Another Day, Another Federal Judge Strikes Down Another Gay Marriage Ban
For the second day in a row, a federal judge — this time in Pennsylvania — has struck down a state ban on same-sex couples’ marriages.
Less than 24 hours after U.S. District Court Michael McShane — an Obama appointee — struck down Oregon’s state constitutional amendment barring same-sex couples from marrying, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III — appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2002 — reached the same ultimate conclusion in Pennsylvania.
“We now join the twelve federal district courts across the country which, when confronted with these inequities in their own states, have concluded that all couples deserve equal dignity in the realm of civil marriage,” Jones wrote.
Although Pennsylvania has no constitutional amendment barring same-sex couples from marrying, Jones on Tuesday struck down the state’s 1996 statute banning same-sex couples from marrying and barring recognition of out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples.
Before you have a chance to blink, this will be the whole country. We’ll have none of this acceptance by society nonsense. Just cram it down the people’s throats through phony trumped-up legal doctrine. That’s the ticket.
You can lose your job for even objecting to this.
JD (e5a0fa) — 5/20/2014 @ 2:25 pmJudges don’t like death threats either.
Peter (1d4db1) — 5/20/2014 @ 2:47 pmFederal judges, the last celebrities in Amerikkka to break even in the polls.
It won’t last.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 5/20/2014 @ 3:05 pmFor some time now it has been obvious it was a fait accompli that the federal judicial system would do this, for anyone who was paying attention. The method is wrong and using the legal process to overturn the states is wrong but it’s a done deal. It’s over. Taking it to the Supreme Court won’t help. Despite the “secession” stuff (which is not going to happen) and the “tree of liberty needing to be refreshed with the blood of patriots” second revolution folks (which is not going to happen), it’s over. Does anyone here disagree that it’s over?
elissa (e67fb7) — 5/20/2014 @ 3:09 pmBut wasn’t it only yesterday that Sen. Clinton and so many others wanted to keep the feds out of defining marriage with a federal amendment and let it be a “states rights” issue?
I am sure that was their argument.
Why do I think it is turning out the way they really wanted it to?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/20/2014 @ 3:10 pmat some point the pervert roberts supreme whore court will have to rule, no?
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 3:12 pmOver on the “No ‘Individuals’ Allowed” thread I’ve made a couple of comments that are on point here as well. With links, so people can read (or watch in the case of the video) as the evil spawn of the Marxists at the Frankfurt School, such as repressive tolerance and critical theory, is explained.
But essentially it is the ideology developed by the Frankfurt School that is driving these decisions. Not historical fact or the law.
No matter what your position is on gay marriage, it is insane to deny the fact that it is entirely rational to recognize only opposite sex marriages because of the procreative potential. It is a biological fact that human life can only begin when sperm meets egg. That is a law of nature. But then, monogomay is not exactly entirely natural. So societies came up with rules to regulate these procreative relationships because the outlook for women and children wasn’t very bright unless the men stuck around to take care of the families they helped create.
This has been true for nearly everyone throughout human history and still is true for most people throughout the world. For instance I read an article about one of the wives of the condemned Delhi rapists. Without a husband, and given the circumstances of rural India, she’ll no doubt have to become a beggar or a prostitute. Her in-laws can’t afford to support her, and neither can her own family, without her husband’s income. Which is why he went off to Delhi in the first place; to earn money.
I’m sure Sammy will be along to explain how I’m getting it all wrong, but if I have a choice between Sammy and Lord Blackstone, I’ll go with Blackstone. And as he wrote in his commentaries, the only reason marriage existed as a matter of English law (and indeed in all civilized countries) were the circumstances described above.
But according to the Frankfurt School’s ideology, the only reason same sex couples were denied the right to marry is because of the unique, unhinged bigotry of American citizens. The idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman has a rational basis must be denied and instead springs from some irrational Christo-fascist phobia simply is untenable when faced with the facts.
But here’s where the genius of the Frankfurt School theorists comes to the fore. Anyone who would even try to present the facts must be a homophobe. And homophobes don’t have rights. Because they’re homophobes. “Repressive tolerance” demands that they not be allowed to speak.
Or as JD notes, even allowed to keep their jobs. Pour encourager les autres.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 3:12 pmwhen you pervert the law & the legal system, people loose respect for it, just as people have little respect for the legislature & executive branches.
after you’ve lost all that, what holds society together?
inertia? threats of force?
sooner or later, something will give: it’s inevitable.
redc1c4 (abd49e) — 5/20/2014 @ 3:23 pmeliss,
Well, seeing the repercussions for those who make a public opinion against same sex marriage, or even if they fail to support same sex marriage “when they ought to”, it seems those who want to publicly support maintaining the traditional definition of marriage are asking for at least social and perhaps economic martyrdom, I don’t think there will be many takers.
And when there are societal repercussions for churches who refuse to acquiesce, which I doubt will be long in coming, there will be no public will to do anything about it, and freedom of conscience will become freedom to do what is allowed by the dominating (not dominant, but dominating) public opinion.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/20/2014 @ 3:23 pmAnd the United States will become a post-Christian nation like Western Europe.
And when the best the world has to offer is socialist wishful thinking hedonistic narcissists,
they will be no match for the overtly evil people of the world.
So, will the 2030’s and 2040’s mirror the 1930’s and 1940’s, only magnified by a factor of 100?
I wish you weren’t right in your forecasting, MD. But unfortunately I think you are.
elissa (e67fb7) — 5/20/2014 @ 3:30 pm“repressive tolerance”
I wonder if Orwell thought/hoped that his pointing out the results of the corruption of language would prevent or minimize it happening,
or whether he knew it was a lost cause, but that he was being prophetic to help people understand what we see unfolding before our eyes.
As Dennis Prager says, you really have to have gone to grad school to believe some of this stuff. Thinking they are wise, they became fools.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/20/2014 @ 3:30 pmMy take is that this is all trumped up BS also.
But there’s a little spot in my brain that is starting to say – hey, if there is something north of a dozen courts ALL coming to the same conclusion, maybe, just maybe, there’s a slight chance that this isn’t trumped up BS. I mean, it can’t be that ALL the judges are liberal appointees or RINOs, can it?
A.S. (23bc66) — 5/20/2014 @ 3:31 pmSocieties have gone collectively insane culturally and morally before, and I see no definitive reason it can’t happen here.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/20/2014 @ 3:35 pmA.S. – trumped up consensus and willfully ignoring laws doesn’t make it right just because lots of Judges are willing to do so.
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 3:36 pmThough in one way the fault is not with those pushing the agenda, (though they are culpable for their role) but with those of us who were not a clear enough alternative to prevent it. If salt has lost its saltiness, what good is it?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/20/2014 @ 3:38 pmit could be that these bigoted anti-gay laws are actually unconstitutional though
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 3:54 pmwhenever you let a majority vote on the rights of a despised minority, things can get sticky
my advice is to avoid carbs, get plenty of sleep, and hydrate like a gazelle
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 3:56 pmYes, doc. But then Marxism has to use Orwellian language to mask its horrorific intent.
I’ll just link to a couple of things that I linked to on the other thread.
REPRESSIVE TOLERANCE
That was in 1965. In 2014 we get this:
The Doctrine of Academic Freedom
Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice
By Sandra Y.L. Korn February 18, 2014
The Red Line
Sometimes I’m afraid people think I’m going all Marky Mark on them, trying to advance some personal pet theory of mine. But I think if you look at the summary of Marcuse’s 1965 argument for “repressive tolerance” and then the Harvard Crimson editorial from earlier this year then the lineage of “thinking” (if you can call it that) of the academic repression undergrad Sandra Korn advocates is undeniable. Only research that supports her favored narrative can be tolerated. Here’s a YouTube video I didn’t previously link to, in which Bill Whittle explains the origins and nature of the narrative.
Bill Whittle on The Narrative: The origins of Political Correctness
As Bill Whittle observes, MSNBC had to edit footage to eliminate the fact that the man at the rally with the AR-15 and the pistol was a black man in order to advance the narrative that opposition to Barack Obama only stems from white racism. By the same token you have to edit history to eliminate facts in order to advance the theory that opposition to SSM only stems from homophobia. And that by definition anyone who attempts to correct the record (or, more properly, the false narrative) is a homophobe. And nothing that a hompophobe has to say can be legitimate. Therefore, as Marcuse (and now undergrads at campuses across the nation such as Ms. Korn) argues, their speech can legitimately be suppressed to serve the cause of promoting tolerance.
This is literally what happened in the Prop 8 case. In his decision Judge Vaughn Walker edited out the speech of the Prop 8 proponents to make it appear that they had presented no evidence to support their position that the only governmental interest in marriage is due to the fact that heterosexual couples can produce children. The trial transcript illustrates that things were exactly the opposite of what Walker said they were. They had introduced overwhelming evidence to support their position.
But then only a homophobe would refer to the trial transcript.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:00 pmSteve57– Bless your heart. But you’re still trying to apply logic and academic rigor here. Don’t you see that “resistance is futile”?
elissa (e67fb7) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:12 pmThis is the poisonous fruit of Griswold v Connecticut. The lawyers who brought the case and the judges who made the ruling were traitors to democracy and honesty in government.
Those who think a law is bad policy (and that Connecticut law was bad policy) should lobby the legislature to repeal or correct it. If the incumbent legislature refuses to do so, they should campaign to elect new legislators who will. That is democracy – policy decided by the will of the people through their elected representatives.
Judges have no business deciding policy. When advocates turn to the courts to get their favored outcome, instead of doing the hard work of election and legislation, they are displaying laziness, and often cowardice.
Construing the Constitution as needed to get desired policy outcomes is fundamentally corrupt, no matter how desirable the resulting policy change. It is no better than embezzling public funds to pay for some really worthwhile cause, or lynching some genuinely appalling criminal.
Rich Rostrom (55f287) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:12 pmBut of course laws concerning marriage are no such thing. They had absolutely nothing to do with being “anti-gay” and everything to do with looking out for the interests of children. As in, making sure their dads supported them instead of heading off for France or the colonies and abandoning them.
The people who wrote them said so. It’s not hard to find out the facts. It’s not undiscoverable. Which is why the pro-SSM crowd has to be so vicious in attacking people who point out the facts, and decide to stick with the original logic.
It’s a very fascist thing we’re dealing with. Which is why it’s difficult to take your tirades against the fascists seriously, since you so enthusiastically support the fascist line when it comes to gay marriage.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:13 pm“cram it down the people’s throats”
Thank you for making sure this phrase is in there.
cbuund (74098c) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:17 pmBack in the dawn of time, the end, or telos, of marriage was reproduction of the human race. Women and children received support and protection; men could restrain their natural “screw anything that moves” tendencies because they were assured that they were protecting their own offspring. The fact that the penis and vagina are exquistely engineered for pleasure and reproduction was a natural law statement of fact that this was the proper order, actually whether reproduction occurred or not.
But when the telos of marriage changed from a way to protect the next generation into an economic arrangement for securing government benefits for the current generation, it lost its primal meaning. So why not get married if you have sex through the alimentary canal of someone exactly like you? Divorced of its relationship to reproduction, marriage is just an economic arrangement between two people who rub up against each other at night. And pointing out that the human body fights its own engineering and design in order to have a homosexual sex act just makes you a hatey-hate-hater. I read an article once that stuck with me saying that the only reason marriage developed was so straights could have something to lord over the gays. Onward to the glorious future!
Tragic Christian (229525) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:20 pmComment by A.S. (23bc66) — 5/20/2014 @ 3:31 pm
I mean, it can’t be that ALL the judges are liberal appointees or RINOs, can it?
It’s not news when a judge or a court turns down a motion.
Sammy Finkelman (8e96a4) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:22 pmIma go teach some utes about the old days in this country, before Obama and the bigoted homersechsual socialists took over, when people were actually allowed to have different opinions on things. They’ll probably think I’m telling another tall tale.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:26 pmelissa @19, there is a maritime tradition of the Captain going down with the ship. At the very least being the last one to abandon the ship (which is why the skippers of the Costa Concordia and the Korean ferry were so widely reviled).
Maybe you’re right. Maybe it’s hopeless. But if it’s OK with you, I’ll keep trying to right this ship. And rail against fate.
At the very least, if I don’t die in prison or get shot for failing reeducation camp, I want to be able to tell my descendants that I had absolutely nothing to do with the eff’d up world they’re inheriting and I did my best to stop it.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:27 pm“cram it down the people’s throats”
Inevitable.
HRile (2cc14c) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:28 pmWhy can a federal judge strike down a law about same-sex marriage, but not a law forbidding a man from marrying a fifteen year old ?
Why should a man who loves a fifteen year old be discriminated against ?
C’mon, lefties, I just gave you a slow-pitch softball. Now hit that one out of the park !
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:32 pmI’m still trying to figure out why people have such a hard time accepting gay people as equal. That’s what this has been to me. Letting gay people have the same rights as myself, including the right to marry, divorce, file taxes together, and raise a family if they so choose. I’ve known several gay couples who have adopted and raised children, and they are wonderful people. I know a woman who has had several children before she found the courage to come out, and she is still a wonderful mother. I see lots of people saying “think of the children”, but it sounds hollow to me. There will always be bad parents and good parents, and sexual orientation doesn’t have an affect on which one of those you are going to be. It all comes off to me that a good chunk of people who are against gay marriage are doing it because they don’t want to offend God (opening a whole nother can of worms here, but taking away rights from people who exist, in order to not offend someone who may or may not exist, is crazy in my books), or its just a false attack stemming from hating people they dont understand or are offended by.
Chris (a9e1ad) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:37 pmOf course, Steve57. It’s an admirable tradition.
elissa (83a16a) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:38 pmI support marriage equality, but I absolutely ate this, particularly because about half of these cases involve the state defaulting or colluding in having their own laws voided.
When this gets to the Supreme Court, I hope that the Justices have the stones to declare that the 14th Amendment does not operate here, and overturn all this nonsense. They blew it last time (and made things worse by allowing states to default). If possible, I’d like Scalia to write the opinion.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:45 pm*
Kevin M (b357ee) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:45 pmatehateWell, if judicial activism is permitted by the other two branches of government and the populace in general, who then can claim surprise when the judiciary actually uses it? You know as well as I that the Republicans owned the presidency and the Congress for six years and were any restraints on judicial activism even considered, let alone brought to committee?
The real question at issue is why does the Right permit this travesty to go on? I would have thought the you’d have had enough of it based upon the continued howling — but little else — re: Roe v Wade, but apparently this would be an erroneous viewpoint. If arguably the most inept and obvious politically motivated judicial decision in American history can’t get the “conservative” base mobilized for over forty freaking years, then why on Earth does anyone on the Right bother to complain about anti-gay marriage statutes being struck down? You know what the morality behind it all is, but apparently it’s not sufficient to stand up for yourselves. So be good little proles and sit impotently in the corner while your political betters improve this country. They stand up for their morality.
J.P. (bd0246) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:45 pmThe effect on human psychology will be fascinating to behold as this society becomes increasingly dumbed down. What shocked the average person 60 years ago, was alarming 40 years ago. What was alarming 40 years ago was disconcerting 25 years ago. And what was disconcerting 25 years ago is merely amusing in 2014.
We live in the age of Bill “office-intern” Clinton and Barack “Bisexual” Obama.
There was a case a few years ago of state government officials in Utah trying to crack down on a family of polygamists. One of the townspeople, when questioned about it by a news reporter, scoffed at the effort. She said that when 2 people of the same sex were being legally recognized by growing portions of the government throughout the country, what the heck was all the commotion about a marriage involving more than 2 people?
Exactly.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:51 pmChris,
What you are seeing here is a repeat of the strategic mistake of Roe v Wade. By cramming this through the courts, rather than let people come to the decision on their own, even supporters like me are alienated. People are not inclined to accept a change made in this way. And generally never will. Being told “BECAUSE!” as a reason just makes it impossible to progress.
With Roe and abortion, we are 40 years on and there is still no acceptance in sight. Is that really what most gay folk want? Asterisk weddings that might be declared invalid if the courts change?
This is, of course, what Democrat politicians want, as it gives them captive voters, but that’s a good reason not to do this.
Again, a strategic mistake. This should be done at the ballot box. Losing an election is something people can accept. Being told by their “betters” isn’t.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:53 pmLetting gay people have the same rights as myself, including the right to marry, divorce, file taxes together, and raise a family if they so choose.
And keep in mind that history has, if anything, treated multi-partner marriages — meaning a male having more than one wife — as part of ancient tradition and even perceived by some cultures as a conservative concept. In a way it is, since such relationships mirror fundamental human nature, or the human nature of a far larger percent of the population (ie, of the tendency of males to be non-monogamous), than does same-sex behavior.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:57 pmComment by Chris (a9e1ad) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:37 pm
Chris, there are plenty of us who comment on this site (including me) who personally support civil recognition of gay marriage (though some of us do not like to use the word “marriage”) and who vote in favor of it when presented with the issue. That does not mean that we think it is good policy or good politics for judges to swoop in and decide to create a “right” out of whole cloth, especially in locations where a majority of the people may still be waiting to climb aboard the gay marriage bandwagon. You may disagree, but many of us supporters of civil gay marriage do not think that the end justifies the means.
There will always be bad parents and good parents, and sexual orientation doesn’t have an affect on which one of those you are going to be.
That may or may not be true, but we are unlikely to know because the left has managed to politicize that entire line of inquiry and to vehemently attack and seek to suppress any studies that might conclude otherwise. The Mark Regnerus case is a great example.
JVW (feb406) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:58 pmChris – your premise is so flawed that one need not read past your first erroneous/objectively dishonest statement.
JD (e5a0fa) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:58 pmChris #28,
Not accepting same-sex marriage is most definitely not the same as “not accepting gay people as equal,” as you opined.
Same-sex marriage never previously existed, so it is not a “right” that was “being taken away.”
It is merely a license extended by the state.
Also, technically, gay people have not actually been prohibited from marrying, rather, two people of the same sex have been prohibited from marrying each other. And no, that is not a game of semantics.
Rock Hudson married a woman, so did Robert Reed. They were not legally prohibited from doing so due to their orientation.
On the other hand, Warren Beatty and Robert Reford would be probhibited from marrying each other—and they’re each straight.
So, the probibition is not against gay people per se, it is against two people of the same sex marrying one another.
The way the laws have been written, two people of opposite sex may marry, but even they have legal stipulations put upon them…they cannot be close blood relatives, they cannot be under a certain age, the marriage must be exclusive to only those two people—no polygamy, etc.
If a state cannot say that marriage can only be between two opposite-sex people, then how can they probhit polygamy, or marriage between a man and a fifteen year old, or between two close blood relatives ? Either the state has the jurisdiction to regulate marriage, or it doesn’t.
If a state wishes to sanction same-sex marriage, they may do so through the legislative process.
But judges may not strike down laws just because they don’t like them.
In many ways, I’m quite sympathetic to same-sex marriage if a state chooses to sanction it through the legislative process. But it must be done legally and above board—not in an Obama Fiat Coup Tyrannical Alinskyite fashion.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:00 pmIf you don’t agree, you must hate, and hatred is to be punished.
JD (e5a0fa) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:02 pmTypical bs. I don’t care if gays marry. I don’t want them to sue my church for refusing to marry them(and they will), and I don’t want them teaching my children that being a homosexual is normal. I couldn’t care less what they do in their bedrooms, as a matter of fact, I don’t want to know or hear about it.
Believe as you like, teach your children as you wish, but leave me, my children and my faith alone. thnxkbye!
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:04 pmThis never was about equality under the law, as evidenced by the leftists rejection of civil unions conferring the same legal rights. They wanted the word marriage. And forced acceptance.
JD (e5a0fa) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:06 pmI predict that gays will start suing churches within five years.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:09 pmIt was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:12 pmI’ve said this before. It is never about equality, it is all about revenge.
Gazzer (554004) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:12 pmIt was nice of Chris to so predictably vomit out that nonsense. It is helpful when they lay their agenda out so clearly.
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:13 pmHadoop,
Gazzer (554004) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:14 pmThe future is here already.
http://www.charismanews.com/world/40685-millionaire-gay-couple-sues-to-force-church-wedding
This was read into the Congressional record:
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
From “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:14 pmI predict that gays will start suing churches within five years.
I am willing to bet it happens this year. Anyone want to take that bet? Even odds.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:19 pmEngland’s already lost. Can’t wait for the muzzies and gays fight it out there.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:20 pmAnd while I was reading comments…. #46.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:21 pmThanks to everyone who replied to my comment with something constructive. JD, lost all respect I have for you. Just because my own view is flawed and biased doesn’t mean it is without value, and your non answer is garbage.
I can understand the people who are commenting on their problem with the judicial branch strong arming this into effect.
Elephant Stone; I can agree with your statements that in a very literal reading, they aren’t taking away marriage as a right. I just don’t agree that it shouldn’t be considered discrimination. The only point you raised when it comes to marriage restriction that I think can be valid is that of polygamy.
I should have been clearer, I wasn’t commenting on the people who are arguing against the method used, but a lot of the comments at the top that are saying that marriage is a means of protecting the children and mothers. That concept still holds truth in the definition of marriage, but it is time to update that definition.
Chris (985ef1) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:22 pmOf course in the UK there is no 1st Amendment, and there is quite a bit of connection between church and state.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:24 pmIt is sad that you can’t see past your hatred and bigotry, Chris. I feel no need to give an validity to your dishonest assertions.
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:25 pmElephant stone:
Regarding polygamy, I meant to expand. I meant that a lot of the other restrictions on marriage don’t normally apply to 99.9% of gay couples, ie blood relations, minors. I said polygamy mirrors it because it is something that a lot of people disagree with, and that’s why it is restricted.
Chris (985ef1) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:25 pmWhat am I bigoted against JD?
Chris (985ef1) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:25 pmChris, you are committing all sorts of category error. The issue isn’t whether gay people are equal. They absolutely are.
The question is whether all relationships are equal. They are not, of course. No other human relationship is treated like marriage. Because only marriage between a man and woman can produce children. It is only because of this that society imposed legal obligations on the men and women that produced those children. What we know now as marriage.
Again, I’m not making this up. It’s all easily demonstrated by referring to the historical record.
If one is a proponent of SSM then one has to claim that marriage has nothing to do with producing and raising children. And, given our legal framerwork, they have to claim it never did. Otherwise activist jackwagons like Judge Vaughn Walker couldn’t claim they’re not inventing a new right out of thin air. Which of course they are.
The whole point of originally recognizing marriage as a matter of civil law (throughout Europe it was for centuries a matter of ecclesiastical law only until civil governments recognized that they had an interest in enforcing these obligations as well because of, children) was because of the resultant children.
If it wasn’t because of human biology and culture, marriage wouldn’t exist. Because marriage is how society reproduces itself. In all senses of the words. You can produce new tykes without marriage, but marriage has always been how societies cultured those new tykes into society.
You can not do this via immigration. Even gay European politicians such as Pim Fortuyn have been forced to recognize this. You can not import a hostile population and expect to reproduce the society you wish to have.
Nor can you do it via single-motherhood, where essentially it is left to the state to play the role of the father. At which it fails miserably. Leaving young men especially likely to grow up uncivilized as civilized.
I am a huge proponent of Western Civilization. Which appropriately enough brings us back full circle since the proponents of gay marriage came up with the idea because they hated Western Civilization. And wanted to destroy it. And saw gay marriage as a means to do so.
I’ve already mentioned one of the key groups. The Marxists of the Frankfurt School who realized that they could never bring about the revolution by emphasizing economics. Because capitalist economics just was too generous to the working class, dammit!
Another group, not entirely distinct from the theorists of the Frankfurt School although they aren’t all aware of it, are feminists. They had to make the counterargument against marriage by claiming that no societal institutions are necessary for having or raising children. Because marriage is patriarchal and oppressive.
Gay marriage was appealing to them precisely because it redefined marriage so it had nothing to do with having and raising children. Thus making all arrangements for having and raising children equally acceptable.
All of it was meant as an assault on Western Civilization. It didn’t really matter if you attacked marriage from the perspective of a Marxist who wanted to redefine it so that it didn’t pass down Bourgeois values, or from a feminist who wanted to attack marriage as an oppressive patriarchal institution that oppresses women. Point being, it needed to be destroyed to the extent that it could no longer perform its civilizing function. And redefining marriage to include gay marriage was the way to go about it.
None of this is a mystery. I realize it’s a lot of trouble to wade through the verbose and pretentious pseudo-intellectual crap these people produced. But produce they did. You couldn’t shut these people up if you tried. So I know the reasons behind this, because it’s not a secret.
So the question, Chris, isn’t why I resist treating gays as equals. It’s why I resent having my intelligence insulted by people like you, who have not a clue.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:27 pmYeah, let’s re-define a 5000 year old institution for a noisy and thuggish 3.4% (according to Gallup) of the populace. In fact, it is probably even less of a percentage as I am sure that many gays do not care about it, one way or the other.
Gazzer (554004) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:27 pmApparently anyone that disagrees with your views. You are willing to claim their views are based on hatred when there are countless reasons that have nothing to do with hatred. You push the same nonsense that Gil did previously. It is a sloppy and childish way of arguing.
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:27 pm“”””””””””Before you have a chance to blink, this will be the whole country. We’ll have none of this acceptance by society nonsense. Just cram it down the people’s throats through phony trumped-up legal doctrine.”””””””””””
Finish the sentence. And we’ll have the thought police out in full force to make sure that tolerance, diversity, and speech codes are fully obeyed and followed, otherwise, someone’s gonna get arrested for a thought crime.
Kenneth Simmons (a10c17) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:29 pmSo now gender is irrelevant, nothing but a social construct. Subject to the whim of the person. Men and women are fungible.
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:29 pmAre you for forcing churches to marry gays? I won’t even ask about teaching children about homosexuality, especially in elementary school.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:29 pmJD @ 60
Gazzer (554004) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:31 pmI think parents in Norway (or was it Sweden) are already bringing up children in a gender-neutral way. It’s Pat!
Recently found out about cissexism. I don’t even know what to think anymore. It’s crazy!
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:33 pmSteve57, I apologize for not being as well read and versed in the subject matter as you are. I’m just a guy who knows lots of great gay people, and I’ve never seen the harm in extending marriage to them. My brother is married to a wonderful man, and so far they haven’t shook my country to its knees (yet). I’m enjoying reading the comments. Lots of great material, but nothing that is going to change my opinion, and that’s fine either way. I didn’t expect to change or be changed.
I apologize if my first post was offensive. Can we just talk about the subject without personal attacks?
Chris (985ef1) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:33 pmHadoop, I am for government officials marrying gays. Churches should be 100% free to choose who they marry. Independent officiators as well.
I am of the opinion that sex education is a means of keeping people safe when they start to have sexual encounters. I think it’s been effective in my life, but gays are left out of the education, and that can really hurt those people.
Chris (985ef1) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:36 pm“I’m still trying to figure out why people have such a hard time accepting gay people as equal.”
Whether or not I approve of gay marriage has nothing to do with whether or not I consider gay people to be my equals. Yet you dishonesty conflate the concepts. Predictably. Aphrael is likely a way better person than me, I consider him to be more than my equal. So, in one quick example, your premise can be shown to be as vapid as it came across. The number of gay people that are my equal, if not greater than I, is a number much larger than I would even suspect. And not one big of that has anything to do with redefining a word, by judicial fiat.
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:37 pmChris,
The issue with polygamy, blood relations, and marrying minors is an issue of legal jurisdiction.
The question is basically, “Does the state have legal jurisdiction to place restrictions on marriage; yes or no ?”
If the answer is “no,” then the state shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against polygamists, blood relatives, or minors,…or against people of the same sex marrying one another.
Laws are much more complicated than just, “I’m for political issue X !” or “I’m for political issue Y !” And there are often consequences and by-products which emanate from laws.
There are so many holes in left wing positions. For decades the Left has said that the state has no business interfering between a patient and her doctor.
Except now that they’re not talking specifically about abortion, they want the state to basically regulate everything about a patient and her doctor. Except when the topic shifts back to abortion, then they want privacy !!!! Or something.
It is all quite Orwellian.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:38 pmCan we just talk about the subject without personal attacks?
That is rich since you led with a dishonest personal attack on anyone that did not share your views.
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:38 pmI apologize for offending you JD. My wording was inelegant and I can see now that it ended the conversation with you before it began.
Chris (985ef1) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:41 pmSo, Chris, why do you think this is a good strategy? Do you think having rights dependent on courts, but unaccepted by the public, are rights you can rely on? Or do you go for the “I want what I want and I want it now!” argument that says the legislative path takes too long?
Even in marriage rights, compare the path taken with interracial marriage, where laws banning it were overturned and/or ignored in most states before the courts took it up. At the end there were only a few states in the South that still would not issue licenses to interracial couples. When the Court ruled in Loving, it was anti-climax. Not one peep since.
Compare that to Roe and tell me what sounds better.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:41 pmWell said Elephant Stone.
Chris (985ef1) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:42 pmChris, I’m fine with talking about this without personal attacks.
But the first personal attack that has to go by the wayside is that I have the position I do because of bigotry or some personal animus against gays.
That’s not true.
And it isn’t an attack when I point out that I resent the allegation.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:44 pmdisapproving of stuff like gay marriage is fine (or should be fine anyways) but using the coercive power of a morally bankrupt whorestate like america to force that view on everyone including minorities is not very land of the free
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:44 pmSex education is fine provided that it’s age appropriate and accurate. Do you have children? Some of the material presented is ridiculous and has no business in any classroom. If you want your children taught sexual practices engaged in by homosexuals, you’re more than welcome to advocate for that, but I want to KNOW exactly what my children are being exposed to and the ability to opt out regardless of anyone else’s feelings.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:46 pmI will try harder in the future Steve57. I don’t spend much time debating, and I have been wholly eviscerated by a combination of my poor choice in phrasing and lack of background on the deeper issues that most people are commenting on. That’s not a bad thing, it just means I have a lot to learn before I can stand with the big boys.
Chris (985ef1) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:46 pmthere’s just no compelling reason to have one social conservative republican definition of marriage and then force that down everyone’s throats
it’s not win-win
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:53 pmHave you failed to notice, Mr. feets, that it’s the pro-SSM side using the morally bankrupt whorestate to force their view on the rest of us?
The Prop 8 side, for instance, was the exact opposite. It was a vote of the people.
And the whorestate of America said, no, you’re going to do as we tell you.
The whorestate of America doesn’t lose votes.
Even people I disagree with on the subject of gay marriage recognize this approach as kinda sorta counter productive in terms of swaying public opinion.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:54 pmI don’t want an apology, Chris. I assume you said what you meant, and what you believe. I’ll drop it
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:54 pmBut there is a compelling reason to have a judicially imposed liberal definition of marriage forced down everyone’s throats?
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:57 pmno Mr. 57 if you don’t want to have gay marriagings in your life it is very easy to avoid
you can go all year only having the kinds of marriage you prefer
myself this whole year i had nothing to do with no gay marriagings at all not even for A and… whatever that guy he married’s name was
they broke up two weeks ago after the cheeky strumpet got his green card
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:58 pmHow did the definition of marriage since the beginning of time suddenly become the socially conservative definition of marriage?
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 5:59 pmThe future is here already.
http://www.charismanews.com/world/40685-millionaire-gay-couple-sues-to-force-church-wedding
A variation of that occurred closer to the US several years ago, in Canada, which has been moving socially further left before we were.
A student attending a Catholic school — a private, religious-based entity, mind you — sued the administration for disallowing same-sex couples at a school prom, or an event similar to that. A leftist Canadian judge sided with the student and the school backed down.
I don’t recall all the details, and I think the school may have ended up cancelling the entire event, spoiling things for everyone. But I do know that the administration did not win the lawsuit initiated by the student.
That’s our future, people.
And, yes, Elissa, it’s all due to the idiocy (and phoniness) of compassion for compassion’s sake.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:00 pmbranding, Mr. JD
it was a branding exercise Team R undertook
But I think it was ill-conceived.
The gay marriage ship sailed many many moons ago.
There’s been a paradigm shift.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:03 pmBS, Happyfeet.
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:04 pmwhich part or you mean the whole thing
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:05 pmFor someone that hates that failshlt whorestate, you sure are willing to advance their directives.
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:05 pmI guess you don’t remember those Protein Wisdom days when feets and that crazy nishi talked about it. I think nishi referred to it as our aversion to poo stabbing. Sorry for being crass, but that was how she referred to it.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:07 pmactually the way i see it is more that Team R is advancing the fascist directives by letting social conservatives, who are far and away the most despised demographic in America, appear as if they’re running the show
once the stench of social conservatism gets on something, it’s only a matter of time before everything goes all kattywampus cause whatever side of the boat the social cons are on, everyone wants to be on the other side
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:12 pmnishi!
she’s the cat’s meow
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:14 pmShe posited that the “ick factor”, or as she wrote “poo stab” was the part that most people couldn’t get beyond with respect to gays, which I thought was quite shallow for someone who fancied herself a genius.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:18 pmi don’t remember that I just remember her being lots of fun
she sure did like giving people the business
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:22 pmDo you feel that it’s too much to ask that people respect our faith? Should the church be forced to marry gays? Should people of faith be forced to provide services for gay marriages, such as cakes and photographs?
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:25 pmmister happyfeet,
while it is true that there are plenty of social cons who lack communication, marketing, and self-awareness skillz, the fact remains that the by-product of social liberalism is more state spending and debt as the consequences of all these broken families.
the sexual permissiveness of the 1960s has done irreparable damage to our society, which will continue to reverberate.
ironically or not, all those permissive types who were crying for “freedom from the church and the state !!!!11!!” in the 1960s, are now crying for “more state spending !!!!11!” as a remedy to those problems that the exercises of “freedom !!!!!1!” created.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:27 pm82. Anybody who thinks that compassion and phony bleeding heart liberalism are synonymous is so off the rails that it does not even deserve further comment. Go ahead and be a jerk if it makes you happy. The Canadian example you describe is not an example of “compassion”. Not even close. If, in fact the school backed down under duress and/or eventually cancelled prom because of the judge’s ruling it was not “compassion”. Compassion is voluntary. Compassion is when a lonely kid with a cleft palate is warmly included at the school lunch table, or when someone notices that an elderly neighbor’s dog has died, that she is bereft, and could use a hug. You’d do well to spend some time with a dictionary, Mark.
elissa (83a16a) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:29 pmchurches can’t be forced to marry people that’s a shibboleth I think
the whole cake thing – y’all are just going to have to work that out
it’s not my problem
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:32 pmyou’re bang on about the social liberalism Mr. Stone
but the idea that the alternative to social liberalism is social conservatism
I don’t buy that
and increasingly nobody else does either
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:33 pmwhich I thought was quite shallow for someone who fancied herself a genius.
Actually, she apparently was putting things in very blunt, candid, honest terms. To me “shallow” would have been someone expressing disdain for male homosexuality because “gays all speak with a lisp” or “they’re all interior decorators.” The high rate of STDs in the gay community — with reports of a re-emergence of major infections from syphilis spreading throughout that crowd in the news recently — makes the specifics of what the “ick factor” is all about anything but trivial or irrelevant.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:33 pmElizabeth ‘Fake Indian’ Warren was on Stephen Colber(t)’s show talking about how Reagan is the great satan who is to blame for current economic conditions.
Oy vey.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:34 pmSomeone pass me the wine. The entire bottle.
american senators are such unbelievably stupid whores I can’t even stand it
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:36 pmSomeone upthread linked to an article about a gay couple suing the church in England. I think you’re being a bit naive to believe it won’t happen here.
When they came for the baker, I did not object, because I was not a baker…
I believe you know the rest.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:37 pm“This never was about equality under the law, as evidenced by the leftists rejection of civil unions conferring the same legal rights. They wanted the word marriage. And forced acceptance.”
‘Separate but equal’ wasn’t ever going to work.
HRile (2cc14c) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:38 pmthey don’t got them no constitution in England Mr. Hadoop
even the pervert Roberts court couldn’t get confuzzled about freedom of religion on such a basic level
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:40 pmThe Canadian example you describe is not an example of “compassion”. Not even close. If, in fact the school backed down under duress and/or eventually cancelled prom because of the judge’s ruling it was not “compassion”
You actually think the story of the Canadian Catholic school and the idiotic judge who ruled against them somehow illustrates the looniness of compassion for compassion’s sake not because of the cheap, lazy sentiments (ie, the bleeding heart) of the judge but because of the response of the school? Huh?
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:40 pmDunno. Seems to be working out for Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the hundreds of university chapters of the Muslim Student Association. Who increasingly demand “separate but equal” facilities so they don’t have to do things such as dine with the filthy kuffar, or boys and girls can be segregated.
But that’s a different discussion for a different time.
Perhaps Pat will provide the opportunity.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:44 pmAnd judicial fiat is what will be exploited in the Constitution, as several people have pointed out in their comments. That is why the word “marriage” is important—it’s used as a legal term.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:47 pmYou totally and completely misrepresent and choose to misunderstand my comment, Mark. Typical.
elissa (83a16a) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:47 pmNever underestimate the spinelessness of university administrations. With sufficient pressure, usually it doesn’t take much, they’ll abandon even what most leftists might once have considered bedrock principles. Such as “separate but equal.”
And as academia goes, so goes the legal profession. As we are finding out.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:47 pmwe’ll see but I bet you all my pokemon cards that the pervert Roberts court never makes a single church marry a single gay couple
i suppose if you got a few more of them butt-ugly fascist womens in the mix all bets would be off
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:50 pmJust like the muzzie cab drivers refusing to service people with alcohol, or blind people who use service dogs.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:52 pmMy prediction of within the next five years stands. If Roberts can find 404Care constitutional, forcing people to buy a product, he’ll have no trouble finding some legalese to force churches to marry gays.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:57 pmthe NSA blackmailed Chief Justice Roberts is my understanding Mr. Hadoop, and that’s why he wrote that zany obamacare opinion
it was on Drudge
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 6:59 pm“I’m still trying to figure out why people have such a hard time accepting gay people as equal. ”
I’m having a hard time figuring out who are these people that don’t have gay friends and family and aren’t happy they can now get married and make their families.
HRile (2cc14c) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:04 pmYou totally and completely misrepresent and choose to misunderstand my comment, Mark.
No, I’m not, Elissa. Not when you frame or define things in an absurdly narrow way, meaning when you say that “compassion is voluntary.” So who says so?
How about a person oozing with so much compassion that he — voluntarily — applies it and mis-applies it over and over again, to any number of situations, scenarios and people? For example, a judge chock full of compassion towards — yes, bleeding his heart over — the agonizing, grueling plight of a teenage boy (not even a totally mature adult, btw) who wants to go to the school prom with another guy.
BTW, would that same judge have hauled out the cheapness of compassion for compassion’s sake if a student complained about being disallowed from bringing 2 girls to the prom — one on either arm — in preparation for his future as a polygamist?
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:09 pmYou’re not doing a very good job defending the freedoms of avoiding the gay marriagings, Mr. feets.
You’re wrong about me being able to ” go all year only having the kinds of marriage you prefer.”
Not if my restaurant caters events. If my restaurant offers catering, I’m a “public accommodation.” So I don’t get to choose. According to the Obama administration I lose the right to my own conscience by engaging in economic activity.
Try making ends meet without engaging in economic activity. You could live like a mountain man type hermit, but that’s illegal, too.
As is, as of now, me not attending a gay marriage. Which implies my approval.
And by the same token churches that have reception halls or whatnot will have to offer them to the gay marriagings. Because they are a “public accommodation,” too. Which implies their approval.
How long are you going to deny the nature of the fascisti you’ve decided to side with, Mr. feets, and claim that what they obviously intend to do can’t be done?
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:10 pmDo you want churches forced to marry gays, e.g., lose their tax exempt status?
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:10 pmDisclaimer: I did not read all 100+ comments, so I do not know if any of the comments I provide are old news or what.
Marriage has been performed by both religious persons, and by civil folk (judges, court clerks, etc) since forever. Granted it has been between man & woman. So marriage is not exclusively a religious event, and certainly not a Christian one.
Both styles of marriage are recognized by the government for things like taxes, probate, property ownership, medical decisions, etc.
Some here have not been paying attention if they think that marriage is required to procreate the species. In some segments of society here in the good ol’ US of A, well north of 50% of the procreations occur sans nuptials. Yes kids from stable marriages tend to do better, but it is not universal, and marriage is not a permanent condition.
How long does a couple have to produce a child after the ceremony takes place, since procreation is why there is marriage? Will the marriage become null and void if a child is not produced within the time limit.
If two people are in love and want to spend their lives together, good for them. I know many gay couples who are a lot more committed to their union that some of the hetero couples I know.
Fight your battle over whether your church wants to recognize the marriage if you will, but to deny a couple the benefits set by civil law because of the gender of one or the other half of the couple is not right.
Gramps, the original (4615a6) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:12 pmToo late, the Liberace’s out of teh bottle.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:14 pmBingo!
It’s one thing to insist on your right to sit at the front of the bus.
It’s entirely another thing to demand your own bus.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:14 pm“Do you want churches forced to marry gays, e.g., lose their tax exempt status?”
Is that really what the problem is? Seems like a simple solution.
HRile (2cc14c) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:15 pmThen let’s hear your solution?
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:16 pmi find that idea very muddled and conzuzzled – that making tasty foozle for a gay wedding means you approve of gay marriage
that’s like saying because I pay taxes to the failmerican whorestate that I approve of this nazi-like government’s sad, pitiful, inept, fascist flounderings or that just cause I spend money for enjoy a tasty chicken sammich from chic-fil-a that I hate gay people
But just in case I would like to state for the record that I do not approve of the risibly fascist morally bankrupt failmerican government and also that I do not hate gay people.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:18 pmComment by Chris (a9e1ad) — 5/20/2014 @ 4:37 pm
Many people have already posted some of what I would have to say, including:
– thinking that “marriage” is a relationship between one man and one woman does not mean I do not like gay people, etc., I have not only known, but treated as patients and kept alive many folk who are gay
– it is not so much that I object to a SS couple having some kind of legal recognition, if that is what they want, it is I object to being told what I need to not only allow, but approve of, as I said previously
– I think you greatly underestimate the connection between allowing SSM and polygamy, whether on purpose knowingly or by not having thought it through, I don’t know
The issue is, does marriage have a definition or not, and what determines it. The main argument for SSM is that people should not be discriminated against (by not being able to “marry” [each other] as defined by the government) because of who they prefer as a sexual partner. The claim is that the definition of marriage is malleable, not even by a decision of the majority but by judicial fiat of a very few (often biased with personal interest at stake). There is no logical reason to say that SSM is OK but polygamy is not. If you argue that SSM is still just 2 people, just like “traditional” marriage, you are making an arbitrary distinction. If you have already decided that the definition of marriage can be changed because of people’s personal preference about sexuality, then there is little reason to say some people are allowed to have their preference but not others (at least for legal adults).
Ideas have consequences, it is good to think them through.
If you think, “But we aren’t going to legalize polygamy because not enough people support it”, you are revealing it is not a matter of principle, just a matter of the whim of the moment.
people who are against gay marriage are doing it because they don’t want to offend God (opening a whole nother can of worms here, but taking away rights from people who exist, in order to not offend someone who may or may not exist, is crazy in my books),
Two things- First, “not wanting to offend God” classically goes along with the idea that what God wants for people is actually for our good, not to simply be a spoil-sport. Take it as more offensive if you wish, but I don’t think same sex attraction is analogous to and “as normal as” heterosexual attraction. Since I see it as a “problem”, in some ways akin to many other “problems” that we may have, you need to excuse my not celebrating it.
In one way the Apostle Paul agrees with you. He says that not only if there is no God, but even if there is a God but no resurrection, then “let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die”. Party On!!!
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:18 pmBut some times we decide to think about the most important issues in life, and whether or not there is a God, what happens after death, what is one’s purpose in life are right there. Of course, we seem to practice hard at ignoring those questions.
for *to* enjoy a tasty chicken sammich is what that should say
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:19 pmbut to deny a couple the benefits set by civil law because of the gender of one or the other half of the couple is not right.
And to deny a trio or quartet — or a quintet, a sextet, a septet, an octet — the benefits set by civil laws because of the number of people involved (generally a case of two or more women hitched to one guy) is not right too. And since male nature is intrinsically non-monogamous, a multi-partner relationship is no less innate and natural than two people of the same sex having the hots for each other.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:22 pm“Then let’s hear your solution?”
Uh. Don’t force churches?
HRile (2cc14c) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:23 pmI’m equally confuzzled that muzzies get to pick and choose whom they can provide services for based on their religious beliefs, yet Christians can’t. I’m surprised that you didn’t include your approval of tasty wedding cakes in your last sentence. That was very unhappyfeet of you.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:24 pmand also that I do not hate gay people.
Yet, happyfeet, you have time and time again used the word “gay” in a pejorative way. IOW, you know damn well that deep down you too instinctively cringe at and mock the characteristics of “gay.”
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:26 pmfor where two or three gather and a tasty cake is present, there am I with them Mr. Hadoop
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:28 pmGood answer! But, as I predicted upthread, gays will sue, and it will hinge on the word “marry”, which directly conflicts with your separate but equal comment.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:29 pmi can’t stay and chitter chatter Mr. Mark last night was the finale of RuPaul’s Drag Race and I can’t wait to find out who America’s newest drag superstar is!
I was on Team Adore but word is she didn’t win
🙁
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:29 pmIn feets defense, I’ve only seen him use it in a pejorative way when referring to Lindsey Graham, which in that case alone, I approve.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:32 pmI’m equally confuzzled that muzzies get to pick and choose whom they can provide services for
The odd bedfellows that are the reactionaries of the Islamic community and the leftists of the Western World make for the ultimate example of looniness on parade.
For instance, the liberals at Brandeis University recently excoriating an Islamic woman for writing a book criticizing the extremist fundamentalism of Islamism and wanting her therefore banned from being their school’s commencement speaker verifies the theory that liberalism is a mental illness.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:32 pm“HRile” said,”‘Separate but equal’ wasn’t ever going to work.”
They aren’t equal. Unless you think men and women are interchangeable.
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:33 pmI don’t think you’re following what I was arguing against: civil unions.
HRile (2cc14c) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:35 pmI understood it quite well.
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:36 pmThat was disgusting! I would have loved to be in the room that they were discussing(if that’s what you can call it) her disinvitation. Nothing like an illiberal liberal.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:36 pmThen I’m afraid I’m the one who doesn’t understand your point.
HRile (2cc14c) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:36 pmThey are separate. They are not the same.
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:38 pmComment by JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:33 pm
Some people do think that JD, and think people should be able to use whichever bathroom or locker room they identify with, starting in elementary school.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:39 pmTragically mislead “compassion”.
Then fine. Separate and unequal unions for gays definitely won’t work either.
HRile (2cc14c) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:39 pmMaybe I misunderstood your separate but equal thing.
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:41 pmI never suggested that. But simply declaring them the same is yet another Orwellian bastardization of language. There were elegantly simple ways to apply all the leg rights they proclaimed to want without redefining a word to mean something it has never meant.
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:42 pmBuncha christofascist godbothering h8rs. There’s no room in America for u.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:43 pmUhh, no. It is not that procreation can not exist outside of marriage. It is that procreation outside of marriage is harmful to mainting a civilized society.
It is precisely because of this fact that I and the feminists who pushed for the idea of gay marriage in the first place are in complete agreement. And the Marxists. It’s just that they thought that working inside the system to destroy the system was a good thing. And I thought it was a bad thing.
We didn’t disagree on the fact that promoting gay marriage would help undermine the system.
I don’t. I don’t know of any. But that’s neither here nor there. I’ve driven through Idaho and Colorado several times and never seen an elk. That doesn’t mean there are no elk in Idaho or Colorado.
The issue is whether there is a conceivable state interest in validating their relationships. There is none. Because that was never the point of the government recognizing heterosexual marriage (note: not creating since the government had no role in creating marriage but merely recognized society’s interest in defining marriage; marriage had been defined by society before government took a role).
Sorry, Gramps, I don’t take bad advice. Do me a favor, if you will. Learn me of a country in Europe that has legalized gay marriage where more than 25% of the gay population has married. I’m not aware of one. I’m not even aware of any country in Europe where even 10% of the gay population has been married. Because it’s not a gay issue. Never was.
But since marriage no longer has to do with procreation, there has been a severe decline of straights who decide to get married.
Who in their right mind would want to involve the government if the only issue at hand was who loved whom? Answer, increasingly, is no one. Which is the point of promoting gay marriage.
That this is harmful to kids has been counterweighted by the liberal idea we don’t need to have kids, anyway.
No doubt the idea is racist.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:43 pmWe needed some levity, daleyrocks!:)
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:44 pm“There were elegantly simple ways to apply all the leg rights they proclaimed to want without redefining a word to mean something it has never meant.”
And my point is simply that this “separate but equal” system wasn’t going to work.
HRile (2cc14c) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:46 pmWhen you say, “it won’t work”, what exactly are you referring to? If it functions in all the same ways legally, why is that a problem?
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:49 pmFlogging the point-
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:50 pmtwo people of different sexes is not equal to two people of the same sex
unless you say it is
but saying it is doesn’t make it so
Same reason it failed last time. You’re still going to see discrimination against gay people.
HRile (2cc14c) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:52 pmIn what way? Please be specific. If the only difference being the terms used, how would that allow for legal discrimination.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:55 pmSome of the impetus behind same-sex marriage is mirrored in the phenomenon of so-called grade inflation in schools, particularly public schools. That’s where administrators have deemed that in order to not hurt little Johnny’s and little Susie’s feelings, they shouldn’t be given grades less than a C or B.
So eventually everyone has a 3.0 GPA, and the truly gifted kids no longer feel quite so talented, and, in turn, the slackards feel more self-entitled than ever before.
Some of the cheapening of the institution of marriage admittedly was triggered starting a few decades ago, when traditional couples began divorcing at the drop of a hat. But with the growing emergence of same-sex couples — and human nature being what it is — the phenomenon of “grade inflation” will impact another part of modern culture. Therefore, marriage will be no less subtly cheapened (or further cheapened) than what has happened to the original meaning of a 3.0 GPA.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:57 pmOh even calling it marriage you’re going to have discrimination. Making their special second class separate thing is a part of that.
HRile (2cc14c) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:57 pm“You’re still going to see discrimination against gay people.”
HRile – What form of discrimination? A word?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:57 pmnishi was just a bat guano cray cray griefer. She didn’t have the guts to off her vegetable drooling daddy.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/20/2014 @ 7:59 pmGive me an example of what you’re referring to.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:00 pmWot?
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:02 pmThey are simply not the same. It is not discriminatory in any way,shape, or fashion to acknowledge that.
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:03 pm“but taking away rights from people who exist, in order to not offend someone”
Forgive me, Chris, for parsing your sentence, but I wanted to affirm the nugget of truth you have expressed with those words.
It is crazy to take away rights in order to not offend someone. Taking away the right of a baker to refuse service based on religious grounds (freedom of religion) so that SSM proponents won’t be offended, is exactly what has happened.
felipe (098e97) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:03 pmLet me try to simplify things.
I have never refused to serve sushi to gay people. I don’t cater. Take out is an option. I have no idea whether the people picking up a take-out order belong to the Klan or NAMBLA. We don’t interrogate people as to why they want the tray of Spider Roll and Rainbow Rolls.
But if they want to use the party room for the victory party, that to me is a whole different deal. Or if they want me to show up at whatever else place they’ve rented.
I’d really rather not, Mr. feets. Is that so hard to understand?
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:04 pm“Give me an example of what you’re referring to.”
I’m having a hard time thinking you’re understanding me because you’re asking me for an example of gay people being discriminated against.
HRile (2cc14c) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:06 pmWe just take people’s orders and run their credit cards. We don’t police their thoughts, Mr. feets.
I’d appreciate the same courtesy.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:09 pmShockingly, HRile is also cbuund, cliven, and about 42 different iterations of imdw.
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:11 pmLet me see if I can be clearer. If the term “civil union” is used instead of “marriage”, and it conveys all the legal aspects, in what way can gays be discriminated. There’s always going to be segments of society that will never accept gays, blacks, Christians, etc. You can’t legislate civility or respect—I guess you can try.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:13 pmIt is pathological.
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:17 pmI’ve already expressed why I thought the word “marriage” or “marry” was necessary for gays. Tell me why I’m wrong. You seem to be avoiding the issue claiming that some unspeakable discriminatory act will be perpetrated on gays if they cannot use the term “marriage”.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:22 pmHadoop – it is a serial vile mendoucheous troll. And it is gone. Until it crawls out again.
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:30 pmIn the beginning He made them; Man and woman He made them. And it is written that a man shall leave his mother and father, and a woman shall leave her mother and father; and they shall join together and become one flesh; and whomsoever God has joined together let no man put asunder.
That is marriage. In its entirety. License and officiation are neither necessary nor sufficient condition. A “common law” union between a man and a woman is a marriage.
When it is not between a man and a woman it is not marriage no matter what the license says or some ceremony says or the parties say. You can call a banana a fish, you can pass a law that says bananas are fish, bananas can call each other fish, and they will still be bananas not fish.
And if only Cubs fans could get a judge or the Illinois legislature to declare them World Series champions. ~_~
nk (dbc370) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:33 pmJD, just so you know, my theory about vile mendoucheous trolls mirrors my attitude towards cockroaches.
Just because you turn on the light and expose them doesn’t meant your job is done.
You showld still stomp on them.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:34 pmshowld = should
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:35 pmI don’t understand why he/she/it refuses to address the “elephant in the room”. There’s only one reason to insist on calling it “marriage”, and it has to do with the legal system—nothing more. It’s just like everything else the left does, and that’s to admit what their real motive is. I was as respectful as I can be, but I’ll not back down against individuals whose agenda directly impacts me and my family’s lives.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:38 pmHadoop – it is off changing IP address, name, etc. it will be back. And it won’t answer you.
JD (e12cf2) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:41 pmA non-answer is just as telling.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:45 pmMy guess is that it will appear in a couple of hours and repeat the same nonsense Chris was spewing about the Right’s hatred. It’s annoying, and completely predictable.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:49 pm“Just cram it down the people’s throats through phony trumped-up legal doctrine. That’s the ticket.”
It worked with obamacare. At this point what difference does it make?
Jim (145e10) — 5/20/2014 @ 9:17 pmThere’s only one reason to insist on calling it “marriage”, and it has to do with the legal system—nothing more.
Comment by Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/20/2014 @ 8:38 pm
I that what you meant to say?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/20/2014 @ 9:41 pmI actually think it has little to do with the legal system. It think it has to do with making a claim to moral equivalency with heterosexuality, and that anyone who thinks that homosexuality is not as normative as heterosexuality is to be marginalized and derided. They can’t make everyone agree with them, but they can try to shut them up.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/20/2014 @ 9:42 pmIIsIt’s called an “admission against interest.” I understand it perfectly, and I daresay you do too.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 10:03 pmHow is that Mr. Feets?
If you say because of the 14th amendment, then explain why we needed the 15th and 19th amendments.
Tanny O'Haley (c0a74e) — 5/20/2014 @ 10:20 pmEverybody knows the Civil War was fought for gay rights.
nk (dbc370) — 5/20/2014 @ 10:28 pmThe first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
The way they’ll get around this is how they’re getting around it now. They change the words from exercise religion to freedom to worship. That is to confine it to a church building and only apply the first amendment to worship not exercise wherever you are. This way they can force churches to marry homosexuals because it isn’t “worship”.
Tanny O'Haley (c0a74e) — 5/20/2014 @ 10:28 pmi just say that cause of how all these judge people keep coming to this conclusion, cause of amendment 14
it must be a very important amendment
which is not to say that numbers 15 and 19 aren’t special in their own way too
happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/20/2014 @ 10:30 pmIf the 15th amendment made everything equal, why did we need the 15th and 19th amendments?
Tanny O'Haley (c0a74e) — 5/20/2014 @ 10:40 pmAnd so it is – we have rule by oligarchy. An unelected guard of law school grown liberal Elites choose to rule us from the shadows with their “evolving view of the Constitution” …. Their view of the living Constitution gives them an anointed right to urinate on our culture and spread their liberalism by fatwa.
Scippio Americanas (2b4575) — 5/20/2014 @ 11:04 pmhow on earth is this “shoving it down people’s throats” ?? who someone else declares as their legal spouse has zero effect on me and my relationship. so now straight people can get married and gay people can get married…and life goes on.
el polacko (ac2dde) — 5/20/2014 @ 11:19 pmWe call our black robed mullahs The Supreme Court. Otherwise we’re not all that different from Iran.
Thanks, liberals!
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 11:22 pmActually no, el polacko. The adversaries of Western
Civilization didn’t work so hard to implement gay marriage if it wouldn’t have a negative impact on marriage in general.
One of the big clues is that academicians can’t, according to the rules of leftist orthodoxy, be allowed to even ask the question.
Try again.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 11:42 pmThe Regnerus study can’t be permitted to be repeated.
It can not be allowed.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 11:44 pmSeriously, el polacko, outside of the greenhouse of a college campus me and and a garden hoe can take you apart, delicate flower.
And there’s lots more like me.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 11:49 pmHonor at Last for Roy P. Benavidez
Somebody tell me how “Tango Mike Mike” as in that “That Means Mexican” as in only extreme courage can salvage the situation is an indicator of a racist culture.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/21/2014 @ 1:13 am” If the term “civil union” is used instead of “marriage”, and it conveys all the legal aspects, in what way can gays be discriminated. ”
They’ll be discriminated against either way. Giving them their segregated thing will just make it easier for the folks doing it.
HRile (2cc14c) — 5/21/2014 @ 3:09 amThen why force a baker to make a cake for your gay wedding when you know they have a religious issue with it? Couldn’t find a baker willing to do it?
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/21/2014 @ 3:54 amIn Defeat: Defiance
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 5/21/2014 @ 5:28 amI think that the folks saying we’ll soon “force churches to marry gays” in response to a British lawsuit are missing the point. The British monarch is head of the church, and they don’t have separation of church and state. Religious schools receive state funding. The archbishop of Canterbury and a couple of other dozen church officials serve in the House of Lords. Suing the official state religion of the UK is nothing like compelling a US church to marry gays in a religious ceremony.
Or “forcing a baker” to make a cake. 🙄
carlitos (e7c734) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:10 amYou do realize that our current unwritten constitution has become an evil thing.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:26 amYou’re a fool, Carlitos, if you don’t realize that even the most absurd of slippery-slope scenarios no longer is all that absurd. The reason is we’re dealing with the volatility of human nature, and it can easily swing in directions that may sound implausible during one moment, but will be anything but that during another one.
For example, back around the time of 9-11, who would have thought that a person enlisted in the US military (and NOT in the ACLU, not the NAACP, not NAMBLA, not NOW) and notorious for spouting off anti-US, pro-Islamic rhetoric to his colleagues (NOT secretly, not in the privacy of his home), would not only not have raised alarm bells in the bureaucracy he was a part of, but instead would have been tolerated until the Fort Hood massacre occurred?
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:31 amslippery slope – ding.
appeal to emotion – ding.
non-sequitur – ding.
Mark – a correspondence course in informal logic would do you wonders.
carlitos (e7c734) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:37 amWhat is the purpose of same-sex “marriage”?
In 2003, the Massachusetts Senate had certified a question to the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court asking if a proposed civil unions bill that EXPLICITLY provides that “eligible same-sex couples the
opportunity to obtain the benefits, protections, rights and
responsibilities afforded to opposite sex couples by the marriage laws of the commonwealth, without entering into a marriage” and that
“spouses in a civil union shall have all the same benefits,
protections, rights and responsibilities under law as are granted to spouses in a marriage”Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 440
Mass. 1201, 802 N.E.2d 565 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. 2004)
Several gay rights groups submitted amici briefs arguing that the
civil unions bill would violate the Massachusetts ERA, on the basis
that civil unions are “separate and unequal” and a form of
“segregation”, GLAD Brief in Opinions, SJC-09163, at 12, because they denied the
“social recognition” that comes with marriage, Id. at 24,they would
“mark [same-sex couples] as inferior to their heterosexual
counterparts and diminish their status in the community” regardless of
whether they provided “the same benefits, protections,rights and
responsibilities under law as are granted to spouses in a marriage”,
Civil Rights Brief in Opinions at 12 , and that civil unions “would
not constitute equality, because their relationships still would not
be recognized by the rest of society as being as valued as heterosexual relationships.” id. at 13
And in Li v. State of Oregon, 338 Or 376, 388, 110 P3d 91 (Or. Sup.
Ct. 2005) plaintiffs had argued that civil unions would be “inherently
stigmatizing” and “inherently separate and unequal” Reply Brief of
Plaintiff-Respondents/Cross-Appellants, Li, at 10.
And in Jackson v. Abercrombie , the plaintiffs are suing because of
the “special status” of marriage, not just
the “bundle of rights” which the civil union law would allow them. See
Complaint in Jackson v. Abercrombie, CV11-009734-ACK-KSC, at 13,
quoting Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 315 at
289, 957 A.2d 407 at 416 (Conn. Sup. Ct. 2008)
The underlying fallacies of these arguments are the assumptions that the social recognition and social value, and social status of marriage
is independent of the male-female dynamic, and that heterosexual
relationships are valued BECAUSE they are called marriages. If this be so, it is not because of anything in the proposed civil unions acts,
but the solely due to the construction buggerist fundamentalists choose to put upon it.
In other words, the purpose of same-sex “marriage” is to make buggerist fundamentalists feel better about themselves.
Michael Ejercito (becea5) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:41 amMark – a correspondence course in informal logic would do you wonders.
And, Carlitos, a correspondence course in understanding basic human nature would do you wonders. You perhaps then would understand why no less than the famous ancient Greek philosopher Plato thought the way he did about homosexuality.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:59 amHomosexuality in ancient Greece was almost entirely pederasty, so that might have informed his views.
You still haven’t addressed a single thing I wrote. Does that not give you pause?
carlitos (e7c734) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:06 amEvery appellate court ruling (except for Diaz v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2011)), to answer the question of whether reserving the status, benefits, or incidents of marriage to opposite-sex couples satisfies rational basis scrutiny under 14th Amendment jurisprudence answered that question in the affirmative. Funny how the Court did not cite, let alone distinguish, this persuasive body of authority.
Michael Ejercito (becea5) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:09 amMark – carlitos may be many things, but a fool, he is not.
JD (675235) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:12 amFunny how the Court did not cite, let alone distinguish, this persuasive body of authority.
Did the State present it to the Court? In both the recent Supreme Court wins, California’s Prop 8 and DOMA, the governments had thrown the case. They were on the side of the gay marrige proponents. A very good reason not to elect homosexuals or homophiles States Attorneys, Attorneys Generals, or Governors, if you don’t want gay marriage.
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:56 amComment by Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/20/2014 @ 3:12 pm
I’m sure Sammy will be along to explain how I’m getting it all wrong, but if I have a choice between Sammy and Lord Blackstone, I’ll go with Blackstone.
Blackstone was writing several hundred years after the government of England began keeping track of marriages, and a few thousand years maybe after marriage ceremonies became pretty universal.
And as he wrote in his commentaries, the only reason marriage existed as a matter of English law (and indeed in all civilized countries) were the circumstances described above….
…societies came up with rules to regulate these procreative relationships because the outlook for women and children wasn’t very bright unless the men stuck around to take care of the families they helped create.
No, that is the reason for bride-prices, and dowries, and pre-nupital agreements. Marriage is necessary in order to define adultery and, where applicable, bigamy, and prevent and reduce male jealousy. Otherwise, you can become like Michael Grimm.
Sammy Finkelman (7e7e58) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:57 amComment by Michael Ejercito (becea5) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:41 am
Thank you for providing legal documentation for my stated opinion that at issue is getting an affirmation that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally normative embedded in US law, and anyone who disagrees is violating the accepted American standard of thought.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/21/2014 @ 10:16 amI hate to say it, but I think the French (and a lot of other countries) have it right (on this issue).
Basically, to obtain legal recognition of a union, it’s done by an agent of the state, not by a religious figure. IOW, marriage ceremonys performed by a priest, pastor, rabbi, etc is NOT a valid legal ceremony, to the extent of granting things like inheritance rights.
A marriage there consists of the couple going to city hall, and swearing to what is, essentially, a civil contract (this is usually done first, but in full regalia (white gown, tux…), and then proceeding to the church for the wedding mass. The second step is optional.
Seems to me that that would get rid of the “separate but (un)equal” objection.
bud (30d398) — 5/21/2014 @ 12:02 pmI don’t know about other countries, but I am familiar with the French thing. It’s relatively new, maybe twenty years. It was (allegedly) intended for gays, but it turned out that men and women were using it more. But France is a whole diffefrent ball of wax from the rest of the world. Its current President and his first wife, also a hotshot politician, lived together “common law” and raised a couple of kids for about twenty years. They considered “marriage” a bourgeois institution. Ditto with his second French First Lady and he’ll likely continue the pattern with the third. The French are, well, French.
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2014 @ 12:16 pmFirst, let me get out my “some of my best friends” card… a couple of months ago, I attended an SS marriage between 2 friends of mine performed by a judge. It’s not that I passively agree with SS weddings, I actively approve.
That said, the judicial activism shown in the Oregon case sticks in my craw.
I grew up in W PA, at the height of the power of the David Lawrence machine. There was/is a term of art that anyone from a machine town will recognize: The fix was in. The merits or demerits of the subject in question were irrelevant – the powers-that-be had decided.
The bad taste in my mouth from the Oregon decision is the exact same flavor as finding out (surprise!) that the Councilman’s brother-in-law just “won” the paving contract.
A Judge who is in an SS relationship doesn’t feel it necessary to recuse himself, a state attorney-general who refuses to follow the law and defend it in court, an Appelate court that can refuse to allow *ANYONE* to defend the present law… the fix was in, and it does as much violence to the concept of law as corrupt contract awards, regardless of the virtue of the case.
This was an IN YO FACE! move by the GLBT community (and I include the judge, AG and the 9th circuit in this) because that if the polls were to be believed, there was an easy initiative win to be had in 6 months.
It’s not going to go well, with the same lingering bitterness as Roe brought to this country, with a lot less (procedural) justification.
bud (30d398) — 5/21/2014 @ 1:54 pmThe tears of bigots sustain me. May you never stop crying.
john not mccain (7ce9f3) — 5/21/2014 @ 3:04 pmPredictable. How droll, troll.
JD (675235) — 5/21/2014 @ 3:09 pm1) churches can’t be forced to perform ss marriages because of the first amendment. If they rent their halls generally to the public they are covered by public accomodations laws. Why is this a problem for people?
2) Gay families have children that they raise. Why is it a problem that these children are given the same legal protections as other children of married straight couples?
3) Straight couples who are infertile get married and in fact have a right to. Why has this never been a problem for the marriage is all about procreation crowd?
4) Judges are required to enforce the 14th Amendment. Why does that, as a concept, bother people?
5) If the Republican governor of a state refuses to appeal, why is that not a pretty good indication of popular opinion on a subject. Should the state waste its money on an appeal?
6) There is no actual rational basis for discriminating against a ss couple getting married though states have tied themselves into logical knots trying.
7) I have yet to meet somebody who is against gay marriage who lifted a finger in favor of civil unions. Notably a lot of states, like Ohio, that legislated against gay marriage also prohibited all manner of legal recognition of gay couples. And people wonder why there is talk of anti-gay bias
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 6:29 pmPyromaniac in a field of strawmen
JD (9f0beb) — 5/21/2014 @ 6:34 pmJD,
Strawmen? Somewhere up in the thread is someone willing to bet in a year that churches will be forced to perform ss marriages. I’d take the bet but I doubt he’d pay off.
Others above claim they are all for civil unions, it’s just marriage that sticks in their throat (why do conservative always worry about things getting jammed down their throat?). I’ve never seen any evidence this is a real politcal phenomenon.
Straw men? Fine, point one out.l
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 6:42 pmDear Northerner #209,
Within the context of the state issuing marriage licenses, do you believe the state should impose restrictions against polygamy, close blood relatives marrying each other, or an adult choosing to marry a 13 year old minor ?
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 5/21/2014 @ 6:43 pmumm, it appeared that SS civil unions had plenty of willingness in most places without the need of any more encouragement,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/21/2014 @ 6:44 pmbut the SS crowd were not satisfied.
Other than that,
What JD said. A series of proclamations, not reasoning.
Comment by Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 6:42 pm
Somewhere up in the thread is someone willing to bet in a year that churches will be forced to perform ss marriages. I’d take the bet but I doubt he’d pay off.
No, not that they’d be forced to perform these marriages. That they would be sued. Not that the lawsuit(s) would be won already. (Kevin M. @48)
Haddop @42 had said they would start suing churches within five years. Kevin M said, no, one year.
Sammy Finkelman (7e7e58) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:03 pmThey also said there was no need for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman, and that DOMA would do the trick, otherwise leave it as a states rights issue.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:12 pmFool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me,
try to fool me for the umpteenth time, sorry, not buying.
ES – sure, because there are rational reasons for the state to prefer couples getting married instead of crowds, and preferring that minors growing up in a family not be potential spouses of the adults in the family and generally to prevent sex between minors and adults. None of which have anything to do with ssm. There are no rational reasons to prevent nonrelated adult couples from getting married.
And, again MD – where have conservatives ever advocated for civil unions in place of ssm? Never. And yet i read often how they really really want equal rights for gays, it’s just marriage that bothers them.
And Sammy, worrying that someone somewhere is going to file a frivolous lawsuit hardly seems a good reason to opposen SSM.
I still wait for one of you guys to present an actual argument why the state should discriminate against gay couples.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:16 pmMD
Who said that terrible thing about not needing a constitutional amendment? Back in 1995? 20 some years ago?
And if there had been a CA, wouldn’t that be a problem now that a majority of the people think SSM is ok? Or do you think it is a good idea to write prejudice into the Constitution for all time?
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:18 pmNortherner, you ignored my point and simply repeated what you said previously.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:26 pmPlease, how about you presenting the argument as to why SSM is an appropriate thing when decided upon by a small minority of people in the US and Western Europe, when the generally accepted state has been marriage is between a man and a woman for thousands of years and billions of people, consistent with either a world view of Biblical Creation (i.e., God made it one man and one woman) or a world view of evolutionary scientism (nothing biologically normative, either in structure or related to survival).
Elephant
Here’s another way of thinking about it if you prefer. Do you think there are good reasons for preventing incestuous marriages or polygamy?
If you do, then why wouldn’t a judge also think these are good reasons if someone ever demanded a right to a polygamous marriage?
On the other hand, if you can’t think of any good reasons to prevent polygamy, why does the prospect bother you?
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:27 pmNortherner, I can’t take you seriously after that comment.
And a majority of people do not think SSM is ok, that is why it has been generally approved by legal rulings over the objections of the populace.
Do you really not know that, or are you willfully being deceitful?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:29 pmYour schtick is tiresome and predictable. I supported civil unions. The host of this site supported SSM to the extent that the people got to make these determinations. Opposing redefining marriage to mean something it has never meant does not equal discrimination, no matter how many times you ASSert that.
JD (9f0beb) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:29 pmLook for a law that treats children born out of wedlock differently from children born in wedlock in the United States. You won’t find a one, going back for decades.
Governors and AGs take an oath to uphold and defend the laws of their states, not just the ones they like. Obama and Holder did too.
Rational basis is met with “the parts don’t fit” and “the State is not obligated to enter into a third-party contract which marriage is unless it wants to”.
The Courts can enforce all the amendments to the Constitution. You get one point on the Constitutional Law test for marking True on the question of whether they can enforce the Fourteenth.
But I like the way you think. I am very angry and upset that Los Angeles enjoyed 70 plus degree weather when Chicago was below zero. And that the Cubs have not won a World Series in the memory of anyone now living. Can you help with a lawsuit for Weather Equality and Baseball Championship Equality that I’m thinking of bringing?
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:32 pmMD,
Because MD you did not actually point out to conservatives advocating for civil unions, your original point.
As for SSM advocates not being satisfied, of course they weren’t. Civil unions, for a variety of reasons, were not actually equal. Not as portable for one thing. Demeaning otherwise.
Now as for your subsequent point. First, it’s not a small minority of people anymore, not in the U.S. anyway and probably not in Europe. If you want to call in religious conservatives from Indonesia and India on your side, go ahead, but it’s not very convincing.
And argument from tradition (thousands of years) is not particularly convincing either. I don’t respect the moral judgment of people thousands of years ago in other areas of life (slavery being only the most notorious example) why should I here?
As for evolutionary scientism (i ‘ve never actually seen that phrase before) I am not sure what you mean by it. Homosexuality is quite common in the animal world and has been common in the human world for thousands of years. It may or may not aid survival, but why would that criterion be the one that makes it morally normative. Are you a social darwinist?
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:32 pmI always thought that “Do not murder” thing was a pretty good idea to start with.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:36 pmI will let others carry on, as they wish.
nk,
And your constitutional basis for claiming a right to good weather is? Where’s the state action?
Also governors and AG’s take an oath to defend both the state and federal constitutions. And most state constitutions also have an equal protection clause.
MD – Gallup currently disagrees. As do the populations of Maryland, Maine and Washington in 2012. And ultimately, are you willing to put your civil rights up to a majority vote?
JD – really? Did you oppose bills that banned civil unions? Did you vote for a civil union bill? Did you support politicians who supported civil unions? I doubt it.
And you are for SSM but only if the people get to decide? I.e. it may be ok for gay people to get married but only if a majority of straight people can be convinced it’s a good idea?
Actually, I doubt that the host of this site would have voted against something like Proposition 8, but perhaps I am being unfair.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:38 pmMD,
That commandment didn’t stop the Israelites from murdering a few people here and there.
Or passing laws requiring the stoning of adulterers.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:39 pm3.4% of the population, if that much, is not normal. It’s margin of error.
In any event, not for Christoph but for the other commenters: I predict that if the issue goes to the Supreme Court under its present makeup on the right, it will be decided under the Tenth Amendment like Warren was. That marriage is in the province of the States. 5-4, Kennedy writing for the majority.
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:43 pmNK
“The parts don’t fit” is your rational basis? So for you marriage is all about the genitals? Why should the state care if the genitals fit in a particular way?
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:45 pm“(why do conservative always worry about things getting jammed down their throat?). I’ve never seen any evidence this is a real politcal phenomenon.”
Northerner – See Obamacare.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:45 pmnk,
About the same percentage as the Jewish population. And yet strangely the 14th Amendment applies to them too.
And in your future court action where does the 14th Amendment end up? And why would Kennedy suddenly decide to forget about it?
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:46 pm“Civil unions, for a variety of reasons, were not actually equal. Not as portable for one thing. Demeaning otherwise.”
Northerner – Are gay marriages portable to states that don’t recognize gay marriage?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:48 pmI don’t give a shlt if you doubt it. I supported civil unions. Your act is stale. Name calling. Strawmen.
JD (9f0beb) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:49 pmPatterico’s positions on SSM are easy for you to find. That you “doubt” it means nothing. Yet another troll that knows better what we believe than we do.
JD (9f0beb) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:51 pm“Homosexuality is quite common in the animal world and has been common in the human world for thousands of years.”
Northerner – Why are you comparing homosexuals to animals? I thought that was frowned upon.
In spite of the existence of homosexuality among humans for thousands of years, why has marriage between homosexuals not been on the legal docket until very recently?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:52 pmdaleyrocks
Delightfully out of context. The part in parentheses is not discussing the part that follows but the part that precedes.
Thus, my point was that conservatives are often worrying about things getting jammed down their throats. And that’s an amusing use of metaphor on their part, particularly around gay marriage.
As for Obamacare, a law passed by a majority of the H or R, a supermajority of the Senate, and signed by a president who campaigned on health care, and was reelected despite having signed, and a law upheld, mostly by the Supreme Court, most of whose members are Republicans. Well I guess if that counts as jammed down your throat then a democratic republic is just not one of your things.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:53 pm““The parts don’t fit” is your rational basis? So for you marriage is all about the genitals?”
Northerner – So is animals have gay sex your rational basis for why we should allow gay marriage?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:54 pmTrolls are precious. And this Yankee thinks it is cool to compare homosexuals to animals.
JD (9f0beb) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:55 pmNorthener–
Yawn. We’ve all been down this same road a million times before with pretty much the same strawmen being posed as pretty much the same non- arguments from other commenters like you, who just “dropped in” to edumacate the unworthy. The only point you’ve missed is the civil rights “argument” that gays being denied “marriage equality” is just exactly like being back in Jim Crow. Did the dog eat that page or were you saving it until later?
You should also probably be made aware that one of the persons you’re “discussing” biology with is a medical doctor who treats AIDs patients, and one of the people you’re “discussing” law with is a high powered attorney. Good luck.
elissa (b8196a) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:56 pmdaleyrocks,
portability? Unknown. The Full faith and credit clause may not work in that instance. It would probably work even worse for civil unions.
Because homosexuals are humans and humans are animals and your earlier point was something about biological norms and moral behavior. But points for cheap rhetoric.
As for the recent appearance on the legal docket, cases have appeared since the 1970’s, which is now some 40 years ago, not so recent. And that they waited until then is due to the fact that it wasn’t until then that it became accepted, by some people at least, that gays were as human as the rest of us and deserving of legal rights.
Now if I understand JD correctly he also believes that gays are deserving of equal rights and thus supports civil unions so you see that point of view has garnered fairly wide support. SSM is simply the logical consequence.
JD – Ah the straw. Now I am really curious. How did you support civil unions? on a comment board? Or in a way that would have actually done any good.
I admit i have no idea what Patterico did. Inform me. Did he support SSM when it was a matter of referendum or vote in some state? When Constitutional amendments were talked about in Congress? That would have been good.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:59 pmI like the “infertile couples” are allowed to marry argument. In my next murder case I’ll argue only one person in 480,000 is murdered these days in the United States. Why do we need murder laws?
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2014 @ 7:59 pmelissa,
And which of the points I made do you disagree with? And which of the points that the high powered lawyer made am I supposed to be disagreeing with?
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:00 pmnk,
And when that person is murdered they get punished. And when the infertile couple, or the couple in prison, or the very old couple want to get married they get married. I don’t see the logic of your analogy.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:01 pmNo interest whatsoever in rehashing it all with you, Northerner. Perhaps others will bite or be amused. Not me.
elissa (b8196a) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:07 pmFirst, polygamy seems like a huge pain in the ass for a man and is sexist in the sense that women are subservient to men and happy to share their life in a competitive marriage where a man calls the shots. Of course, in the reverse situation, you would have a bunch of men who live on a planet with Zsa Zsa Gabor as the queen and the the whole premise is stupid.
It always amuses me when humans say, hey, other species have homosexual relationships.
First, they are not human. I’ve seen cows hump other cows my whole life. However, not one of those cows ever passed a single gene to another cow. Somehow, though, those gay cows produced calves. I think a bull may have been involved at some point.
Second, you see, most animals do things by instinct, hormones or stress. They are capable of doing astounding things that surprise us every day. However, I really doubt that one cow is sitting around thinking: “That other cow over there looks good, so I’ll go hump her.” That’s not how biology works.
Third, yes, higher primates also engage in homosexual activities. I can’t know, because I’m not a bonobo, but they probably do it because it feels good and enhances bonds within the community. The same goes for dolphins and whales. Heck, they may be gay, but Darwinism would insist there is more to it than that from a logical standpoint.
Fourth, humans are distinct from other specie. We have thumbs. We can split an atom. We can make decisions on where we live and provide shelters for ourselves in environments in places that are hostile. We can manipulate the genetics of plants and animals to allow us a lifestyle that is comfortable for animals with big brains. We are not bound by the constricts of other animals.
Finally, humans are not bound by the constrict of reproduction in the sense of other animals. We can live our lives as we choose or by the information our brains provide us.
So, you do know, Northerner, that trying to justify homosexuality because animals do it is a an insult to homosexuals. Homosexuals are not animals. They are humans.
And you are disgusting for your comparison. You are nothing more than the typical liberal who thinks you know everything because some idiot called you smart one time.
What a useless person you are.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:08 pmIt’s within the legitimate police power of the state to endorse the marriage of infertile couples as much as it is within the legitimate police power of the state to punish the murder of one person in 480,000.
It is likewise within the legitimate police power of a state to endorse or not to endorse same sex unions. The reason the Tenth Amendment applies is 1) it has always been the states that have had the marriage power under our federal system of government and 2) that’s what the court said in the Warren (DOMA) case. That second is the more important; the Court is the Constitution.
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:14 pmSupporting a concept is not enough. The degree of support is what matters?
As for the rest, you were the one that proclaimed your doubt. You did so out of ignorance, and seem content to remain ignorant. I have no inclination to do your homework for you.
JD (9f0beb) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:18 pmAg80
Did I justify SSM because animals are gay? Nope. Try reading it again. One of my other critics said that SSM was bad because of biological norms, i.e. against nature. I merely pointed out that that argument was invalid. Nature has no problem with homosexuality.
Now I completely agree that humans are different with a moral compass, etc. which is why they can believe in such things as equal protection of the laws, and fairness even when it does not personally benefit them. I have yet to see an argument though against SSM that actually utilizes some of the higher reasoning and ethics that humans are capable of.
And I am glad we agree polygamy is bad. That’s why I think it won’t happen.
Elissa, I am sorry you are too tired to discuss the matter but I really am interested in what legal argument the high powered lawyer and I disagree about. I am low powered lawyer and I love to know what my betters think.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:19 pmI pity your clients
JD (9f0beb) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:21 pmnk,
Sure states have the power to endorse marriage, under general police powers, and presumably thus the power not to endorse marriage at all. What they don’t have the power to do, under the 14th amendment, is allow marriage for some classes of people and not others without either rational reasons in some instances, or really good reasons in the case of groups of people subject to invidious historical discrimination.
And that’s what the cases turn on. The many district court judges have all noted the implication of the 14th Amendment. If Kennedy
does not that would be strange.
JD – i just think you illustrate my point. Conservative support of civil unions is 1) recent and only as a way of attacking ssm and 2)purely rhetorical, i.e. never used to modify laws such as that in Ohio that ban civil unions.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:23 pmJd – why? what legal argument have I made that you find wanting?
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:23 pmJd,
I am sorry. Are you the high powered attorney elissa told me about? Then of course I defer to your wisdom.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:24 pmHis obsession with gay animal sex reminds me of a previous troll. In fact, he may be that same troll given his style.
We had a back-and-forth that went on way too long. And when I finally provided sufficient evidence from peer reviewed sources to prove he didn’t have a clue he threw a tantrum, said he didn’t care about the evidence, He was right anyway, and left in a huff. (The troll insisted on evidence from peer reviewed sources although, like this one, never could do the same to support his baseless assertions. Another clue.)
Which is why I’m not engaging this one. Like all the other trolls, he’ll just prove that if you are able to ignore enough evidence you can make baseless assertions such as “there is no rational basis to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples only.”
In fact, this troll may even be Judge Vaugh Walker since that’s exactly what he did in his dishonest Prop 8 ruling. He edited out the overwhelming evidence that the prop 8 proponents provided demonstrating that the only state interest in marriage is that children can result from his result in order to claim the unsupportable. That there is no rational basis to define marriage to a man and a woman.
In fact, without the state interest in the procreative capability that only exists in opposite sex relationships, there is no rationale basis for marriage period. As we increasingly see in countries that do change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. It isn’t as if same sex couples are clamoring to get married. In fact I’m not aware of a single country in Europe that has SSM where more than 7% of gay couples get married. They don’t see the point, and neither do opposite sex couples. Since marriage no longer has anything to do with having and raising children, they don’t need the expense and potential legal issues (such as expensive divorces) either.
Nobody bothers.
Anyway, Judge Walker set the benchmark for the sort of dishonesty and willful blindness that someone like this troll has to engage in. like all the others.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:26 pmYou know, in the olden days in Europe they threw pots of dirty water down from the second story onto loud and annoying people in the street below. Sometimes it was the contents of the chamber pot instead of water, though.
elissa (b8196a) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:27 pmI think it’s Christoph. Northener, are you Christoph?
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:30 pmHere’s another way of thinking about it if you prefer. Do you think there are good reasons for preventing incestuous marriages or polygamy?
If you do, then why wouldn’t a judge also think these are good reasons if someone ever demanded a right to a polygamous marriage?
Not exactly sure the point you’re trying to make, but since you are very gushy about SSM, I’m assuming you’re also quite easygoing about the idea of multi-partner marriages. If not, you and your ilk really should be. And that’s not to be glib, sarcastic or to evoke the slippery slope in order to challenge your POV. That’s to take into account the reality of human nature, certainly when boundaries are loosened or flung wide open.
When reading about the type of behavior described below, and to accommodate such people, it really is not any less a case of justifying personal relationships based on the idea that the DNA (or genetics), if you will, behind such relationships is innate—ie, that such behavior is analogous to race or gender, which the left loves to compare homosexuality with. So there’s no reason to scoff at the argument about why a male who has a husband should not also have a wife, or a female who has a wife should not also have a husband, or combinations and multiples thereof.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:37 pmNk – nope.
elissa – your argument style is becoming more peculiar. Do you have a point to make?
Steve57 – The point I made is that the argument that homosexuality is unnatural is invalid. How is that an obsession with animals?
As for the rest of your argument, in the Walker trial, the overwhelming evidence that marriage had only to do with procreation consisted of one or two “experts” simply asserting that. And they could not then explain nonprocreative marriages and why they were sanctioned. Or how the state’s interest in procreation is actually advanced by denying ssm marriage to gay couples.
As for Europe, those who want to get married now can. Those who don’t, don’t. How does that support forbidding those who want to?
The trend towards not getting married preceded the trend to SSM.
And people throughout history have gottent married and not had children or wanted them. How do those marriage suddenly become illegitimate?
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:38 pmNortherner:
You ended a sentence with a preposition.
Regardless, this is what the left always does and it’s really a useless strawman argument which makes me wonder if you are indeed a lawyer.
Marriage actually, once upon a time, had a definition by common law and statutes.
Most people have no problem with same-sex unions and neither do I. Most thinking people, including me, think that those unions should have every right accorded by law to same-sex unions.
But you don’t care about people’s beliefs, doctrines or religions. There is no room for accommodation.
Nope. It had to be called marriage. And so it is. Thanks for the tolerance.
Good luck with the religions that, you know, really, really care.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:38 pmMark,
I oppose polygamy. Why would I like it? First it’s usually associated with misogyny. And even if that were not a real issue there are also significant logistical barriers. How many people would you allow to get married? What then to do in a divorce?
Now if you don’t have problems with polygamy then I don’t see why it would bother you if SSM was some kind of slippery slope to it.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:40 pmAnd I am glad we agree polygamy is bad.
Oh, really? Why? How come? And, yes, we’re dealing with scenarios that involve CONSENTING adults too.
Polygamous behavior actually conforms to human nature — male nature in particular (of biologically programmed non-monogamous activity — and pertains to an even larger percentage of the human race than does homosexuality or bisexuality. Simply put, polygamous-driven behavior is no less innate (ie, it’s no less analogous to race, ethnicity, gender, hair color, eye/nose shapes) than homosexual-driven behavior.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:44 pmAg80
I never really thought that rule made sense. it’s the kind of thing up with which I will not put.
Marriage has had various definitions by statute, and limitations by statute. Amusingly in the 90’s most statutes did not specify gender which is why there was a sudden scramble to write state DOMA’s. But in any case, the fact that marriage had one statutory definition is not an argument against changing the statute.
What is my straw man? I generally dislike strawmen argument so I’d like to know where I strayed.
And gays insist on marriage over civil unions for two reaons 1) practical – marriage is a term that will get more legal recognition elsewhere 2) emotional/constitutional – they are raised in a culture that values marriage, in stories, movies, etc. Being told they do not deserve the term is demeaning, a word often used by Kennedy
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:45 pmMark,
So you do like polygamy. to each their own taste. So why does the prospect of legal polygamous marriage bother you?
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:46 pmA850
And I can’t quite leave one of your points alone. I do care about people’s beliefs. I care that some people believe they want to get married. And I also think that as between the harm they suffer from being forbidden, and the harm other people suffer from living in a world where other loving couples get married, then i find the latter harm less compelling.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:49 pmHow many people would you allow to get married?
Northerner, the laws could easily be modified to allow, say, no more than 5 people at a time. People who belong to swinger clubs, of course, should be given special consideration. For them, perhaps the law could be expanded to allow, say 10 people within a marriage.
But anything beyond 10 people may be stretching things a bit too much. Unless there is at least proper diversity within a marriage. Diversity is important, after all. Perhaps a combination of 5 wives married to each other, who, in turn, are married to 5 husbands who are married to each other would be acceptable.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:51 pmNope, IANAL. And I do not live in OH, so I fail to see why I should have to do something about their laws in order to prove I believe what I believe. Trolls telling me what I believe just never gets old.
JD (e5a0fa) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:54 pmYour strawman is the whole animals thing. It has no validity in human experience.
I have no problem with people getting married regardless of their orientation.
I just don’t understand why you believe the government should have the power to force a definition of marriage regardless of the definitions prescribed by many religious beliefs.
However, your whole argument seems to be that marriage is only valid if condoned by the government.
Is that how you want to live?
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:57 pmFour. One wife is not enough; two will fight with each other; if three, two will gang up on the third; four is the proper balance.
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2014 @ 8:58 pm“Because homosexuals are humans and humans are animals and your earlier point was something about biological norms and moral behavior. But points for cheap rhetoric.”
Northerner – Sorry, but it was your cheap rhetoric I was elaborating on. Bring a better game next time.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:02 pm“portability? Unknown. The Full faith and credit clause may not work in that instance. It would probably work even worse for civil unions.”
Northerer – So basically you trash civil unions as not being good enough because you claim they are not portable but don’t even know if marriage will solve that problem.
Well played.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:05 pmJim Crow Bigots Hohophobes
JD (e5a0fa) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:06 pmAnd since everybody has apparently given up on defending their point of view, I should note one other problem with anti-SSM arguments:
The idea that marriage is for the purpose of protecting/facilitating/incentivizing procreation overlooks the point the gay couples also have children to raise and be protected. I realize that they do not produce these children by genital sex between the two of them, but I don’t understand why that should be an extremely critical issue. Why should the state care how these children appear? Isn’t the state’s real interest in protecting the children and the family by whatever legal methods marriages do?
The best conservatives could come up with in the Walker and other trials was the argument that the state had a greater interest in protecting children by straight couples because they can get produced by accident. It’s the type of argument that sounds like it was made up afterwards, but even so, it still doesn’t make sense. How does forbidding marriage to gay couples provide greater encouragement to straight couples to get married for the sake of the children they accidentally produced? Because now that gay people can get married, marriage has cooties? Marriage would still carry the array of rights and benefits that were supposed to be the incentive for straight people to use it anyway.
So, that’s why I keep claiming I have heard no rational arguments for forbidding ssm. Because I haven’t,(even from famed Princeton professor Robert George, or stellar scientist Regnerus)
A
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:07 pmNo, Ag, his argument is that if States do not call same sex unions marriage, it is demeaning to homosexuals, and it violates the Constitution for States to do things which demean homosexuals.
It’s actually not a bad argument if the Constitution is left out of it. If it is made to the legislatures and/or to the public as a political and societal position.
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:08 pm“As for the recent appearance on the legal docket, cases have appeared since the 1970′s, which is now some 40 years ago, not so recent. And that they waited until then is due to the fact that it wasn’t until then that it became accepted, by some people at least, that gays were as human as the rest of us and deserving of legal rights.”
Northerner – Sorry, but to those of us older than 40 and when used as a frame of reference against your thousands of years 40 years is indeed very recent. I’m sure people over those thousands of years could not have had any rational reasons for denying gays the legal right to marry since animals have gay sex and gays have been around for thousands of years, right?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:10 pmAnd since everybody has apparently given up on defending their point of view
Yes, certainly since your argument against polygamy is no better than the arguments against SSM.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:11 pm“And since everybody has apparently given up on defending their point of view,”
Nobody gave up. Do you ever tire of making shlt up?
Any argument that disagrees with your stated. Jews is by definition, irrational, because you have deemed it so. And it is rich that you are trying to use the corrupt Walker court to confirm your biases.
JD (e5a0fa) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:12 pmSorry for previous comment, my system must have lagged.
Mark, – I think your polygamous system is still unworkable. But if polygamists want to try to come up with workable arrangements, more power to them.
JD. Again my point is that conservative support for civil unions is rhetorical and belated. You have not shown otherwise.
ag80- I don’t see how refuting an argument from nature is a strawman. There was a claim that biological norms were an argument against homosexuality. I suggested that was invalid. Where is the straw man in that.
And I don’t think the government’s definition of civil marriage should be limited by various people’s religious beliefs. I believe the issue of civil marriage is whether it is rationally related to reasonable government aims and does not discriminate against groups for no good reason. Do you believe the civil definition of marriage should be tied to some religious definitions? (only some, – various churches now endorse SSM)
And yes, civil marriage is only valid if condoned by the government. That is its definition.
Daleyrocks – I still am baffled. How did accusing me of calling gays animals elaborate on my refutation of the argument that gay sex is unnatural or contrary to biological norms? It struck me as just cheap point scoring. Humans are animals. Gays are humans. So are straight people. Is there something in this that I should be denying?
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:16 pmNobody gave up because nobody ever even started. We have seen your act, and rhetoric before. It is tired. Calling people bigots and irrational and staking out your faux moral high ground based on fairness is just tiresome.
JD (e5a0fa) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:16 pmIs he a familiar troll, JD,
narciso (3fec35) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:16 pmI didn’t give up my argument. You are projecting a Western, Judeo-Christian point of view on those pushing back.
Your whole argument is invalid because you assume your audience is stupid and unaware of other cultures and norms.
There are other cultures who would disagree with you based on their socio-normative point of view without any stain from invasive thought.
Why is your invasive thought better than theirs?
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:18 pm“How did accusing me of calling gays animals elaborate on my refutation of the argument that gay sex is unnatural or contrary to biological norms?”
Northerner – Point out where I claimed that it did.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:20 pmnk,
As Kennedy noted in Windsor it is unconstitutional for the state to demean a group of people, i.e. treat them badly for no good reason. He used some precedent from the 70’s for that point, ones that had nothing to do with gays. I think it’s a reasonable point, though a little idiosyncratic to Kennedy. A broader point is that the state should not deny a legal status to a groupn and instead set up a separate but “equal” system without some good reason. And the state did not provide such a reason.
daleyrocks – Hey I am over 40 too! Can’t say I really miss the 60’s though.
Anyway, yes, if the question had been presented for those thousands of years the reasonable answer would have been gay people should be allowed to be married. But I like to think that we can benefit from the lessons of the past and are not stuck with reliving them. And really, if 40 years isn’t long enough to think things over, when will it be?
JD How was Walker corrupt. Because he was gay?
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:23 pm“JD. Again my point is that conservative support for civil unions is rhetorical and belated. You have not shown otherwise.”
Northerner – Your argument has not made your case. Defining support to mean something different than other people mean does not mean you win the argument, but nice try.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:24 pmThe strawman is that people are animals and as such they are the same.
I’m really thinking, at this point, you are not a lawyer. I’m thinking you are some troll trying to elicit some sort of racist or homophobic comment from people you don’t know on a site you where you are unfamiliar.
Thanks for stopping by. Tell David Brock we said hey and go away. You can have a big time at Stormfront.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:27 pm“JD How was Walker corrupt. Because he was gay?”
Good Allah, you are mendoucheous.
JD (e5a0fa) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:27 pmAgain, my apologies for saying you all gave up. My error based on not refreshing.
JD – I don’t think I used the term bigot. But it’s true that I have not seen particularly good arguments, or at least ones that do not seem to me inconsistent. But really I do try to justify my points. Work with me here. What is this strong argument that I am overlooking?
ag80 – I don’t know what you mean by invasive thought. I do understand that other societies have different norms. But I think a norm of this society is equal treatment under the law, and I think denying gay couples civil marriage is a denial of equal treatment.
daley rocks – two quotes
“So, you do know, Northerner, that trying to justify homosexuality because animals do it is a an insult to homosexuals. Homosexuals are not animals. They are humans.”
“Northerner – Sorry, but it was your cheap rhetoric I was elaborating on. Bring a better game next time.”
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:29 pm.
[Maggie Gallagher (guest-blogging), October 17, 2005 at 1:51pm] Trackbacks
The Marriage Debate:
For those who want evidence that procreation is an important public purpose for marriage, A quick sampling:
From U.S. law.
“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.†Baker v. Baker, 13 Cal. 87, 103 (1859). “he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law†is one of the “two principal ends of marriage.†Sharon v. Sharon, 75 Cal. 1 (1888) (quoting Stewart on Marriage and Divorce, sec. 103. “Procreation, if not the sole, is at least an important, reason for the existence of the marriage relation.†Davis v. Davis, 106 A. 644, 645 (N.J. Ch. Div. 1919). “The great end of matrimony is . . . the procreation of a progeny having a legal title to maintenance by the father.†Laudo v. Laudo, 197 N.Y.S. 396, 397 (App. Div. 1919); Poe v. Gerstein, 517 F.2d 787, 796 (5th Cir. 1975) (“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage. . . .â€); Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195 (Wash. App. 1974) (“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.â€); Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (Minn. 1971), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.â€); Heup v. Heup, 172 N.W.2d 334, 336 (Wis. 1969) (“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.â€); Zoglio v. Zoglio, 157 A.2d 627, 628 (D.C. App. 1960) (“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.â€); Frost v. Frost, 181 N.Y.S.2d 562, 563 (Supr. Ct. New York Co. 1958) (discussing “one of the primary purposes of marriage, to wit, the procreation of the human species.â€); Ramon v. Ramon, 34 N.Y.S. 2d 100, 108 (Fam. Ct. Div. Richmond Co. 1942) (“The procreation of off-spring under the natural law being the object of marriage, its permanency is the foundation of the social order.â€); Stegienko v. Stegienko, 295 N.W. 252, 254 (Mich. 1940) (stating that “procreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimonyâ€); Gard v. Gard, 169 N.W. 908, 912 (Mich. 1918) (“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.â€); Lyon v. Barney, 132 Ill. App. 45, 50 (1907) (“[T]he procreating of the human species is regarded, at least theoretically, as the primary purpose of marriage . . .â€); Grover v. Zook, 87 P.638, 639 (Wash. 1906) (“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.â€); Adams v. Howerton, 486 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (C.D. Cal. 1980), aff’d 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982) (observing that a “state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation of the raceâ€);
A New Jersey court waxed lyrical on this point: “Lord Penzance has observed that the procreation of children is one of the ends of marriage. I do not hesitate to say that it is the most important object of matrimony, for without it the human race itself would perish from the earth.†Turney v. Avery, 113 A. 710, 710 (N.J. Ch. 1921)
Some evidence on the anthropological point: “Although the details of getting married – who chooses the mates, what are the ceremonies and exchanges, how old are the parties – vary from group to group, the principle of marriage is everywhere embodied in practice. . . . The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval . . . of a couple’s engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing offspring.†Kingsley Davis (ed.), Contemporary Marriage: Comparative Perspectives on a Changing Institution (New York: Russell Sage Foundation) (1985).
“Marriage is a universal social institution, albeit with myriad variations in social and cultural details. A review of the cross-cultural diversity in marital arrangements reveals certain common themes: some degree of mutual obligation between husband and wife, a right of sexual access (often but not necessarily exclusive), an expectation that the relationships will persist (although not necessarily for a lifetime), some cooperative investment in offspring, and some sort of recognition of the status of the couple’s children. The marital alliance is fundamentally a reproductive alliance.” Margo Wilson & Martin Daly, Marital Cooperation and Conflict, in Evolutionary Psychology, Public Policy and Personal Decisions 197, 203 (Charles Crawford & Catherine Salmon eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. 2004)
Michael Ejercito (becea5) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:34 pmdaleyrocks – where SSM is a hotly contested political issue for the last 15 years i would define “support” of civil unions as something more than comments on a comment board. i would think support that means anything would be some visible sign of conservatives, in political campaigns, advocating for civil unions. The fact that there is little or no evidence of this means I doubt a real strong commitment to equal rights for gay couples, of any form.
But if you think “support” in this context means just verbal support and that that is worth the effort of noting, then you’re right, we just disagree and I will drop the point.
ag80 – I am not sure how the point that people are animals is a strawman. Do you disagree? Fine then we can agree that humans, all of them, are a level higher than animals. Even so, how does that apply to this argument? If not animals, then arguments from nature do not apply and we can talk about the higher principles of ethics that humans should demonstrate. Ethical principles, for example, of fairness.
JD – sorry to hit a sore point about Walker or put words in your mouth. I’ll try again. Why do you say Walker was corrupt, in a way that effects the decision? As I recall the 9th Circuit found nothing to concern them.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:36 pmag80 – I don’t know what you mean by invasive thought. I do understand that other societies have different norms. But I think a norm of this society is equal treatment under the law, and I think denying gay couples civil marriage is a denial of equal treatment.
Oh my goodness, I think I was pretty clear that civil unions are just fine with most people. As an American, I believe all people should be treated equally.
Never mind, you are just a troll. All you are doing is trying to fish for someone who disagrees so you can gain points with your lefty friends.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:37 pmMichael,
I see nothing that contradicts my assertions that 1) protecting procreation is not the only purpose for marriage, or an essential purpose. Regardless of the generalities you have collected, the actual history of marriage shows numerous instances of marriages between couples with no intent of having children, or ability to.
2) gay couples have children. To the extent marriages are for protecting procreation, for those gay couples it serves that purpose. Please point to me among your citations any that clarify why a genital union leading to conception is the important procreational moment for a marriage, as opposed to the long years afterwards of actually raising the child?
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:42 pmag80
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:43 pmif civil unions are just fine with most people than why did most of the referendums of 2004 and other years ban both gay marriage and all forms of legal recognition of gay couples?
“Daleyrocks – I still am baffled.”
All is right with his world.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:44 pmI said the court, and in doing so, was referring to the entire corrupt process, etc … We have covered the issues with this ad nauseum here. You, again, want others to do your homework.
My support for civil unions doesn’t count until I do what, exactly?
JD (e5a0fa) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:45 pmAg80 – you didn’t really support civil unions because states that you don’t live in didn’t support civil unions, and that didn’t make you put on a rainbow paper mâché head and protest. You are clearly a homophobe and a bigot. And irrational.
JD (e5a0fa) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:50 pm“Daleyrocks – I still am baffled.”
Ah. An honest statement from the troll.
JD (e5a0fa) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:51 pmTen years ago? Things change. At some point, people realize you just move on. Isn’t there a Web site for that?
However, there are people who really do not move on. Why don’t you go argue with them?
You can’t and won’t because it’s much easier to argue with people who won’t hunt you down and kill you.
Civilization is a nice thing.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:52 pmMark, – I think your polygamous system is still unworkable. But if polygamists want to try to come up with workable arrangements, more power to them.
But, Northerner, you of all people have to agree that if you’re going to make legal and emotional accommodations for two males getting married or two females getting married, that it’s not such a leap to accommodate the concept of a male having 2 or 3 (or more) wives and, less commonly, a female having 2 or 3 (or more) husbands.
That conclusion is affirmed by the fact that polygamous relationships have been in existence throughout the world way before the idea of same-sex marriage was more than a blip on the radar (a liberal radar, at that). And hardly surprising since the non-monogamous nature of many males makes multi-partner relationships more of a fit to the genetic dynamics of the human species. IOW, Mother Nature wants the male to go forth and spread his seed — ie, genetic programming to encourage the continuation of the species — way more than Mother Nature wants the male to spread his seed with another male, which is pretty much of a biological dead end.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:55 pmI only know what I read in the papers.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:58 pmWindsor. I wrote Warren, sorry. The gist of Windsor was that the federal government could not deny gays a status granted them by their states, while recognizing the same status granted to heterosexuals. If you want to call that 14th Amendment …. I call it Tenth — what the states call marriage overrules Congress.
The other gay Equal Protection case was Roper v. Evans and the gist of that was that if a minority could get a sub-unit of the state to grant it a right, the state as a whole could not take it away. Kind of bizarre, but hey.
The thing is, that the federal courts are not Santa Claus giving gifts to the nice and coal to the naughty. They are part of the federal government of theoretically limited powers. I know that the Warren Court created a “living constitution” but there has to be some original intent DNA there otherwise the whole thing is a sham. Now, was the Civil War fought over gay marriage? Did the Fourteenth Amendment, in 1868, intend to legalize it? No, better, did it intend to take the definition of marriage away from the states?
And that’s where your arguments fail. They’re fine in front of the legislature or at a Constitutional Convention. They are not at all well-founded on the Fourteenth Amendment.
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2014 @ 9:59 pmJD,
I wasn’t aware this site had established that the entire Walker trial was corrupt. My apologies.
Your support of civil unions clearly counts for you. My point is that your support and the support of all the other conservative groups and politicians in the U.S. did not actually make any difference in the real world. But I am happy you support civil unions. I just wish some elected conservative politicians would publicly do the same thing.
ag80 – the referendum were passed 10 years ago. They are still on the books. If there were truly support for civil unions among conservatives then they would agitate to change those laws. They do not so agitate. Thus my doubts as to their good faith on this point.
As for killing me. Kind of harsh. Almost animal like.
Mark,
Rearranging marriage, divorce, and immigaration laws to accommodate arrangement of five or more people would take more work than simply having two men instead of a man and a woman. We have 14 years or so of experience of the latter in various states and countries without issue. But I know of no state with modern divorce laws that tries to deal with property division for a group of 5 people divorcing.
You believe polyamory is natural. Fine. I believe humans need to make better arrangements for themselves than what mother nature would provide.
nk
I agree that the Windsor opinion is confused. Much of the opinion focuses on the states rights issue. But not all of it and not, arguably, the crucial part at the end, where Kennedy focuses on the problem of a state demeaning a portion of its population, citing from Roper, and other earlier caselaw that I forget. And that view building on earlier ideas around the 14th amendment that it forbade caste or class legislation that officialy stamped some groups with inferiority.
And its that latter part that 14 or so federal judges have focused on (as did Scalia in his dissent).
My understanding is that those who wrote the 14th amendment, or the first for that matter, understood they were writing in general terms, with applications they could not always forsee. The guarantee of equal protection under the laws will mean somethinig different in a society that sees women and blacks and gays as fully equal human beings, than in a society that does not. I am not sure that is something that would have shocked the writers of the 14th amendement. I am less sure why that should bother us now.
We have had more than a hundred years of figuring out what equal protection of the laws should mean. SSM seems like a pretty straightforward application.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 10:18 pmIn the living constitution, upheld by the likes of David Barron, his drone memo was perhaps the least toxic thing he’s ever written, carbon can be taxed, but family cannot be affirmed,
narciso (3fec35) — 5/21/2014 @ 10:19 pmBut the resistance you’re mainly seeing here is that we don’t want you telling us we have to say, “Yay, Adam and Steve are married” and God help us if we don’t. That kind of raises our hackles. We know what marriage is, and where we got our definition from is our business. You can redefine for yourself, but not for us.
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2014 @ 10:22 pmCourts can be agregiously wrong on principle and precedent, Kelo, Boumedienne, are just two examples that come to mind,
narciso (3fec35) — 5/21/2014 @ 10:28 pm“So, you do know, Northerner, that trying to justify homosexuality because animals do it is a an insult to homosexuals. Homosexuals are not animals. They are humans.”
“Northerner – Sorry, but it was your cheap rhetoric I was elaborating on. Bring a better game next time.”
.
Northerner – First quote is not mine. The second one is and merely responds to a false accusation of yours. Another fail on your part. As I said, bring a better game.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/21/2014 @ 10:29 pmSaying thing are not the same does not demean them. That is the underlying flaw in your argument. They are, objectively not the same. Unless you see gender as something other than what it is.
JD (9f0beb) — 5/21/2014 @ 10:30 pm“if civil unions are just fine with most people than why did most of the referendums of 2004 and other years ban both gay marriage and all forms of legal recognition of gay couples?”
Northerner – That’s a good straw man right there. Almost Obama-worthy.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/21/2014 @ 10:34 pmRearranging marriage, divorce, and immigaration laws to accommodate arrangement of five or more people would take more work than simply having two men instead of a man and a woman.
So what? If you’re going to argue against the idea of polygamy, you need to come up with something better than that. After all, it can just as easily be claimed that since legal arrangements involving various corporations or living trusts are so complicated and require too much work, they shouldn’t be allowed by the legislature or judiciary.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/21/2014 @ 10:35 pm“Unless you see gender as something other than what it is.”
JD – Gender is just a social construct.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/21/2014 @ 10:35 pmThe whole support of civil unions is a red Herring with this one anyway. He indicated that was not acceptable, and basically an evolutionary step towards the only outcome he would accept, redefinition and co-opting the term marriage by judicial fiat.
JD (e5a0fa) — 5/21/2014 @ 10:40 pmdaleyrocks
you’re right, I got you and ag80 mixed up. Here’s your quote:
“Northerner – Why are you comparing homosexuals to animals? I thought that was frowned upon.”
nk,
It doesn’t really bother me that you guys don’t approve of gays getting married in your hearts or over dinner tables or wherever. It bothers me that there are laws enforced by states that prevent gays from getting married passed by legislatures and referendums.
I am not asking you to attend Steve’s wedding. I am asking you stop voting for politicians who would forbid that wedding, or for referendums doing the same thing.
Jd
If the state, which represents all citizens, sets up systems where some couples are given the exact same legal rights as other couples in a status, but the state demands that status be given a different name, then that looks a little demeaning. (Setting aside again the problems with portability of civil unions).
And it is worse when one name – marriage – has been used for a long time and has substantial cultural meaning and the other “- civil union- is a recent bureaucratic construct with no romance or soul.
Would it bother you if gays could get married but you had to settle for civil unions?
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 10:41 pmThe guarantee of equal protection under the laws will mean somethinig different in a society that sees women and blacks and gays as fully equal human beings, than in a society that does not.
Nobody is equal to another in every way. Nobody is superior to another in every way. But I get your point. Here’s mine. Societal attitudes for purposes of Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection, under a living constitution, should be proven by the actions of the states’ legislatures. Cf. Lawrence (Texas was the only state left that criminalized private, adult, consensual, homosexual sex.) States like Washington and Illinois enacting same sex marriage helps in that goal. Individual federal judges imposing it means nothing.
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2014 @ 10:41 pmI believe humans need to make better arrangements for themselves than what mother nature would provide.
Mother Nature tends to make male homosexuals particularly prone to various STDs, certainly HIV. You therefore should want to discourage the type of behavior that inculcates that, and legalizing same-sex marriage isn’t the best way to go about doing that.
And please don’t bring out the blather that greater acceptance of homosexuality via the legal system will somehow promote greater faithfulness and non-promiscuity. The statistics indicate otherwise.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/21/2014 @ 10:42 pmIt bothers me that there are laws enforced by states that prevent gays from getting married passed by legislatures and referendums.
Why should it? You’re not bothered by laws that forbid a guy from having more than one wife.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/21/2014 @ 10:44 pmWould it bother you if gays could get married but you had to settle for civil unions?
See my Comment 167. https://patterico.com/2014/05/20/another-day-another-federal-judge-strikes-down-another-gay-marriage-ban/comment-page-13/#comment-1621890 😉
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2014 @ 10:46 pmdaleyrocks
A strawman? Am i incorrect in thinking that most of those referendum banned all legal relationships among gay couples? I am familiar mostly with Ohio’s and Kansas. Were they exceptions?
Mark,
I need only a rational reason to oppose polygamy because I do not think there is a good argument that individual humans can be classified as easily polygamous or not, as they can gay or not. There is a stronger historical case of bigotry against gays, as a type of person, then against someone in a polygamous relationship. Now I agree this is not the strongest argument and there are some people in Utah vigorously waving their hands.
But in the end I don’t find the fear that someday they will arrive in court and make a good legal/practical argument in favor of equal treatment for polygamy as a good reason for stopping gay marriage today. On that future day, if polygamy can overcome objections, more power for polygamy. My objections to the practice remain historical and practical.
And I note if you limit it to five, someday some group of six shows up. If a line is eventually going to be drawn somewhere, two looks like a good number.
JD
As re civil unions, and red herrings. My point is a political one. I personally favor SSM. I just find the current conservative support of civil unions disingenuous. At any point in the political past where it might have made a difference, i.e. in harshening some of the state DOMA’s passed, it was not in existence. Four years ago, a push by conservatives for civil unions might have shown an actual interest in the concept. Today, if not in you, at least in others it appears nothing but a rhetorical ploy.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 10:51 pmMark,
Why is it blather? Do you think that gays who don’t get married are more monagamous than ones who do?
As for the AIDS thing, well I guess that’s part of not liking gay people. If you think gay = AIDS is a reason to prevent gay people getting married, then there’s not much more to say.
As for why laws making gay people’s lives worse bothers me more than those making polygamy impossible that’s because I see a longer darker history of laws wrecking the lives of gay people, than polygamists, and I see the inability to get married to anyone you love more of a hindrance than laws preventing you from marrying everyone you love. In other words I prioritize among evils.
nk,
I have less faith than you in the power of majorities of state legislatures to protect the rights of minority populations, again based on history in the U.S. One of the purposes of the 14th Amendment is to put the burden on state legislatures to justify discriminatory legislation, instead of leaving the power completely in their hands.
As for your earlier comment, I gather your point is that you personally will never believe two men can get married. That’s your right. But they do think they can and as citizens of a state they have a right for their view to be taken as seriously as yours. And unless your argument extends past your personal definition, it doesn’t sound like a good reason for the state to deny that couple.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:02 pm“A strawman? Am i incorrect in thinking that most of those referendum banned all legal relationships among gay couples? I am familiar mostly with Ohio’s and Kansas. Were they exceptions?”
Northerner – Absolutely. Did you believe the referenda had separate votes for marriage and civil unions? Does that make any sense at all?
California had civil union statutes before the Proposition 8 vote. You’re just flailing here.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:05 pm“Four years ago, a push by conservatives for civil unions might have shown an actual interest in the concept.”
Northerner – Look back ten years ago cupcake.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:09 pm“Then that looks a little demeaning.”
BS. Only to your hyper-delicate sensibilities. Fords and Chevys are not the same, and it demeans neither to note they are not the same.
JD (e5a0fa) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:14 pm“And it is worse when one name – marriage – has been used for a long time and has substantial cultural meaning and the other “- civil union- is a recent bureaucratic construct with no romance or soul.”
None of that has anything to do with the law. That is just your emotional desire to co-opt a societal institution.
JD (e5a0fa) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:16 pmdaleyrocks,
California sure, but most of the other state DOMA’s were more categorical, again like Kansas and Ohio. What state passed DOMAS that were only marriage?
And ten years ago, what conservatives in states that passed categorical DOMA’s fought to exclude civil unions?
Enlighten me. Do you have any example, at any time, of a conservative politician or commentator seriously fighting for civil unions against those who opposed any recognition of gay relationships?
JD
As I recall the schools in Topeka Kansas were equal in facilities and nobody ever said the water from one fountain tasted worse than the other. And many people prefer the back of the bus.
Anyway, for the state to declare some people get married and then, for no good reason, that other people have to settle for a different legal construct, then that is in fact discriminatory if there is no significant legal difference. Your point I guess is that the status of the genitals is a significant legal difference. But you have not explained why.
And if the world is raised on Fords, but some people are force to take Chevy’s instead, you don’t think they might complain?
As for emotions and the law. This may surprise you but the law does in fact take into account people’s emotional reactions to be designated different and inferior. My guess is that if the law designated you different and inferior you also would find it galling.
I find your lack of empathy for people different from you interesting, though disheartening. Historically it’s always been pretty easy for people in a position of power to discount the feelings of those without it. But I keep hoping we can evolve past it.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:29 pmNorthener
Hi! I went through this a few weeks ago in another thread. This is an admirable effort. Let me throw myself into the mix:
This is funny Ag80, your claim that Northerners argument is a strawman is actually making a strawman out of the argument. (Boom head explodes). Northerner did not say animals and humans are the same and even pointed out a difference in that we have morals. The point is people are animals, as explained by the theory of evolution. Homosexuality naturally occurs in animals and therefore can naturally occur in humans.
Gil (27c98f) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:31 pmMy objections to the practice remain historical and practical.
Do you hear yourself? Is that cognitive dissonance I’m detecting, Northerner?
Everything you’re saying about why you oppose polygamy can easily be applied to arguments against SSM. Moreover, the emotions that loosen the restrictions against 2 people of the same sex getting married will naturally carry over — call it cultural desensitization — to the idea of a male having more than one wife.
And notice how even when something is illegal (per below), there may be more people — straight males in particular — who will thumb their noses at the rules of the system, compared with all the gays who even in societies where SSM has been legalized continue to choose a life full of faithlessness and promiscuity. IOW, the loosening of restrictions on conventional marriage in general probably will have a greater effect on loosening the self-restraint of hetero males who yearn for more than one partner than on any greater equanimity it may trigger in the public towards its perceptions of gay couples.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:31 pm
“And it is worse when one name – marriage – has been used for a long time and has substantial cultural meaning and the other “- civil union- is a recent bureaucratic construct with no romance or soul.”
That is the heart of the matter. A state has a legitimate, rational governmental interest in not changing a condition that has existed for a long time and has substantial cultural meaning, for the personal, petit bourgeois, and self-indulgent sensibilities of a relative handful of people.
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:31 pmHomosexuality naturally occurs in animals and therefore can naturally occur in humans.
So does athlete’s foot fungus. Cut us some slack with your animal comparisons. Animals are not the measure of humans.
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:34 pmMama bear: Did you see our new cub?
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:39 pmPapa bear: Yes.
Mama bear: How did you like him?
Papa bear: He was delicious.
If you think gay = AIDS is a reason to prevent gay people getting married, then there’s not much more to say.
Actually, if anything, since society’s increasingly liberal ethos towards homosexuality, legally and emotionally symbolized by same-sex marriage, hasn’t changed patterns of faithlessness and promiscuity among male homosexuals — evident in high rates of STDs in that community — the one good argument that pro-SSM people can make for their cause — that SSM will foster greater cultural stability in the GLBT populace — is refuted by ongoing trends.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:39 pmCan anyone tell me, not just Michael, if the 14th amendment provides equality to all, why did we need the 15th and 19th amendments? It seems to me that if the 14th provides equal results for all, then the 15th and 19th are superfluous.
Tanny O'Haley (c0a74e) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:43 pmIm not comparing. Humans are animals. You confuse the issue by trying to separate them. Im also not measuring humans with animals. Only saying that natural behaviors observed in other animals can occur in humans. This sets aside the justification of having different rules for homosexuals on the basis of it solely being a learned behavior.
Gil (27c98f) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:44 pmMark,
Actually I did provide a reason opposing polygamy tht does not apply to SSM – logistical and administrative problems with dealing with marriages among numerous people, as opposed to two. Property division alone would be difficult in a divorce. I agree these are not insuperable problems, but they are enough given the lack of significant harm suffered by people who can live and raise children with as many people as they want but only marry one of them.
As for cultural desensitivization – I admit here I don’t really get it. Right now allowing two people who would otherwise be uncommitted to each other to make a substantial public commitment of caring and love strikes me as tightening the bonds of marriage, not loosening them.
Your largely theoretical concern that observing gay people get married will lead straight men towards a political movement to legalize polygamy can’t really be refuted. I can’t predict the future. But we do have 10-15 years of experience in Canada and Massachusetts and Europe and if it was going to happen you’d expect to see some sign by now. In any case the possibility of some evil tomorrow is not a reason to not do justice today.
If tomorrow polygamy can make a strong case for itself, fine. If it can’t, even better. Either way, worrying that any change to marriage makes all other changes to marriage likely seems a little fatalistic. Giving women equal status in the 19th Century was a huge change, and one that lead in part to SSM. That’s not a reason it should not have been done.
nk,
Petit-bourgeois? How marxist! My take is the state should not deny any citizens equal protection of laws simply because they have always done so.
You call getting married self indulgent and personal? Is that true for everyone getting married, or just for gays? As I recall a person getting married promises to care for the other in sickness and health, for richer or poorer. That hardly seems self-indulgent.
Andyou guys should get your story straight. If animals and nature are not the measure of man than no more arguments that homosexuality is unnatural.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:49 pmSome people need to be told twice? The Fourteenth was to keep freed slaves from being lynched for walking off the job (13th) on their way to the polls (15th)? That boat has sailed. Equal Protection has a broad definition. As a matter of fact, it got itself a time machine and got itself enacted in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. That’s a ratchet that’s not getting turned back anytime soon.
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:51 pmAnd here is another common theme courtesy of Mark this time. In all other walks of life, healthcare, taxes, the market (you name it) deregulation is good because people know whats best for themselves. But not marriage! No! If the government deregulates that the gates of hell will be opened. People can no longer be trusted to arrange themselves in what will be their own best interest. Kids out of wedlock, polygamy, incest, and the downfall of civilization as we know it are soon to follow.
Gil (27c98f) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:54 pmnk,
Bears?
Mark,
Do you have any statistics that show an equal or greater rate of AIDs among married gays? That promiscuity is greater after marriage than before?
If your point is that married gay people (even lesbians?) are exactly as promiscuous before married as after, then what’s the problem? Since when does the state worry too much about the sex life of married people?
Tanny
as for the 15th, it was an attempt to solve a specific problem, denial of voting for black people. The Congress may have felt that the Supreme Court would not take it seriously unles specifically pointed out, particularly given that the idea of a right to vote had no real role in the Constitution before that. As for the 19th, again the problem was that through the 20’s it wasn’t clear that women were covered by the 14th amendment. And when the 15th was passed women were specifically removed from the amendment.
As for the michael quote – up through 2011 there aren’t a lot of federal appellate court decisions regarding marriage. But in any case the S.Ct. was under no obligation to cite the earlier cases of lower courts if they disagreed with the reasoning.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:57 pmWe Stalinists can be pretty puritanical. It’s a practical thing. How can we have a proletariat if we do not have men and women making little proles?
So, Gil and Northener. I can call homosexual behavior animalistic?
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:58 pmMale bears eat the newborn cubs.
nk (dbc370) — 5/21/2014 @ 11:59 pmon the basis of it solely being a learned behavior.
Whether learned or genetic, or nature instead of nurture, or visa versa, the one thing that has changed my opinion through the years — and made me realize that traditional/conventional or conservative observations were more accurate and valid than even I realized some time ago — is the surprising amount of free will and discretion in personal/sexual relationships among no less than self-described homosexuals, particularly males (ie, unlike females, guys can’t fake reactions of arousal).
Yep, the behavior of the following person described previously and below may not be gay in the strictest sense, and he may not have wanted to label himself as gay. But there’s only a fine, delicate line separating him from the rest of the GLBT crowd, which is something I didn’t think all that plausible during my age of innocence (ie, when I gave the left more credit than it deserved).
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:00 amI’ve had more than one dog hump my leg. You guys aren’t going to do that, are you?
nk (dbc370) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:04 amnk,
Is heterosexual behavior animalistic?
Mark
Some people are bisexual. They might also be monogamous. In any case why stop them from marrying whoever it is they wish to commit to caring for?
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:07 amApes mourn their dead.
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:08 amnk
Male bears eat cubs. And therefore…, Male bears should not be allowed to marry?
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:08 amNope. And I never said heterosexuals are like animals. We are made in God’s image, only lower than the angels.
nk (dbc370) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:10 amNorthener, you are being deliberately obtuse.
nk (dbc370) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:12 am@ nk
I like how you’ve posted the above in the same thread you’ve posted the below:
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:15 amDo you have any statistics that show an equal or greater rate of AIDs among married gays? That promiscuity is greater after marriage than before?
Northerner, I wasn’t referring to the impact of SSM on the limited number of gays who decide to go the conventional route (as originally defined by straights) by getting hitched to other gays. I was referring to the increasing loosening of behavior overall, in which SSM encourages a more nonchalant attitude about homosexuality and, in turn, sexuality in general.
The human nature behind that is similar to the way that Bill Clinton’s escapades with an office intern, and society’s response to it through the years (by not only not shunning him but instead fawning over him), has cheapened our expectations in and respect for the US presidency.
That’s just basic cause and effect. So just as male sexuality is innately faithless and promiscuous, male homosexuality is even more so that way, and now will be ramped up to an even further degree by a system that, through things like SSM, proclaims “you’re okay, I’m okay.”
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:16 amApes mourn their dead.
So do swans. And they mate for life. Male and female, though. Plus, they can walk, swim, fly and make their own eggs. But they can’t make an omelet.
nk (dbc370) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:16 amIn any case why stop them from marrying whoever it is they wish to commit to caring for?
Again, I direct that question your way regarding the issue of people who want more than one wife or more than one husband.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:19 amI think that Northerner’s previous objections to polygamy were based on the potential complicated dividing up of property among those involved. That does not apply to 2 homosexuals.
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:23 amJeez, Sammy, you should read a history book before you reply. First of all, marriage ceremonies were not universal for thousands of years before Blackstone was born. For most of the medieval period most people, i.e. commoners, didn’t even have a ceremony. Nor did the Catholic Church even claim the presence of clergy was even required to have a valid marriage. There were elements that were required to have a valid marriage, but those were pretty simple. Giving free consent (in some parts of Europe the father’s consent was more important than the couple’s), not suffering from any impediments such as consanguinity, living together, and consummating the marriage.
Even you and I, Sammy, haven’t been been born several thousand years after marriage ceremonies have become “pretty universal.”
He also didn’t write his commentaries “several hundred years” after the government began keeping track of marriages. The government of England, i.e. the Royal family, had been keeping track of noble marriages. But that was because property an the rights and privileges of the crown were involved. In fact, you can’t really say they even tried to “keep track” of those. Nobility had to get permission from the crown when they arranged marriages for their children, as did widows seeking to remarry, for instance. But other than checking in with the King so he could sign off on the arrangement, I don’t know how much record keeping was involved.
In fact, the only serious attempt by the government to “keep track” of marriage I’m aware of was first made in 1694. That’s because England was involved in some expensive wars, and they decided to tax marriage.
Marriage Duty Assessments for St Botolph Aldgate, 1695 (MDA)
If anyone was “keeping track” of marriage prior to 1695, it was the Church. Not the government. The government was really keeping track of money and property. Otherwise it stayed out because it was considered Church business. Since Blackstone was born in 1723, that was not “hundreds of years after the government of England began keeping track of marriage.” It wasn’t even thirty years after the government decided they needed to start keeping track of marriage.
In fact, prior to the reformation it was the Catholic Church’s position that civil authorities in England (as well as anywhere in Catholic Europe) had no jurisdiction over marriage whatsoever. Which is my whole point. Marriage was not a matter of English law. The pope in Rome was in control of law concerning marriage. Issues pertaining to marriage were decided in ecclesiastical courts according to Canon law. Not in civil courts according to civil or common law.
Hello, Sammy! This is the whole reason the English Reformation happened. Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church because he couldn’t get an ecclesiastical court to give him his annulment. But even after the English Church broke from the Roman Catholic Church, marriage remained entirely subject to Canon law (although as head of the Church of England it was a lot easier for Henry to get ecclesiastical courts to see things Henry’s way). The crown had more important things to think about for the rest of the sixteenth century. Such as civil war, and the fact that while Henry VIII broke with Rome over a personal beef with the Pope, most of the countryside remained Roman Catholic for most of the century. It was a delicate balance. They kept Canon law almost entirely intact.
It wasn’t even possible for civil authorities, whether the courts, Parliament, or the King, to exert civil control over marriage until 1603 when the Church of England (distancing itself from the Roman Catholics) changed their Canon law to deny the sacramental nature of marriage. Once they abandoned the notion that marriage was sacramental in nature, they gave up any claim to ecclesiastical control over marriage. They didn’t lose their authority immediately. In fact, the Marriage Duty Act of 1694 is the first attempt of the civil authorities to exert any control over marriage that I’m aware of, as that act prescribed who could get married, where they could get married, when they could get married, and so on. Prior to that, all those things were left entirely up to the Church. The English didn’t even succeed in secularizing their marriage and divorce laws until the mid-1800s, well after Blackstone was dead.
And again, Blackstone wasn’t writing “hundreds” of years after these events. He actually began writing analyses of English common and civil law while still practicing law, not even fifty years after these events started the process of secularizing England’s laws. He still would have had access to original sources that may be lost to us today. And no doubt eyewitnesses to the events. As was Blackstone himself, since he was practicing law when the Marriage Act of 1754 was passed, which for the first time gave civil authorities the power to determine for themselves if a marriage was valid.
It is absurd to suggest that Blackstone was somehow a distant observer who didn’t know why the civil authorities were exerting control over marriage. He was alive as they were doing it. He knew why they were doing it. He was there as they were doing it.
So, again, if I have to pick an authority to determine why governments even began to involve themselves in marriage, particularly governments that derive their legal traditions from England’s, I’ll pick Blackstone over you any day, Sammy.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:35 amnk,
Darn, I thought I was being amusing. If your bear vignette is supposed to prove anything I guess it is that humans should not pattern their behavior on bears, or for that matter most other animals. Fine. I agree. Now let’s talk about that angelic principle of fairness and justice and how it applies to how the state (another human creation) treats its citizens.
Mark,
As gil notes, I have explained why I object to polygamy as a legal institution. You are free to disagree with that point but you should try to understand it.
And again I just find puzzling your idea that moving from a regime where gay couples were forbidden to publicly commit to caring for each other, and thus had no legal obligations that might interfere with them leaving each other, is a move to a more liberal regime.
Your argument seems to be that we were better off when homosexuality was unregulated because then there was less homosexuality. I doubt it. But in any case I disagree that homosexual behavior is a shameful thing that society has a legitimate interest in deterring.
As for the double male promiscuity problem, it still seems that having two randy men marry each other is better than if they don’t. Infidelity is not the worse thing that can happen between people. Leaving your companion to starve or get sick and die alone is. Why does it matter to you how much sex these hypothetical men are having if they also share a home, an insurance policy, a mortgage, kitchen duties? If they promise to care for each other in sickness and in health?
(And what about lesbians? What’s your argument with them?
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:37 amWell, how about tbased on the potential complicated dividing up of property among those involved
If the argument that because certain legal relationships create a greater technical burden on the system and should therefore be discouraged is used against polygamy, then that point can easily be applied to couples who are adding to the mountain of government paperwork by their greater tendency to both getting married and then getting divorced.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:44 amYou are free to disagree with that point but you should try to understand it.
And I throw that right back at ‘ya, Northerner.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:47 amMark:
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:48 amJust wondering if you missed comment 330. To reiterate, How is it reconciled that deregulation or lessening of government in every other aspect is good (healthcare, taxes, etc) but in Marriage its bad? That suddenly people cannot be trusted to act in their own interest, that the supposed problems of “faithlessness” and all the rest will follow without the government keeping marriage safe?
Michael @285, good effort. But a waste of time. Destroying the culture is the whole point of the SSM movement.
The history of these ideas isn’t difficult to discover. Nor are their effects.
Since destroying marriage as it is currently defined is the goal, as it is one of the main pillars of of western civilization which the proponents also despise, there is no amount of evidence that the trolls won’t pretend doesn’t exist to advance their cause.
Again, compare Judge Walker’s embarrassment of an opinion to the trial transcript.
It’s not about truth or evidence.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:52 amYour argument seems to be that we were better off when homosexuality was unregulated because then there was less homosexuality.
When the GLBT agenda, which includes the sanctifying of SSM, is resulting in public schools carrying books like “Heather Has Two Mommies,” and where California now requires that public school history textbooks single out the stories of famous homosexuals — and since talk about homosexuality just naturally heightens talk about sexuality in general — you can be sure that in the past, when the culture was “unregulated,” sexuality wasn’t as obsessed over as it is today.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:53 amMark what you’ve done here is trade “complicated” for “greater technical burden” and then slipped in a definition of greater (higher volume) to make it seem like Northerners objection to polygamy can be applied to SSM.
That’s dishonest. In no sense does complicated mean or imply more volume. It just means more complex. Having more traditional divorces to deal with is not more complicated in the same sense as having to divide up property (and or custody) among 5 partners.
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:56 amMark,
The u.s. legal system is able to handle two getting married and divorced fairly well, even if they do it often. It is not currently equipped to easily deal with multiple partner marriages or divorces. There are more complications to adding names to a marriage certificate than in what genitals are attached to the two names.
If you disagree with that point I’d be curious how.
As for your statistics, when you have comparable populations we might learn something. For now the population of married gay people includes people who waited a long time to get married and/or married in a burst of happiness and adrenalin because they were suddenly legally allowed to. If there are comparable heterosexual populations we could compare. Get back when SSM is so humdrum that gay couples marry in an atmosphere similar to that currently felt be straights.
And, in the end, so what. Legal recognition of marriage is a fundamental right, (which I and the SCt think it is) Being barred from getting married based on some general statistical observations in Norway and membership in a minority group is a violation of equal protection.
The state is not allowed to fine tune the marriage laws to select out that demographic/economic/racial/whatever group most likely to stay married and monogamous.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:57 am@Steve
Nope. The point is to let people be treated fairly.
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 1:00 amSteve
How is advocating that couples excluded from being married be allowed to marry logically connected to “destroying” marriage. Those thousands of couples you see rushing to the courthouse – they are all part of a conspiracy to make valueless that very status they enthusiastically hope to acquire? How does that make any human sense?
Sure you can quote some gay political theorist from some previous years denouncing marriage for whatever reason. But what makes you think that person represents more than their own opinion and a few of their closest friends and grad students.
The value gay couples place on marriage is demonstrated by their long fight to have access to it.
The pillar of western civilization is genital complementarity? The rule of law, social compact, committment to equality, sewers, electricity, those count for less?
Marriage, as meaning the promise of couples to care for each other will continue. Some of those couples will look different than in the past. That’s not going to change much.
And I’ve read the Walker opinion. Where does the trial transcript decisively contradict it?
Mark,
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/22/2014 @ 1:04 amBut what if Heather does have two mothers? Are public schools supposed to ignore that? For a group supposedly dedicated to the interest of children conservatives seem to care very little for the children of gay parents.
How is it reconciled that deregulation or lessening of government in every other aspect is good (healthcare, taxes, etc) but in Marriage its bad?
For one thing, Gil, what you cite involves people saying “leave me the hell alone, government!” People who are not seeking out the public sector — as SSM boosters are doing — and saying “please get involved in my life; please legitimize my self-esteem; please raise my taxes; please tell me which doctor I should go to!”
For another thing, I’ve yet heard a really good argument made by supporters of SSM who instead of favoring the government offering a mostly symbolic blessing of male-male or female-female relationships, as has been done with traditional couples, request that the legal system — mainly through arcane aspects of contracts and agreements — be modified the way that purely business partnerships can be modified. IOW, it’s not the damn issue of legal quandaries that really offends many of the GLBT crowd, as much as it’s their feeling that their self-esteem has been bruised.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/22/2014 @ 1:09 amBut what if Heather does have two mothers?
What if Harry has two or three wives?
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/22/2014 @ 1:10 amIt is not currently equipped to easily deal with multiple partner marriages or divorces.
Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/22/2014 @ 1:14 amMark,
But when straight couples get married are they doing nothing more than raising their self-esteem?
Gay couples get married for the same reasons straight couples do – social expectation, love, and in some cases, legal reasons.
Try, if only briefly, to put yourselves in somebody else’s shoes. You love somebody. You want to marry them. Is that desire to marry tied up purely in self indulgence or bruised feelings? What makes you think that gay people think wildly differently?
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/22/2014 @ 1:15 amMark,
When you and your friends persuade California to recognize polygamy then you can tell the schools to note multiple wives in school books. But right now they don’t. But they do have lots of gay married couples and getting upset because public schools recognize that is weird.
Strangely there are no highly organized polygamist groups using their political will or legal acumen to get it enacted. I look forward to their rewrite of criminal, family and immigration law.
Northerner (8e12a4) — 5/22/2014 @ 1:18 amSorry, yankee troll, but I can’t be tempted to waste my time. If you claim to have read the Walker decision and still profess to not Know where Walker actually edited the Prop 8 attorney’s remarks to make it appear that he had not presented evidence to support his case, when the transcript shows otherwise, that’s all the evidence I need that you are not arguing in good faith. You could compare Walker’s decision to the transcript just as easily as I can. But you choose not to do so.
So I don’t see the need to go into how everything you said @356 is likewise a distortion of the truth.
There is no rational basis for SSM. In fact, if marriage can include SS couples, there is no rational basis to claim the government has a compelling interest in promoting or recognizing marriage at all.
All you can do is provide an emotional argument for SSM. As Walker did in his decision when he talked about the emotional harm gay couples suffered when their relationships weren’t given equal “value” by denying them the use of the term.
That has nothing to do with reason.
Since that is the case, I don’t see the point.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 1:28 amTry, if only briefly, to put yourselves in somebody else’s shoes.
Okay, Northerner, put yourselves in the shoes of all those people out there who find themselves in love with more than one person and who, with the consent of all the people involved, would greatly welcome a family of more than two partners. That fits the human nature of plenty more humans than those people of the same sex who are waxing poetic for someone else of the same sex.
When you and your friends persuade California to recognize polygamy then you can tell the schools to note multiple wives in school books.
Look deeply into yourself. Will such a trend bother you? I hope not. It shouldn’t. It had better not. Particularly if what’s going on in Europe starts to percolate over to this side of the Western World.
^ It’s a bit more difficult to be quite as alarmed by such trends when SSM also is pushing its way through the system. After all, while it’s not totally a case of “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” it’s close enough of a variation of that to make an impact.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/22/2014 @ 2:02 amhttp://www.nationalreview.com/article/374115/right-not-be-implicated-kevin-d-williamson
Of course.
We wouldn’t even be at this point without the distortions, logical fallacies, and outright lies of the SSM advocates. Since I recognize the same in the troll’s comments, why pretend any conversation has any value?
None of the prior ones did.
The entire pro-SSM argument is all falsehood and deception. So Instead intend just to point that out at every opportunity.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 2:04 amhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html
Which of course it has done. As all of us who knew the left were lying to us about their limited goals, and how they just wanted to be fair and compassionate, and if you only let us have the Sudentenland everything will be fine, could have and did predict.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 2:08 amIf that were remotely true, Brendan Eich would still have a job at Mozilla.
People like you and Yankee troll have exposed your limitless hypocrisy by your actions which show your words to be lies.
SSM is not about treating people fairly, tolerance, or diversity.
It is about claiming the right to treat people unfairly, being intolerant, and imposing rigid political conformity.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 2:46 am“people’s emotional reactions to be designated different and inferior”
You are the only person here calling them inferior.
JD (e5a0fa) — 5/22/2014 @ 5:35 amReally? I can’t believe a display of dominance in animals is being passed off as homosexuality. I guess they surveyed those penguins and found they had a penchant for enjoying show tunes.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/22/2014 @ 6:12 am333.Male bears eat the newborn cubs.
Apes mourn their dead.
Comment by Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:08 am
Monkeys fling their poop.
Colonel Haiku (c1e551) — 5/22/2014 @ 6:34 amSnails are the best example. They’re perfectly hermaphroditic.
Snail: Are you a boy or a girl?
nk (dbc370) — 5/22/2014 @ 6:44 amSnail: Yes.
BTW, I’ve been outside lesbian watching now that the weather is (mostly) above freezing. There’s a uniform, dark cargo shorts, light-colored t-shirt, dark baseball cap. Most wear the cap backwards. One wears it brim forward and is the most manly looking (butt ugly) of the bunch. Does anybody know, is it a signal of some kind?
nk (dbc370) — 5/22/2014 @ 6:50 amBuggerist fundamentalists openly argued, in amici briefs, that the
civil unions bill would violate the Massachusetts ERA, on the basis
that civil unions are “separate and unequal” and a form of
“segregation”, GLAD Brief in Opinions, SJC-09163, at 12, because they denied the
“social recognition” that comes with marriage, Id. at 24,they would
“mark [same-sex couples] as inferior to their heterosexual
counterparts and diminish their status in the community” regardless of
whether they provided “the same benefits, protections,rights and
responsibilities under law as are granted to spouses in a marriage”,
Civil Rights Brief in Opinions at 12 , and that civil unions “would
not constitute equality, because their relationships still would not
be recognized by the rest of society as being as valued as heterosexual relationships.” id. at 13
Finally, I leave this quote from the Supreme Court itself.
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 at 344, 345 (1890), quoting Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885)
Michael Ejercito (becea5) — 5/22/2014 @ 6:59 amSoooo, it appears the late nite bull session went on for quite some time. Were there any epiphanies (in the non-religious sense of course)? Any breakthroughs?
elissa (1120d0) — 5/22/2014 @ 7:13 amApparently, the narrator on Meerkat Manor and Orangutan Island encapsulates the actual emotions ascribed to the animals on the show. I can hardly wait for Andy Cohen to host a reunion to find out which of the meerkats or orangutans are in the closet.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/22/2014 @ 7:39 amAnimals engage in homosexual conduct therefore it’s demeaning to gays to grant them less than traditional marriage.
nk (dbc370) — 5/22/2014 @ 7:57 amMairzy doats and dozy doats
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/22/2014 @ 7:58 amAnd liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn’t you?
Outstanding!
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/22/2014 @ 8:20 amareis in the closet.As stated above, the discussion went on for quite a while last night. And I don’t know who may have given up trying to make their point as much as people had better things to do (including sleep in the east).
The primary tactic of those in favor of SSM is to make assertions that they assume (at least appear to assume) are self-evident and irrefutable, such as “Why do you insist on discriminating against gays?”
Here is my own version of the self-evident, men and women are not the same. Hence, a man making a life commitment to a woman must be different than a man making a life commitment to a man.
If one refuses to acknowledge this, then there is no point in any further discussion.
If one does acknowledge this, then the discussion goes down the road as to what ways are things different, how important are the differences, what are the implications of the differences.
For an example, consider the pro-abortion rights slogan, “Keep your laws off of my body”. At first glance this has the appearance of some merit, but actually readily dissolves into nonsense because the person does not actually believe the statement as uttered. I imagine the person is quite happy to have laws about her body enforced such as do not attack her body, do not rape her body, do not murder her body, in fact, do not even steal money that she would prefer to spend buying something for her body.
So, it really just is another way of saying, “I don’t like laws restricting abortion”. But we already knew that, so it doesn’t add anything.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/22/2014 @ 8:56 amI’m sure there is some study somewhere that will determine that female animal species are rape-raped, and are denied abortions due to the patriarchy inherent in the Animal Kingdom.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:01 amM+W is not the same as W+W or M+M. It does not demean one to note the biological and scientific fact that they are not the same. Now, the troll thinks that it is demeaning to note a scientific fact, and that it means one is inferior to the other. The troll projects its own flawed thinking onto others.
JD (e5a0fa) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:02 amYes, JD, you are my inspiration on this. And you say it really, really, much more, ah, um, succinctly than I do.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:08 am“So, it really just is another way of saying, “I don’t like laws restricting abortion”. But we already knew that, so it doesn’t add anything.”
MD in Philly – IOW, it’s a different was of saying laws I don’t like are worse than laws I would like to see passed.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:10 amJD – Noting a scientific fact means you are anti-science and a h8r. They will hunt you down, punish you, and hound you to the end of your life.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:14 amTRIGGER WARNING!!!!!!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:14 amJD, you’re a cissexist(I think)!
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:18 amRaaaaacists!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:21 amHoly crap! Cissexist is an actual term! And I misapplied it. Sorry, JD.
Ignorance is no excuse, but I’ll take a liberal view of my ignorance, so it’s all good.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:22 amThis discussion has degenerated. Good show!
Colonel Haiku (b198f5) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:23 amRidicule is man’s most potent weapon.
nk (dbc370) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:33 amMake your tactics enjoyable to your team.
Colonel – Who exactly are you calling a degenerate????????
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:40 amComment by Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:22 am
Cissexist is an actual term! And I misapplied it. Sorry, JD.
It is, but I think I got it a little bit wrong, when I called attention to it.
http://angerisjustified.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/definitions-cissexism-and-binarism-for-google/
That would sound like it’s limited to discrimination or mistreatment of transsexuals (does that including not dating them?) but a belief that there are only two sexes is binarism.
Another version is:
http://transresource.tumblr.com/post/63841210151
This website says that “the belief that there are only two complimentary genders (man and woman)” is called heteronormativity, and cisexism is a “negative attitude, disgust, fear, anger and/or hatred towards transsexual and transgender people” and “also includes the automatic belief that one’s gender is aligned with their biological sex, and that if it is not, they are inferior.”
http://anomalyeternal.wordpress.com/what-is-heteronormativity/
Sammy Finkelman (42d229) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:41 amWe know who we are, daley!
Colonel Haiku (8699d6) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:45 amColonel – I just wanted to make sure I made the list.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:46 amSex is biology, gender is grammar. All that other stuff is thinking fuzzier than their “proclivities”.
nk (dbc370) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:54 amUm, OK. Other than your current comment, where did you call attention to it?
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:56 amAnimals can have proclivities, right?
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:58 amNow back to my movie “Homosexuals in the Mist.”
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/22/2014 @ 10:02 amHadoop @ 395.
Comments 141 and 158 on Sunday, May 18, 2014 in this thread:
https://patterico.com/2014/05/17/international-day-against-homophobia-and-transphobia/
Sammy Finkelman (42d229) — 5/22/2014 @ 10:10 amPerhaps. But when people are making a dishonest argument, debate isn’t possible.
Which is why, for instance, I refer back to Walker’s Prop 8 ruling. He edited out of his decision a mountain of evidence that from the beginning (at least the beginning of English civil and common law, which is the foundation of our legal system) the only reason the state had any interest in regulating marriage at all was because of the procreative nature of the relationship.
But when you’re going to lie and say that marriage has always included same-sex couples and that you’re not inventing a whole new right or definition of marriage, as Walker did, then in Soviet fashion you have to airbrush the overwhelming evidence from history that’s not the case at all.
As the Russians used to say back during the Soviet era, “the future is certain, it’s only the past that that’s unsure.”
As Kevin Williamson notes, SSM proponents had to even lie about what it was they were doing, when it was obvious, in order to get SSM.
And the argument continues to be dishonest.
That’s Indoctrination!
Everything your suburban fourth-grader needs to know about gay marriage
You can not argue, as these trolls do, that SSM is all about treating people fairly when you look at what happened to Brendan Eich. You can not argue that SSM has something to do with the “social compact” when it’s being imposed by judicial fiat over the objections of society.
The mask has slipped too many times. I’m not George Stephanopolous sitting here as President Miley Cyrus tells me his “shared responsibility fee” isn’t a tax. Then he has his administration argue that it is a tax before the SCOTUS. And now he’s back, telling me it’s not a tax. I’m not going to sit here with that stupid deer in the headlights look on my face and let him get away with it.
Or the trolls. I am not going to let them get away with them saying they aren’t redefining marriage. Or that SSM will have no impact on marriage in general. It already has wherever its been implemented. And that was always the point.
The only way to fundamentally transform a society that doesn’t want to be fundamentally transformed is to deny that’s what you’re trying to do. That you’re somehow just living up to the original ideals. While in Judge Walker fashion redefining those ideals to suit the transformation.
So, you’re right, Colonello. This comment thread has degenerated into honesty.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:31 pmThanks for the swell recap, guys. You know, considering the comedic nature of Northerner’s “arguments” he certainly didn’t seem to have much of a sense of humor when nk and I and others attempted to interject a little levity into the discussion at several different times.
elissa (1120d0) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:36 pmNortherner did bring up the homosexual animal thing though, which I did find amusing. I was hoping for a Pet Psychic Gender Determination reference, but none was made. [sigh]
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:45 pmSee Michael’s comment @285 to see some of the evidence the pro-SSM crowd has to deny exists.
It is also absurd to deny that society has a rational interest in continuing the species. And society. As more than one judge has observed, marriage is how society reproduces itself. It is both how society replenishes its population and socializes its children. They receive the values of that society via stable famiies.
Marxists have always understood this.
So on this the people who originally promoted SSM and I agree. But they want to transform their societies, while I want to preserve it. So the proponents of SSM have to lie to me and many others and say they aren’t doing what they are obviously doing.
It’s like immigration policy. For years the Labour party in Britain had to claim that there immigration policies were based purely on the economic interests of the nation. They repeatedly denied they were doing it for social engineering purposes. Years later, documents revealed that’s exactly what it was for; social engineering purposes.
In Scandinavia the leftist had a firmer grip, and could be more blunt. When Scandinavians complained that the government was destroying Scandinavian culture via its immigration policies (and redefinition of marriage) they were told that there was nothing about Scandinavian culture worth preserving. And it was racist to complain about it.
Denying that the society has a rational basis for maintianing its historical definition of marriage because the sole public interest in marriage is reproduction is to be absurd. Unless your intent is to follow the Scandinavian model.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 12:52 pmWe agree with those courts that have found no equal-protection
In Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B., 326 S.W.3d 654 at 675–677 (Tx. 5th Ct. of App. (e545b1) — 5/22/2014 @ 3:05 pmviolation. The state has a legitimate interest in promoting the
raising of children in the optimal familial setting. It is
reasonable for the state to conclude that the optimal familial setting
for the raising of children is the household headed by an opposite-sex
couple.
Which is why, for instance, I refer back to Walker’s Prop 8 ruling
Walker, by the way, was quoted as saying over 20 years ago that he thought gun-control laws were perfectly acceptable, and apparently, in his mind, didn’t violate the Constitution. That all by itself said a lot about him — about what makes him tick — than the camouflage raised by his defenders who following his decision on Proposition 8 implied he was a fairly right-leaning Republican.
Hardly surprising, however, since there seems to be something about homosexuality — and whether it’s related to a person’s genetics or culture deserves study — that makes the people who are so afflicted often automatically liberal.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/22/2014 @ 8:48 pmSteve57, you have not seen any of my actions. How is it that they expose my words as lies? Further, Northerner and I were nothing but polite last night having a discussion. Sure there were 1 or 2 zingers, but calling us hypocritical trolls? Really? Is just expressing a different point of view trolling in your view?
Youre getting closer nk. Congradulations. Actually it’s: Humans are animals. Animals can naturally be homosexual. Therefore humans can naturally be homosexual. It is not right to justify opposition to SSM by asserting homosexuality is a chosen behavior ie “unnatural”
This is far afield, but MD I think you are leaving out a clear distinction. The cases you mentioned are about a different person harming the womans body. The slogan is reffering to laws telling the woman how to use her body. In the case of outlawing abortion we are essentially forcing a woman to sustain life with her body. For example think of a law forcing people to donate blood regularly, or forcing people to donate organs. And please lets not erect a strawman saying “well we have laws that tell women to use their bodies to pay taxes” etc….
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:10 pm==(non human) Animals can naturally be homosexual.==
You got the pictures?
Also, nk was “not getting close”. He was making a funny about nonsensical logic that everyone else understood perfectly well.
elissa (1120d0) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:17 pmThere are many studies. A basic google search can confirm. In fact, monogamous homosexual behaviors in sheep if I remember correctly
I know he was being funny. I wrote “your getting closer” in jest. But actually, can you please point out what is nonsensical about the 3 step argument I made in 405?
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:28 pmFor human beings, building rocket ships and eradicating smallpox is what’s natural. Humping a woodpile on the chance there’s a snake in it …? That’s not human nature, that’s animal nature.
Here’s a video of an animal “behaving naturally” with a motorcycle, for purposes of illustration, slightly NSFW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GwloxPQTYA
And it was not material to the discussion, in any case. Judicial redifinition of “marriage” was the subject. You can engage in private, adult, consensual sex without a marriage license. It hasn’t been “criminal conversation” for quite a while. It was just a squirrel you chased up.
nk (dbc370) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:36 pm“Actually it’s: Humans are animals. Animals can naturally be homosexual. Therefore humans can naturally be homosexual. It is not right to justify opposition to SSM by asserting homosexuality is a chosen behavior ie “unnatural””
Gil – Are you claiming there is a “gay gene” or something with this line of thought?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:43 pmI said nothing about criminality.
You have 2 sets of people who love eachother. 1 set is heterosexual another is homosexual. Both sets of people want to get married. To allow one and not the other is discrimination. To justify the discrimination based on the fact that homosexuality is unnatural is a fallacy.
It is relevenat to the discussion because some people seek to deny SSM because homosexuality is unnatural – which is not the case. Now if you want to get into an argument over whether its a good thing for society that’s another thing, and it would have to be demonstrated, not hypothesized.
Regarding your assertion of what human nature is:
As a species we have built rocket ships for what? Not even 100 years. Yet humans have been on this planet for hundreds of thousands. Homosexuality goes back to the greeks and perhaps beyond. How is it that building rocketships is human nature but homosexuality suddenly isn’t? And by the way, its erroneous to divide human urges from animal urges. We are animals. Yes our brains are evolved so we have many more layers of filters and don’t go around humping legs and that’s a good thing. But it is wrong to deny that we have some anamlistic urges.
Also, im just too tired from last night to continue much. Sorry going to hit the hay soon.
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:51 pmdaleyrocks, they need “innate and unalterable trait” for a Fourteenth Amendment protected class.
nk (dbc370) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:51 pmListen to me gil. There actually are some arguments to be made for gay marriage. Some of them have been presented elsewhere as well as by people on this site. That some animals in a field or enclosure somewhere may display dominance or humping behaviors or are scratching an itch, does not make the next and only logical conclusion gay marriage for humans !!!! I do not know if you are so young that your deductive skills are still undeveloped, or if you are so old that you are losing your marbles. Whatever the case, a discussion of wildlife (even allegedly “gay” wildlife) as a relevent justification for the social and economic institution of marriage–gay or otherwise –is hideous .
This kind of nonsense is exactly the reason I refrained from participating on the thread last night. And it is the reason I am not going to tonight either now that I’ve vented.
elissa (1120d0) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:52 pmSomething like that. Im not a geneticist, and I don’t think a gene has been discovered. But there aren’t genes that have been discovered that explain why some people have a shorter temper than others either. Its just a natural thing that happens in us.
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:53 pmHi elissa, im not trying to make you mad. Id like to have a discussion without calling eachother underdeveloped. Is that possible?
My point is not that animals are gay therefore SSM!. My point is animals can be gay, therefore it makes sense that humans can be gay too. This means that objections to SSM based on the fact that homosexuality is unnatural are unfounded.
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:56 pmThe problem with gonadal thinking, Gil, is that if you don’t stir mine why should I give a hoot about yours? You are not appealing to the sexual urges of the majority when you asking for gay marriage, you are appealing to the higher expression of humanness.
nk (dbc370) — 5/22/2014 @ 9:59 pmIm not sure I understand your point in 415 nk. You are correct. I am making an appeal to human empathy and understanding. Even though it might not be their desire to be homosexual, the majority should recognize it as a form of love and say “Hey, what more do you need than love and a desire for commitment”?
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 10:05 pmWhy would I need to have witnessed your actions?
I said:
I didn’t say:
I was talking about other SSM proponents; people like you in that they are allies in your cause. Although it would have been clearer if I had included the word “cause.” Which is what I meant when I referred to “you.” I meant the group, and plenty in the group have let the mask slip too many times to deny the reality (or do you dare to?).
As far as being impolite, I don’t like to be lied to. I consider it rude to lie to me. Such as when Barack Obama said “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” or “if you like your plan you can keep your plan.” It was clear when Prom Queen made those promises those were lies. I now especially resent being lied to about having been lied to.
I knew I was being lied to by SSM proponents back in the early 2000s, when they latched onto the Lawrence decision to promote civil unions for SS couples while denying they were aiming for SSM.
Of course they were lying (see my comment #364). Carefully, as in, of course “Nobody is talking about gay marriage,” said John Longville, a Democratic assemblyman. Of course nobody is talking about it. It’s like revealing your attack plan to the enemy. In the same vein liberal Democrats don’t talk about their ultimate goal being gun confiscation. They wouldn’t get the registration lists if they talked about it.
Too bad they can’t keep control of their documents.
Anybody could have predicted that SSM proponents were lying about being SSM proponents. It was obvious they were lying ten years ago. In fact Scalia predicted the entirely predictabe in his dissent from the Lawrence decision (see my comment #365).
Maybe it wasn’t obvious to you then. But now looking back at the history of this farce are you going to deny these obvious facts, Gil?
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 10:15 pmThat’s better. And go back and read Northener’s response to my “personal, petit bourgeois, and self-indulgent”. He seemed to get it for a minute, too. Or do you suspect that I am setting a trap for you? That I’ll start talking about morality and higher natures and other godbothering nonsense like that? I won’t. You have the Commandments, you have the prophets. I’ll stick to judges redifining marriage.
nk (dbc370) — 5/22/2014 @ 10:17 pmI don’t really need to deny those facts or defend them. I didn’t do any of that. Im one man here, posting my opinion. Argue with me if you like. But don’t lump me in with all those SSM supporters that have lied to you.
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 10:26 pmIm sorry I don’t follow. I do not invoke the commandments or prophets in defense of SSM
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 10:32 pmWhat is empathetic about creating more wards of the state, Gil? Because support for gay marriage always rises with single motherhood.
Once you weaken the link between procreation and marriage you get the whole package. Not only does SSM become thinkable, but you get wildly out of control single motherhood.
Single motherhood in U.S. increases sharply
Once you enshrine into law that marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with procreation, then SSM moves from being a symptom to a cause of the breakdown.
And don’t give me some BS about how we can teach young men to do the responsible thing and marry their baby mommas. You can not simultaneously insist that marriage is the responsible way to procreate while indoctrinating the youth that one thing has nothing to do with the other.
Which is what SSM requires.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 10:32 pmI meant that I won’t talk about it being a sin and stuff like that.
nk (dbc370) — 5/22/2014 @ 10:41 pmI don’t need to lump you in with them. But if I didn’t find those liars persuasive, and you’re simply making those same arguments, why should I find you persuasive?
I’m not calling you a liar. See my comment @399. Or better yet read the article I linked to.
That’s Indoctrination!
Like you, the pro-SSM campaign makes emotional appeals. Or as you put it earlier, ” I am making an appeal to human empathy and understanding.”
Nothing about an appeal to reason, Gil.
I am making an appeal to reason. And our laws are supposed to have a rational basis.
To deny I’m making an appeal to reason, when I discuss the the vital purpose of marriage in that reproduction is vital to both the the continuation of the species and society, as well as to ensure that it is defined so that those involved in procreation see marriage as a prerequisite for procreation so that parents and not the state provides for the offspring, is not rational is absurd.
Pro-SSM proponents like you (and I’m including you personally in this, Gil) have to claim I do not have a rational basis for my position because otherwise you couldn’t substitute your emotional basis for your position as if it were equally valid.
By your own words, all you have is an emotional basis.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 10:46 pmThere are many reasons for single motherhood to increase. You can make all the hypotheses you want but until you demonstrate what you claim you have nothing more than arguments from ignorance. As in “This is what makes the most sense to me, so it must be the cause”
The article says that the census bureau attributed the increase in single motherhood to changing sexuality norms and decrease in marriage. This is doesn’t mean they made a compelling link. It only means this is the reason they gave.
For example if single motherhood increase were tied to attitudes toward SSM, you would expect the demographic that most supports SSM to have the highest single motherhood rate. Or perhaps you could expect the group with more LGBT in it to have more single motherhood proportionally. Guess what, neither is the case.
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 10:49 pmUnderstanding is based on reason Steve
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 10:50 pmThis gets us nowhere Steve. Imagine 2 people trying to have a discussion and they both say “First you have to demonstrate im being irrational, otherwise my position is correct” Its just the wrong way of arguing or defending your position.
But I guess I can take a poke for the sake of discussion.
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 11:04 pmTo sum up the way I see it, there 3 main justifications to deny SSM:
1. Religion Based
This is irrational because we have no rational reason to believe Religion is true or that we have been lucky enough to have actually been born into the 1 true religion.
2. “Its unnatural”
This is irrational because observation and reasoning shows us that homosexuality does in fact exist in nature
3. It will degrade society
This is irrational because there has been no demonstration that this is the case
No, it isn’t Gil.
I have reasons to believe that parents, particularly men, have an enforceable obligation to the families they create. Therefore maintaining the link between procreation and the contractual obligations of marriage remains vital.
As it has been from the start.
Explain the reasoning for breaking this link that has nothing to do with appeals to (what I consider to be false) empathy.
It may surprise you, but empathy is not reason.
I suspect that if you actually had reason on your side, you wouldn’t need to say, “I am making an appeal to human empathy and understanding.”
So, skip the appeal to empathy and get to the appeal to reason. If you can make one. But if you can’t, don’t tell me I don’t have a rationale basis for my position.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 11:06 pmGil @426, presenting truncated lists of your caricatures of your opponents arguments does nothing to convince anyone who is thinking logically that you have a case.
You are only talking about the way you see it because you refuse to address the argument that I’m making.
The argument I’m making is based on facts.
The way you see it is based upon your biases and your emotions.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 11:10 pmNote that I haven’t brought up Jesus or the Saints or the Catholic Church in any of this.
It’s not necessary.
Your religion can teach you that murder is a sin, for instance. But you don’t have to have a religion to have laws against murder.
Reason can lead you to the same place.
So other than this excursion into what I haven’t brought up so far, I won’t be bringing up the subjects I haven’t been bringing up anymore.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 11:15 pmI didn’t say empathy was reason. Ive said that is what i meany by the word understanding. Sorry if I didn’t use the perfect word.
I believe your argument is falling loosely into category 3. IE – it has always been this way, we need men to stay with families otherwise bad things happen etc etc. There is no reason to assume that history lends credulity to an idea. There are many things that were thought to be the case historically that are now discarded. All you have is an old opinion echoed on and on over the years that marriage is important. Where is the demonstration that without marriage everything falls to pieces?
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 11:21 pmWhen you try to fit it into a preconceived category of yours, you are simply demonstrating your inability to comprehend it outside of the foregone conclusion that any argument against SSM must be irrational bigotry.
Answer a simple question. Is society as a whole better off when fathers provide for their children instead of welfare state?
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 11:24 pmI believe I directly refuted your point about single motherhood being caused by SSM in 424 and you refused to address me. It is not me that is dodging things.
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 11:24 pmYes. So what?
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 11:25 pmYes, empathy can be considered a form of understanding. But understanding of what?
Again, not reason. Gil, you still haven’t converted your emotional argument into a rational arguement. Instead you insist against a mountain of facts that I haven’t made a rational argument.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 11:30 pmSo Gil, how is it rationale to make the case that marriage has absolutely nothing to do with procreation, when you admit society is better off when fathers provide for their children instead of the welfare state.
Society is better off when fathers provide for their children, so we should destroy the institution that society created in order to ensure that they do so?
Again, how is this rational?
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 11:34 pmOr rather, not we, the judiciary should be able to destroy the institution that society and not government created in order to ensure that fathers do so.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 11:37 pmIn my original quote I said I was making an appear to empathy and understanding. I did not mean them to be the same thing which is why I said them separately. I immediately commented indicating that I meant reasoning when I said understanding. I am sorry for the confusion. It is obvious that I need reason for my position because we apply it to the natural world to learn truths about homosexuality in animals etc.
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 11:38 pmNo, Gil, we don’t need to talk about animals. We can confine ourselves to human society.
If we agree society is better off when fathers take care of their children, and I can prove that the whole point of marriage is to create legally enforceable obligations to ensure that they do so since monogomy isn’t entirely a matter of human nature, how is my position irrational or mere bigotry?
It is logically attached to what we both agree is a socially desirable end. That fathers take care of their children.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 11:43 pmAnd yes, you need a reason for your position.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 11:44 pmI did not make the case that marriage has nothing to do with procreation. I simply stated that denying SSM is wrong and irrational.
You can assert that allowing SSM will destroy the institution of marriage all you want. You can assert that single motherhood will go up because of SSM. But what you have to do is demonstrate it. And you haven’t. In fact you still haven’t bothered to counter my points about your erroneously used single motherhood study in 424.
That you have reasons to believe something, does not make it rational. You need to justify the reasons with data for that.
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 11:44 pmWhat you need to prove is that once SSM is in place, magically fathers will stop caring for their kids. But you cant prove that. In fact the single motherhood study suggests just the opposite. We have no SSM yet and even still single motherhood is up. And it is up most in the communities that most oppose SSM. Further, there is only a small (1-1.5%) difference in those communities of people that identify as LGBT and the proportion of single mothers does not correlate to that diffreence.
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 11:49 pmOr I should say SSM is not the law of the land yet
Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 11:49 pmIf you are making the case that marriage can include SSM, then you are making the case that marriage has nothing to do with procreation.
If marriage has to do with procreation, it can’t include SSM. It’s axiomatic; look up the word.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/22/2014 @ 11:53 pmLolz. Why should it be black and white? Some people want to use it to help define their procreation, some people want it to sanctify their love. Should an infertile hetero couple be denied the chance to get married? What about 2 women who want to get married as a prerequisite for getting artificially inseminated? Are they allowed now because they want to procreate.
Gil (27c98f) — 5/23/2014 @ 12:01 amWell, its 3AM I need sleep. Why don’t you try to demonstrate SSM would lead to rampant single motherhood and the downfall of civilization while im away. And address some of my direct refutations while youre at it.
Good luck.
Gil (27c98f) — 5/23/2014 @ 12:09 amNo, I can prove every thing I say. It’s you who are arguing without evidence.
I said that as single motherhood rises so does support for SSM. Again, I can prove this phenomenon in every country where the idea of of SSM became thinkable. First, you have to weaken the link between marriage and procreation sufficiently. SSM is the kill stroke. It irretrievably breaks the link between marriage and procreation. Once broken, it can never be remade.
I’m going to link to a peer reviewed study at the University of at the Baylor University website now.
http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/04Doc124Gunnar-3.pdf
Left unsaid is that marriage simply didn’t become “an increasingly empty institution.” Leftist feminists worked very hard to hollow it out. If you’re at all familiar with people like Kari Moxness, you’ll know they consider that a triumph.
As I said, I can prove everything I say, but what’s the point? You didn’t listen the first 200 times. Why would you listen the 201st?
No matter how much evidence I provide, you are still going to go with your “empathy” and your “human understanding” instead of your reason. You haven’t provided a shred of evidence while insisting I can’t prove anything. You’ve simply insisted on ignoring everything while bringing nothing to the table. All the while claiming against the evidence that I’m not making a rational argument. When all the evidence is on my side.
Why should I go to the trouble?
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/23/2014 @ 12:12 amConsidering you’ve made nothing but emotional appeals, and have made nothing like evidence-based direct refutations, and apparently don’t know the difference, yes. “Good luck” on my part.
You do realize you’re insane, Gil, don’t you? Your faculties have been destroyed?
You’re doing astrology. I’m doing astronomy. And you don’t know the difference.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/23/2014 @ 12:17 amYeah, I saw that episode of South Park. Big Gay Al was fabulous. I didn’t realize it was meant as a documentary. I’m sure Ken Burns will soon be placing cameras around Balboa Park on Friday nights to observe homosexuals in their natural habitat.
I worked with Simon Levay, who was doing serious work on physiological differences in homosexuals. That’s the kind of science I respect.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/23/2014 @ 1:24 amMaybe I should restart my cable just so I can keep up with this $***.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/23/2014 @ 1:47 amIt is always fun to watch Gil caricature a position and argue against that, as opposed to having a discussion against actual positions.
JD (9f0beb) — 5/23/2014 @ 5:10 amHe needs his sleep, JD.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/23/2014 @ 5:44 amI don’t believe this is the the standard. I don’t believe I need to disprove that holding hands, jumping off cliff into a river while shouting WTF a la Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kidd will lead to rampant single motherhood and the end of civilization as we know it.
Lest we all be forced by court order to jump off the cliff shouting “f*** it all” because, who knows? We might live.
Just that there’s a rational basis for what I happen to believe.
I’ve met that standard.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/23/2014 @ 5:54 amThat’s why it’s difficult to have a serious discussion with him and people like Northerner. If any of us had brought up a different position based on animal behavior speculation, what do you think the response would have been?
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/23/2014 @ 6:29 amDon’t bother. I haven’t watched it in years, and the episode I referred to was originally aired in 1997.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 5/23/2014 @ 6:31 amNot difficult. Impossible. Although I’ll concede that Gil just may be thoroughly indoctrinated.
Once you are aware of the techniques, why would you fall for them? I’m not some 18 year old.
Steve57 (c8cb20) — 5/23/2014 @ 6:54 amAdditionally, what does single motherhood have to do with redefining the term marriage? The burden of proof for that proposition is irrelevant. It does nothing to show why marriage as a term should be redefined. It is a shiny squirrel argument.
JD (9f0beb) — 5/23/2014 @ 7:16 amAs is infertility. And whether or not sheep screw other sheep. None of that has any relevance to the proposition that the MW unit is the foundational family structure of a society.
JD (9f0beb) — 5/23/2014 @ 7:18 amI worked with Simon Levay, who was doing serious work on physiological differences in homosexuals. That’s the kind of science I respect.
Some of the science behind Levay’s research is interesting and hardly surprising. After all, just about anyone out there has witnessed people who are sexually amorphous, or males who are effeminate, females who are masculine. But Levay and others leave out the question of whether ideological orientation — and much as sexual orientation — is innate or learned. He and others (per below, regarding people like Oscar Wilde) also are overly uninterested in the apparently innate heterosexual social-physical orientation of non-straight people too. IOW, the phrase “closeted gay” can just as easily be substituted with the phrase “closeted straight.”
Moreover, in the case of the GLBT populace, is the high percentage of them who are politically liberal or leftwing due to nurture or nature?
Parents should be “blessed to have gay kids”? Why? That statement is weighed down by the cheapness of compassion for compassion’s sake. For example, what if the gay kid is intrinsically dishonest, alcoholic or psychotic? LeVay sounds no better than those parents who would say “I’m blessed that my kids are straight” (but are dishonest, alcoholic, psychotic).
So although the science and research of LeVay may be sound, it’s interesting how he — as is true of the supposed experts in the field of global warming (or the supposed experts in the field of health and nutrition who originally said that fat was the cause of obesity and a major health risk, while saying little to nothing about sugar) — appears to have a left-leaning ideological orientation. And that interests me far more than his sexual orientation, which also apparently is homosexual.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/23/2014 @ 7:37 am426. Comment by Gil (27c98f) — 5/22/2014 @ 11:04 pm
That’s not really true, but it is true about incest.
So what are your grounds for oppposing incest, if religion and unnaturalness in animals, are off the table? And degrading society needs to be proven.
Inappropriateness? But what determines appropriateness?
People shouldn’t have this kind of relationship? Why is homosxuality less unnatural or inappropriate than incest?
Because you think people are born that way?
Sammy Finkelman (42d229) — 5/23/2014 @ 8:00 amQ> What if two identical twins are homosexuals? Does homosexuality take away the incest? This is not a theoretical question. It’s happened.
Sammy Finkelman (42d229) — 5/23/2014 @ 8:02 amGil,
This may be too late for you to read my response. Please look at your answer to my question about the 14th amendment and the reason for the 15th and 19th amendments. You did not answer my question with facts. You used supposition and guesswork. You started to touch on the answer which is that the reason for the 15th and 19th amendments is because the 14th amendment does not provide equality for all.
I appreciate Steve’s patient answers. His answers teach us all. In your answer to Steve, you wrote:
I believe that you need to recheck the definition of unnatural. Just because homosexual behavior exists in animals and humans doesn’t mean isn’t unnatural.
Unnatural:
Homosexual behavior is not normal because it represents a very small fraction of human population. And in case you think I’m being insulting, here is the definition of normal.
Since homosexual behavior represents a small fraction of the human population, homosexuality is not “normal”. Left handed people are not normal, but to say a left handed person is not normal is not being insulting to left handed people. The use of the word abnormal in this case is just a fact. It says nothing about the value of a left handed person.
Tanny O'Haley (c0a74e) — 5/24/2014 @ 11:44 pmPretty! This was a really wonderful post. Thank you for supplying
dragonvale cheats (0a5dfc) — 5/27/2014 @ 5:15 pmthis information.
Do you have any video of that? I’d love to find out more details.
find a wedding photographer (37fe2e) — 5/29/2014 @ 4:15 pm