too many people don't read between the anti-choice lines of the outfits disseminating such slogans, and they have a hard time arguing with these sound bites.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 8, 2010 11:51 AM
Sadie- all of that is true, but I think what the RR is lamenting is the fact that, after 8 long years of Bush, and the current makeup of the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade is still in place, and not going anywhere in the foreseeable future. That's what they are giving up on.
Posted by: Rick R | February 8, 2010 11:59 AM
Michael Heath said Rick Warren did not oppose criminalization.
But he did. From his statement:
Ed: Where has Focus on the Family recently favored criminalization?
Posted by: Warren Throckmorton | February 8, 2010 1:24 PM
What Umlud said. If the blog posts are automated, it would be nice if they were uploaded earlier in the morning, before I'm rushing out the door to work.
Posted by: Brandon | February 8, 2010 1:40 PM
@Prup
I remember hearing about that from Ed* and wondering how the hell it worked with Lawrence. Thanks for explaining how they're getting away with it. Thanks also for the link to Nan Hunter; if she was mentioned in Ed's post I missed her.
*And not being terribly shocked. My godfather was on the NOPD and... let's just say my faith in my hometown's system is minimal.
Posted by: snurp | February 8, 2010 1:43 PM
Mr. Throckmorton,
Your link at 16 rebutting my prior claim is not working. Perhaps you could repost the link.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 8, 2010 1:52 PM
Michael, perhaps
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/12/10/17703
is what was intended to be posted @16?
I'm not sure how much "faith" should be put in anything he says; I think he's just blowing PR here.
Posted by: dean | February 8, 2010 2:17 PM
Nann's blog, Hunter of Justice -- which has yet to reach 100,000 page views is one of the more important legal and LGBT blogs available (along with Chris Geidner's "Law Dork" and -- for purely legal matters -- the commentary on FindLaw -- except for Marci Hamilton, who seems to be one of the more fuzz-headed writers in the field. Neil H. Buchanan, on the other hand, may be the best politico/legal/economist writer around -- he has Doctorates in both law and economics.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 8, 2010 2:47 PM
IF SODOMY IS CONDONED WITHIN THE MILITARY, THE PENTAGON WILL BEGIN TO RESEMBLE THE CURRENT STATE DEPARTMENT!!!!!
Posted by: AMERICAPHILE MINISTRIES | February 8, 2010 2:50 PM
Ah, we have a troll (#22).
But on to the thread. Laws like those against sodomy or its relations are all but unenforceable unless one obtains a freely given confession or invades the privacy of a home. Every time I see them discussed, whether the penalty, proposed or real, is death, prison time or a fine, I wonder how does society enforce it? With bedroom police? Video cameras installed in every new mattress? Universal video cameras in the bedrooms of all new homes? It gets positively ridiculous, aside from the silliness of the effort to legislate the behavior of two consenting adults in private. It often makes me wonder if folks like FOF are closet voyeurs salivating for a privileged look at the very acts they condemn.
Posted by: Keanus | February 8, 2010 3:30 PM
Dean @ 20,
No, that is not the source Mr. Throckmorton's Warren quote. What you linked to is the video message that was directed at the pastors of Uganda and got enormous play all over the Internet and old media. It was the source of my claim which was directed specifically at 'homosexual behavior. In that message Mr. Warren is extremely precise in his statements. He stands against that bill not necessarily because it criminalizes homosexuality or homosexual acts, neither of which he directly addresses (carefully and I think dishonestly), but instead opposed the bill for three reasons:
1) He thought the punishment too harsh though he only raised the death penalty, not the other sentencing guidelines.
2) Heterosexuals would be criminally culpable if they knew of homosexual acts but didn't report them.
3) The punishment was so harsh he feared pastors wouldn't get confessions.
However and again, Mr. Warren never came out and made a blanket statement that homosexual acts should be legal nor did he reject the criminalization of such laws in that widespread communication.
The primary reasons I wanted to review Mr. Throckmorton's quote was to consider:
1) The venue, would his target marketing niche be exposed to this message given the link I was referring to did get widespread play and avoided where Mr. Warren draws the line on the criminality of homosexuality and homosexual acts.
2) More context to understand whether he did in fact go as far as claiming homosexual acts should be criminalized or that being merely homosexual is not worthy of criminalizatio. The latter which Mr. Throckorton brings up as a rebuttal to my point when in fact it avoids my point.
Also, note what Mr. Throckmorton quotes by Warren, which is a huge shift of goal posts from the criminalization of homosexual acts to merely being homosexual. I could easily see Mr. Warren taking the position that being homosexual isn't criminal, but that engaging in homosexual acts should be. Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned laws in the U.S. prohibiting homosexual acts between consenting adults is a fairly recent case which was universally condemned by evangelicals. It's rare for Mr. Warren to stray from that path so I'm very skeptical that Mr. Throckmorton actually successfully rebutted my prior point as he implies.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 8, 2010 3:33 PM
Sorry Michael - my misunderstanding. I did find it interesting that Mr. Throckmorton was the source of the transcript of that video.
Posted by: dean | February 8, 2010 4:12 PM
Michael Heath,
How about http://www.rickwarren.com/? It appears to contain the quoted question and answer, in context.
The page is very slow to come up.
Posted by: JuliaL | February 8, 2010 4:18 PM
Me @ 6:
Mr. Throckmorton @ 16:
No, what I said was Mr. Warren, ". . . did not reject the criminalization of homosexual behavior." [emphasis here only]
I found the quote Mr. Throckorton refers to, which can be found here, a strange location given its not a permalink of a webpage published on Mr. Warren's homepage, but is his homepage, RickWarren.com. This link contains the video that I was referring to @ 6.
Mr. Throckmorton @ 16:
Warren in written text and not in the video:
My original point stands. Mr. Warren has not condemned criminalizing homosexual behavior, merely being homosexual. I understand how this could be understood by people not involved in the day to day of the Culture Wars, however Mr. Warren is no neophyte and his precise words keep in line with the fundie political position while conveying the sense he's a reasonable guy - which is a defining attribute of his.
He's also dishonest because he is defining homosexuality as a choice and condeming that as well, rather than it being immutable as we empirically know sexual identification is for the vast majority of people. His video is also rife with many other dishonest assertions, e.g., that the Bible and Jesus are very clear that marriage is only between one man and one woman, homosexuals, and the lie in in his written "Facts" section, "there is no civil right to gay marriage guaranteed by the United States Constitution, which is wrong in so many ways one barely knows where to start.
Mr. Throckmorton - bad form to rebut what someone states without providing their quotation in your comment post to provide a fair comparison. If you had your post @ 16 would clearly note that you moved the goal posts from my original assertion to a far less rigorous standard.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 8, 2010 4:24 PM
Michael Heath:
Here is the URL - http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/12/10/rick-warren-issues-statement-to-uganda-regarding-anti-homosexuality-bill-2009/
My html skills are weak, I guess.
Given that Rick Warren opposes the bill which focuses on behavior and he opposes criminalization of homosexuality (status), I take him to oppose criminalization of both behavior and identity.
Posted by: Warren Throckmorton | February 8, 2010 4:28 PM
Keanus @23 Laws like those against sodomy or its relations are all but unenforceable unless one obtains a freely given confession or invades the privacy of a home. Every time I see them discussed, whether the penalty, proposed or real, is death, prison time or a fine, I wonder how does society enforce it?
In Lawrence vs. Texas the police entered the apartment because they had call-in complaint from a neighbor and caught the two guys engaging in a crime...though not the crime they'd been called to investigate (the caller lied).
So, you're wrong about them being unenforcible. Unless gay people are willing to live a lie and deceive their community, all it takes is one jerk neighbor. The neighbor doesn't even have to lie, if what they are doing is legally a crime.
Posted by: eric | February 8, 2010 4:29 PM
The items linked to in 28 are the same ones I found and mentioned earlier. Is this
the part to which you refer Mr. Throckmorton? As I indicated earlier, I have no reason at all to think that warren actually means any of this.
Posted by: dean | February 8, 2010 4:47 PM
Lance @10-
The more I think about it, the more I believe he IS couching his words here.
Posted by: Rick R | February 8, 2010 5:19 PM
So conservatives are all in favor of FREEDOM (TM), but they also want the government to legislate sex acts between consenting adults? Regulating a bank or insurance company is an affront to FREEDOM (TM), but the government should be peeking in your bedroom? How do their heads not explode? It must be a form of Orwellian doublethink.
THE LINK IN #22 IS HILARIOUS!!!!!! INSANE ASSERTIONS IN ALL CAPS WITH LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Eric R | February 8, 2010 7:13 PM
I sometimes wonder if the doublethink described in #32 was an early symptom of Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's disease and the wrong wing just picked up with it and ran.
Posted by: Chris Caprette | February 8, 2010 8:27 PM
To: Chris Caprette @32
According to the Bible, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, but explicitly condemned divorce.
Reagan got divorced at age 37, yet still thought of himself as a great Christian.
So Reagan was just stupid.
Posted by: Blue Nine | February 8, 2010 9:42 PM
Michael Heath demonstrates that he is a pseudointellectual once again.
I oppose the criminalization of homosexuality. The freedom to make moral choices is endowed by God. Since God gives us that freedom, we must protect it for all, even when we disagree with their choices.
There is no way 'homosexuality' refers simply to orientation in that quotation. 'The freedom to make moral choices' obviously refers to acting on a homosexual (or bisexual) orientation.
Also,
That is correct. I suggest Heath read Matthew 19:4-6. (Or, more appropriately, have it read to him.)
That is also correct. Heath mistakes the legal midrash that exists in the minds of some judges for the Constitution itself. However, the only thing that matters is the very text of the Constitution, which must be interpreted in the socio-historical context in which it was written and amended.
Posted by: Milesius | February 8, 2010 10:59 PM
The Bible is not very clear at all about the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman. Unless of course one considers the Old Testament to be nothing but unneccessary and at times inconvenient baggage attached to the New.
Posted by: jws | February 8, 2010 11:52 PM
No, I don't see that that follows at all. You'll have to forgive me for being skeptical that he may be engaging in some subtle parsing here.
Your reference quotes a description of a particular marriage, but it's not at all clear that it's laying down any kind of law rather than intended to be an illustrative parable. How about Deuteronomy 21:15-17, though? Isn't that setting a law?
Posted by: Brain Hertz | February 9, 2010 12:35 AM
To Milesius @ 35:
Warren is correct that "there is no civil right to gay marriage guaranteed by the United States Constitution". But the ninth amendment says that just because a right is not mentioned in the constitution does not mean you do not have it.
This is a game a lot of conservatives play: "I don't see $BLANK in the constitution." (Lately health care has been a favorite.)
Well, I do not see Jesus in the constitution. Or pre-emptive war, warrantless wiretapping, enhanced interrogation, extraordinary rendition or black sites. And a lot of founding fathers did not want a standing army. But originalists always seem to skip that one.
Posted by: Blue Nine | February 9, 2010 1:40 AM
Konradius:
Not really. Once you've already got people calling for gays to be thrown in jail I don't think Godwin's Law applies anymore. It's the same reason it's ok to call the Klan Nazis.
Posted by: csrster | February 9, 2010 7:14 AM
Re Blue Nine
One also doesn't see any mention of an air force in the Constitution. Therefore, the creation of the air force as a separate branch of the armed services is obviously unconstitutional. End snark.
Posted by: SLC | February 9, 2010 9:32 AM
@Milesius: "Heath mistakes the legal midrash that exists in the minds of some judges for the Constitution itself. However, the only thing that matters is the very text of the Constitution, which must be interpreted in the socio-historical context in which it was written and amended."
Actually, in a very real sense, the Constitution means whatever 5 Justices say it means.
Further, your theory of constitutional interpretation (which smacks of Scalian "textualism" or Thomasian "originalism") is just that: a theory of interpretation. It is not binding on anyone. It is not required by either the Constitution nor the common law and, in some ways, goes against not only the foundation of our legal system in the common law, but the principles upon which the system of government was founded.
Posted by: Woody Tanaka | February 9, 2010 11:14 AM
Another point of correction. Focus on the Family has not recently come out in favor of criminalization.
Posted by: Warren Throckmorton | February 9, 2010 12:13 PM
Dr. Throckmorton-
Can you explain what you mean by that? Do you mean that they aren't in favor of criminalization now, or that they have always been in favor of it? If the former, I'd love to hear the explanation for why you think that. If the latter, I don't see the point. Even if this is a longstanding position, it is always good to be reminded of just how barbaric they are in their hatred of gay people.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 9, 2010 12:25 PM
Hey, Milesoshit is back! Dude, did you bring some of your peer reviewed "writings" this time? No? Well, then I guess you're still just the emptysacked windbag that you've been all of your life.
Michael Heath is far too polite to tell you to fuck off, I'm not. Fuck off you lying piece of shit troll.
Posted by: democommie | February 9, 2010 1:09 PM
Are you prepared to argue that SSM was part of the residuum of rights Americans carried over from their days as colonials and citizens of loosely confederated states? Because that is what the 9th amendment refers to; it is not a blank check for judges to conjure "rights" out of the ether.
I don't owe you my vita, you cognitively-impaired guttermouth.
Posted by: Milesius | February 9, 2010 3:18 PM
The NT takes precedence over the OT for Christians and Jesus made it clear that marriage is between one man and one woman. Moreover, I can't think of one instance of polygyny in the OT that went well.
Posted by: Milesius | February 9, 2010 3:23 PM
"The NT takes precedence over the OT for Christians"
Thankfully, there is no need for others to pay heed to statements laid down by the men who were making the rules 2000 years ago, nor is there any requirement that law must do so.
Posted by: dean | February 9, 2010 3:31 PM
At February 9, 2010 3:18 PM, Milesius wrote:
Are you prepared to argue that SSM was part of the residuum of rights Americans carried over from their days as colonials and citizens of loosely confederated states? Because that is what the 9th amendment refers to; it is not a blank check for judges to conjure "rights" out of the ether.
Why not? Why should we be limited by what people in the 18th century knew about and/or approved of? They seemed okay with slavery. Should we bring that back? What is wrong with societies changing?
And if you are a Christian, you cannot assume that 18th theology is the same as 21st. I think that the interpretation of Revelations in the "Left Behind" series did not come about until the 1860s.
Posted by: Blue Nine | February 9, 2010 4:13 PM
Civics fail.
The government does not grant rights, its role is to protect the rights of it's citizens. When a right is to be restricted, it is up to the government to make a compelling case as to why that is (i.e. exercising a right would cause harm, or would inhibit or prevent the exercise of other's rights).
Posted by: Rick R | February 9, 2010 4:33 PM
And Christians of all denominations are perfectly free to set whatever rules they want for marriage within their church. The rest of us cannot be compelled to observe your dogma.
Posted by: DaveL | February 9, 2010 4:41 PM
This is not difficult. I was responding to two separate points. The first has to do with Jesus, the Bible, and marriage and the second has to do with SSM and the Constitution.
Posted by: Milesius | February 9, 2010 4:50 PM
When a hitherto unknown "right" is asserted, it is up to the person or persons asserting the "right" to situate it in the socio-historical context in which the Constitution was written and amended. You cannot restrict a "right" that does not exist.
Posted by: Milesius | February 9, 2010 4:54 PM
Actually, no it's not. That's the point of the 9th amendment. It doesn't matter whether a right to marriage was recognized at the time or not, all that's important is the recognition of this residuum of rights belonging to the people on which the government may not infringe.
Posted by: DaveL | February 9, 2010 5:01 PM
I am reminded of a woman I encountered who, in a vain effort to hitch Prop 8 to black civil rights, wrote something like "just imagine voting on whether to give blacks rights!" My response to her, as it is to you, is that slavery was permanently ended throughout the U.S. and blacks were granted full citizenship via the amendment process, which is the same process available to SSM advocates. (I think slavery was morally repellent even when it was legal but that does not change the fact that it was done away with and former slaves and their descendants were granted citizenship via the amendment process.)
Posted by: Milesius | February 9, 2010 5:12 PM
You don't seriously think this rebuts the parallels between the gay rights movement and the Civil Rights movement, do you? You do know that the latter came a century after the amendments in question, and involved quite a number of unenumerated rights, don't you?
For instance, how do you distinguish the prohibition on same-sex marriage from the prohibition of interracial marriage struck down in Loving v. Virginia?
Posted by: DaveL | February 9, 2010 5:18 PM
On February 9, 2010 5:12 PM, Milesius wrote:
...slavery was permanently ended throughout the U.S. and blacks were granted full citizenship via the amendment process, which is the same process available to SSM advocates.
2 objections:
1. Slavery was in the original Constitution, although not referenced with the exact word ("three fifths of all other Persons" in Article 1 Section 2, and "Person held to Service or Labour" in Article 4 Section 2). So I can see why there would need to be an amendment to end slavery. However, there is nothing about marriage in the Constitution, so I do not see why SSM would need an explicit amendment.
2. Do we have to go through the process of amending the Constitution when we change our opinion on something?
Posted by: Blue Nine | February 9, 2010 5:26 PM
I realize that you subscribe to the "make **** up" school of Constitutional jurisprudence, which relies on what I like to refer to as the "ought-is" fallacy, i.e., "this ought to be in the Constitution, in my opinion, therefore it is. However, the history and language of the amendment does not support your cause. The 9th amendment is about the retention of the residuum of rights and you cannot retain a right you have never legitimately attained.
Posted by: Milesius | February 9, 2010 5:29 PM
Milesius, FWIW I think one could make a reasonable argument (though it's one I would disagree with) that the US Constitution does not require that marriage be extend to include same-sex couples. (Let me repeat that I do not agree with such an argument, but I see how one could make a reasonable X to Y to Z argument for this position)
But you must realize that the fact that you feel the need to make this argument makes you a grade A asshole. Why the fuck would anybody want to deny marriage to same-sex couples? One reason and one reason alone: Their fucked-up bigoted religion has convinced them of that. Nice.
You can take your jurisprudence and shove it up your ass, because you are still a fuckwad.
Posted by: James Sweet | February 9, 2010 5:49 PM
Classic projection.
Rights are not attained, they are inherent in the people, whether they are recognized or not. That's the whole foundation for the Constitution's philosophy regarding rights.
There is not nor has there ever been an exhaustive list of rights in this residuum, otherwise you'd think the authors would have seen fit to include it in the Bill of Rights. Rather, they chose very deliberately to make it explicit that the non-enumeration of any particular right in the Constitution was not to be interpreted as denying it to the people. That's because it was recognized even at the time that there was no agreed upon exhaustive list of the people's rights and no reliable way to arrive at one.
Posted by: DaveL | February 9, 2010 6:17 PM
Milesius, #57: I realize that you subscribe to the "make **** up" school of Constitutional jurisprudence, which relies on what I like to refer to as the "ought-is" fallacy, i.e., "this ought to be in the Constitution, in my opinion, therefore it is.
And your "I can read the minds of people who've been dead for 200 years, and whadya know?, they all agree with me" school of Constitutional jurisprudence? Personally, I've always felt it was close to "I'm just making this up as I go along."
Posted by: Chiroptera | February 9, 2010 8:02 PM
'Making asterisks constitutional jurisprudence' is: thinking something is in the constitution because you want it to be, as opposed to the 'non-asterisks constitutional jurisprudence' which is: Milesius ignoring what is actually in the constitution because it's not what he desires.
Got it. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 9, 2010 8:27 PM
That's NOT what the text plainly says.
You're making stuff up.
Posted by: gwangung | February 9, 2010 9:22 PM
slavery was permanently ended throughout the U.S. and blacks were granted full citizenship via the amendment process
That's right. Blacks were granted full citizenship status in every possible way, with the minor exception of "in reality".
Posted by: Taz | February 9, 2010 9:54 PM
One thing I would like to add to my list in comment 38 of things I do not see in the Constitution: Military bases in 70 countries. Yet another thing a lot of conservatives have no problem with.
This could be a Top Ten List on Letterman. I am waiting for someone to say "I don't see electricity in the Constitution." Maybe the Onion will do it.
Posted by: Blue Nine | February 9, 2010 11:26 PM
Ed: I have no evidence that they ever supported criminalization. Perhaps you do. However, I asked a Focus official via email, Carrie Earll, and she said they had not recently changed that position or said anything publicly about criminalization. However, you said they had in your first paragraph. I wonder if you are confusing them with the American Family Association which has come out via Bryan Fischer with a call for criminalization.
In any event, if you have evidence to the contrary, please let me know and I will post it as I have done with FRC and AFA.
Posted by: Warren Throckmorton | February 10, 2010 12:49 AM
Oh, I see your point now. Sorry, I was being dense. And you're right, I did name the wrong organization. I'll change that now. Thanks.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 10, 2010 1:22 AM
Two points. First, the right to marry a consenting adult of one's own choosing does exist, at least for everyone except those of us who would choose a same sex partner. The right clearly exists, but only for some of us. That is the problem.
So in fact, the burden of explaining why we should allow the government to deny an existing right to certain people is on your side. So far, the arguments are not compelling. Pretending that something shouldn't happen because it hasn't happened in the past is not an argument, it's wishful thinking.
Second, you can deny a right that "doesn't exist". It's really quite simple- you just pretend that the right doesn't exist and voila. It happened to slaves for hundreds of years in this country. Their rights did not magically appear when the Constitution was amended. They were denied rights that existed for others just as gays are being denied a right that exists for others.
Posted by: Leni | February 10, 2010 7:16 AM
Milesoshit:
So, finally, you admit that you have no "peer reviewed" writings to show to anyone. So you demonstrate that you are an emptysacked windbag and lying fuckwad. Thanks for clearing that up. BTW, shitforbrains, this:
"I don't owe you my vita, you cognitively-impaired guttermouth."
kinda pegs the Ironometer. You do realize that you are on record for being every bit as nasty and vituperative as anyone else has been here, yes? Or is that one of your many (and all of them fucking losers) personalities? Like many other trolls, you use a lot of big words and half baked ideas to make a hash of logic and language that, when it's all read and considered is nothing but fundamentalist, racist and ignorant cant.
You don't gotta provide me with your vita? I didn't ask for it. I asked for the writings that you alluded to, months ago, which you have never been able to produce. That Ed seems to think you're Robert O'Brien may be a
Posted by: democommie | February 12, 2010 9:08 AM
Milesoshit:
So, finally, you admit that you have no "peer reviewed" writings to show to anyone. So you demonstrate that you are an emptysacked windbag and lying fuckwad. Thanks for clearing that up. BTW, shitforbrains, this:
"I don't owe you my vita, you cognitively-impaired guttermouth."
kinda pegs the Ironometer. You do realize that you are on record for being every bit as nasty and vituperative as anyone else has been here, yes? Or is that one of your many (and all of them fucking losers) personalities? Like many other trolls, you use a lot of big words and half baked ideas to make a hash of logic and language that, when it's all read and considered is nothing but fundamentalist, racist and ignorant cant.
You don't gotta provide me with your vita? I didn't ask for it. I asked for the writings that you alluded to, months ago, which you have never been able to produce. Ed seems to think you're Robert O'Brien, in this he may be mistaken. It is evident that you are at least AS MUCH of an asshole as O'Brien, but possibly there are two (or more) people that are as filled with misplaced self-confidence as O'Brien.
Posted by: democommie | February 12, 2010 9:10 AM
Gotta love the key combinations that let the post go without being finished. Oh, well, it was so nice it should have been said twice.
Posted by: democommie | February 12, 2010 9:12 AM
I think the arguments made by the Family Research Council are totally ridiculous. Every Western Democracy now allows gays to serve in their militaries and it works fine. This includes Canada, France, the UK, etc. The same is true for same sex marriage and civil unions. Many nations have them and again society did not fall apart. Many states have them and society in those states has not collapsed.
T
Posted by: Jay | April 7, 2011 3:18 PM