A clever researcher, S. Alexandra Burt at Michigan State followed a set of identical twins and fraternal twins as they stayed single or married, and discovered marriage reduces anti-social behavior in men by 30 percent.
Prof. Burt points out "not that many things are related to desistance from antisocial behavior... The fact that something can reduce it is exciting."
Over at his law blog, Professor Michael Dorf criticizes Boies and Olson for their legal strategy, which he compares to Boies "too clever by half" losing strategy in the famous Gore v. Bush. (Maybe Ted Olson, who won that case, should have taken charge more?)
"Fast forward to the Boies/Olson strategy of only suing two county Clerks. Could this have been a similar tactical choice right from the beginning, aimed at engineering precisely the situation we now have, in which a district court ruling of nominally limited scope ends up being both effective statewide and unreviewable on the merits? If so, I've got to say that this strikes me as too clever by half. Boies and Olson had a claim to the moral high ground in bringing this case when mainstream gay rights litigators (and their allies, including me) had been timid. By directly making the argument that Prop 8 denies due process and equal protection, they signaled a refreshing willingness to make the strongest claim possible, and to let the chips fall where they may. But in apparently manipulating the procedural doctrines for advantage, they sacrifice at least some of that moral high ground, making themselves look no less the cautious schemers than the organizations whose warnings they ignored in filing suit when and how they did."
Here's NOM's Chairman Maggie Gallagher on TV talking over the Prop 8 oral arguments on Christian Broadcasting Network.
ADF Senior Counsel Joe Infranco writes:
One intriguing question in the Perry arguments was whether voters had done something wrong in "taking away" a briefly established scheme of "marriage" for persons engaged in homosexual behavior. To give some context to this line of questioning, the court was focusing on a brief window of approximately four months between the time the California Supreme Court (CSC) imposed same sex "marriage" and the effective date of voter-enacted Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution that restored the definition of marriage in California. Since some same-sex couples were allowed to "marry" during this time, the argument claims the mean-spirited voters obviously intended to take away this "right." In other words, the voters knew it existed, didn't like it, and acted accordingly. Plaintiffs' lawyers even cited the ballot language as further proof of voter meanness: the ballot summary read "eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry."
The problem is that the claim holds no water. First, the ballot process was started well before the state high court decision redefining marriage. The initiative went through a laborious process of organizational steps, culminating in collecting over 1.1 million signatures on petitions. In fact, those 1.1 million signatures were submitted Apr. 24, 2008 - prior to the CSC May 15, 2008 decision. It's clear the people pursuing the amendment were concerned with the definition of marriage, and not "taking away rights" that did not even exist at the time the effort began. When the CSC issued its decision, the proponents of Prop 8 immediately requested that the effective date be stayed a few months until after the election, to avoid exactly this situation. The court refused, in a 4-3 vote, and pushed for the earliest possible effective date. Oh, and yes - neither the governor nor the legislature asked the court to delay the effective date; all branches of state government apparently wanted marriage redefined, and wanted it done quickly, regardless of the amendment pending on the ballot.
We knew something was fishy in Des Moines, when Democrats outnumbers Republicans on the Judicial Nominating Commission by 12 to 1.
Under Iowa' current system the Governor picks from three judges recommended by the Commission--and he cannot pick anyone else.
Here's what we didn't know, but Bopp, Coleson and Bostrum figured out: Seven of the Commission members are elected--but in an election in which only lawyers have a right to vote.
The lawsuit filed on behalf of four Iowa voters calls for an end to "lawyers-only" elections in the state of Iowa. Talk about your one-man one-vote case!
According to attorney James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for the plaintiffs, the Iowa system “gives attorneys a stranglehold on the judiciary. Lawyers in Iowa have enormous influence over who the state judges are, while the ordinary voter is denied the right to an equal voice.”
The case is Carlson, et al. v. Cady, et al., 10-cv-587 (S.D. Iowa). The complaint and memorandum supporting the motion for a temporary restraining order are available in PDF format online at the James Madison Center’s website,
According to the Washington Post, Maryland is poised to pass an SSM law next year.
In a case unrelated to Prop 8, a sanctions motion has been filed against David Boies' law firm charging "egregious misconduct," read more.
For those of you in the DC area, NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher will be debating Andrew Sullivan at Georgetown University tonight at 7:30pm. Please come on out if you can to support Maggie and enjoy the lively debate. Come early to get a good seat!
The evening is sponsored by “Catholics for Equality,” a new group that is drawing fire for its efforts to organize Catholic opposition to Church teaching on marriage – from inside the church with a new app to locate sympathetic parishioners while at Mass, and to report priests who speak out about marriage. Tom Peters of the AmericanPapist blog calls this new group “an unprecedented and dangerous threat to the Church.”
So join Maggie as she stands for the truth about marriage. The event will be held from 7:30-10:30pm at the Georgetown University Intercultural Center Auditorium (ICC) on the corner of 37th and O Streets, NW.
Wednesday, December 8
7:30 – 10:30pm
Georgetown University Intercultural Center Auditorium (ICC)
37th and O Sts, NW
Washington, DC
We need your help to protect the gift of marriage this Christmas season!
In this season as we prepare for the greatest gift, we too must prepare to defend the rightful home of that gift: marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The November elections have brought us to a moment of unprecedented opportunity, with the chance to pass new marriage amendments, strengthen legislative protections, and even roll back same-sex marriage in states like New Hampshire and Iowa.
But it’s also a moment of profound risk. Risk of letdown. Of complacency. Of surveying our successes with satisfaction, while forgetting that all we accomplished on November 2 only set the stage for the larger mission to come.
Now is the time that we must begin working to capitalize on those opportunities – organizing, planning, and beginning the grassroots outreach that will turn our electoral successes into lasting legislative victories. NOM poured over $12 million—everything we had—into focused, strategic initiatives to protect marriage this year. We urgently need your help to prepare for the 2011 legislative sessions.
We’ve just launched our new Marriage Challenge website. Thanks to a generous marriage challenge grant, every dollar we can raise from now until Dec. 31, 2010 will be matched, doubling the impact.
Please take a moment to watch our new Marriage Challenge video, recapping our successes of the past year and setting the stage for 2011. Then take the Marriage Challenge with your most generous gift. Thanks to the challenge match, your $25 gift becomes $50. A $50 gift becomes $100 to protect marriage. And $500 becomes $1000 for marriage!
My wife and I were blessed with the birth of our seventh child last week—Madeleine Sophie Brown. As I look at these little ones, I am more determined than ever to do whatever lies within my power to preserve, protect and defend the institution of marriage and the religious liberty upon which our great nation was founded.
Now the question is: Are you willing to do what it takes to protect a culture of marriage and religious liberty for your children and grandchildren? Will you stand with me today? Accept the 30-Day Marriage Challenge and join us with a gift of $25, $50, $250 or more.
Then—and this is equally important—please ask 10 friends to join you in taking our 30-Day Marriage Challenge at this all too critical moment.
On Dec. 6, the LA Times reporter Karin Klein has some questions about marriage and that Presumptious Phrase: "Responsible Procreation":
"If that's the purpose, why on earth do we let people marry who have no interest in having children? How can we let the elderly marry, or people with infertility problems? Why do we let people who aren't ready for responsible child-rearing give up their children for adoption, and why do we let couples who have all the desire and ability for children adopt them, and why do we let inattentive parents get married?"
Let me answer briefly:
a. Because when they have sex they can make children, even if they aren't interested. Intention is not what makes babies.
b. Because every man and woman who marries can give any child they create a mom and dad, and none who are faithful to their vows will create fatherless children in alternative relationships.
c. Um, because the alternative is irresponsible and incompetent parenting? Giving up a child is such a difficult thing to do, we're inclined to believe the young mother when she says it's necessary.
d. How do we know they are inattentive parents? The fact they are willing to take on the responsibility of marriage--fidelity and joint parenting and caretaking--helps filter who's in a position to be an attentive parent. Don't have kids unless you first find someone you want to be tied to for the rest of your life. It improves deciionmaking among those attracted to the opposite sex.
GOP leaders are claiming victory in the Long Island race where it appear Ralph Martins ousted the pro-SSM incumbetn Craig Johnson, given them control of the Senate chamber. Will this pose end to dreams of SSM in New York? Good news for today, but keep your power dry.
Chuck Cooper, at the last minute, dramatically exploded Reinhardt's efforts to locate Californians right to gay marriage in Romer v. Evans, as Bill Duncan points out:
Bill Duncan over at National Review Online agrees Chuck Cooper was great:
"One thing I haven’t seen mentioned much in the commentary on the oral argument (much of it blinkered by ideology) is the really superb job the attorney for the defense, Charles Cooper, did. Brian Brown at the National Organization for Marriage noticed. (Full disclosure: I co-authored an amicus brief for NOM in the case.) Cooper’s straightforward case for marriage was refreshing. His argument got right to the heart of the case — the reasonableness of treating the unique sexual relationship of a man and a woman different from other kinds of relationships.
He was particularly effective in responding to some of the novel legal theories floated by the judges. In his rebuttal argument, Cooper’s command of the precedent helped deflate the idea that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Romer v. Evans prohibited the people of California from correcting the California Supreme Court’s reading of the state constitution regarding marriage. He was able to remind the court of a passage in that case disavowing the idea that merely changing an existing legal arrangement was enough to make a law invalid.
In regards to standing, I thought Judge Randy Smith made clear the essential problem with the plaintiffs’ argument. The governor and attorney general — who have no constitutional role in approving an amendment to the state constitution — would be given, by their inaction, the power to negate the amendment."
After the arguments today, Dr. Morse sat down with ProtectMarriage Chairman Ron Prentice to get his reaction. Listen in.
About 40 minutes into the standing discussion, Judge Smith and Judge Reinhardt rake anti-Prop 8 "super lawyer" David Boies over the coals. Go watch it yourself on C-span. But here's an informal summary of a truly beautiful moment:
Judge Smith : Does the Governor have the power to veto this initiative? Does the attorney general?
Boies: no
Judge Smith: So the Attorney General and governor's decision have essentially nullifed the considerable effort it took to pass this legislation, if they don't appeal? . . .The Attorney General and Governor with no ability to nullify acts of the people and then by not appealing they do it (nullify it)" . . .
Boise: I agree that is so, but its true in every standing case"
Judge Reinhardt enters the discussion with this thought: ". . .That does not seem to be consistent with the intiative system, where the people are allowed to pass a measure. . ."
Boies: I think there is a different issue after a [trial]
Judge Reinhardt "Isn't this contrary to a system where the governor is not allowed to veto this measure but he is allowed in effect to veto it by refusing to defend it?"
Boise: ". . .the U.S. Supreme Court has had this many times, the fact is there is no-one to defend does not give standing"
Judge Reinhardt then suggests the thing to do is ask the California Supreme Court whether under California law those who propose an initiative have standing.
Boies says something about why he disagrees with that.
Judge Smith: any California law directly on point? If so I will go look at it.
Long, long awkard pause by David Boies.
Fun to watch!
