November 9, 2012

"Washington joins two other states that have passed ballot measures making same-sex marriage legal..."

CNN emails its projection.
After nearly two days of counting, the tally was 1,269,917 residents in favor of the measure and 1,146,439 opposed.

107 comments:

mccullough said...

Federalism is a great thing.

n.n said...

So, behaviors constituting evolutionary dysfunction are now "normal". What else is new?

This didn't start with homosexuals. This started with heterosexuals, men and women, who reject responsibility for their promiscuous behavior, who support elective termination of unwanted or undesirable innocent human life, and therefore have a vested interest in normalizing unproductive behaviors.

The common thread is that individuals, whether homosexual or heterosexual, dream of instant gratification without perceived consequences (i.e. dissociation of risk). It is the same mentality which rationalizes denigration of individual dignity and progressive involuntary exploitation. It is the progressive reincarnation of an old normal.

This is reminiscent of Russians who were emancipated by communists, only to be then enslaved by their purported "saviors". It seems the only real lesson of history is that it is cyclical.

Matthew Sablan said...

On the ballot or through the state legislatures is the way to do this. Kudos on these states for this decision.

the wolf said...

Good to know that when the dollar collapses gay couples will be married in Washington. Priorities!

madAsHell said...

I'm still curious.
What exactly have they gained?
A marriage recognized by a church?
They (homosexuals) have had all the legal rights of a married couple for some time now.
Isn't the state over-stepping the boundary into religion?

mccullough said...

MadasHell,

From the government's standpoint, marriage is a civil institution. Personally, I think they should not be involved in marriage at all.

It should be either a religious thing or a personal thing or whatever.

Given the out-of-wedlock birth rate and divorce rate, it's just silly to have marriage as a government conferred civil institution. Let people live how they want and let the churches do what they want.

Triangle Man said...

@n.n.

Variety is beneficial to the overall survival of the species.

Dave said...

So - now electorally approved marriages will be performed in these states along with other states where legislatively (also a form of electoral approval) and judicially sanctioned same-sex marriages are already legal; and these marriages will NOT be recognized by most states and the federal government. In light of this DOMA has to be repealed or declared unconstitutional along with the state laws/constitutional amendments which have created this mess.

But, of course, the bigots, bishops and other idiots will never give up trying to impose their beliefs and will on everyone else.

Matthew Sablan said...

"A marriage recognized by a church? "

-- Marriage has multiple meanings; in this case, it is being used to define a state (not church, note the difference) sanctioned relationship with attending benefits/legalese. Yes, you could recreate many of them through other legal instruments, but this is a simple, cleaner way to do it.

Maybe we should never have used the word marriage in this secular sense, since it came with all its social/religious meanings attached to it, but we did. The marriage the state does is nothing related to the marriage a church does.

chickelit said...

mccullough said...
Federalism is a great thing.

I agree. Federalism gives people more freedom of choice; they can decided to move to or to leave states, depending on their beliefs. It's a much fairer way of deciding such things than one size fits all.

Dave said...

masAsHell said...."They (homosexuals) have had all the legal rights of a married couple for some time now."

That is completely untrue- go to the Human Rights Campaign website or many others to see the list of legal rights denied to LGBT people both by the federal government and many states....

dbp said...

It is still stupid but at least it is being done through the right process and that counts for something.

Big Mike said...

@Professor, off topic but I see that Biddy Martin is back in the news.

dbp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave said...

dbp said..."It is still stupid..."

Are you sure the word you were looking for wasn't "icky"? Grow up!

chickelit said...

Welcome Dave!

You are the replacement character archetype I was mentioning in the other Mitt Romney thread.

Andy R picked a bad day to give up Schadenfruede.

I Callahan said...

I agree. Federalism gives people more freedom of choice; they can decided to move to or to leave states, depending on their beliefs. It's a much fairer way of deciding such things than one size fits all.

It's too bad we don't have federalism for much else.

bagoh20 said...

I need to start a movement to get non-sex marriage legalized. Us singles are getting left out of the misery. Who do we have to bitch at us, to hog the remote, to fart in bed? It's just not right.

Dave said...

n.n. said... (a lot of crazy b.s. about "evolutionary dysfunction" and "instant gratification" etc.)

Well - "n" - regarding the "evolutionary" argument - a strong case can be made that there is a very specific evolutionary function. Homosexual members fulfilled a variety of functions in societies and continue to do so today which makes our species stronger.

The "instant gratification" comment is just plain bullshit. Many of the same-sex couples who want to have their relationships legally recognized have been together 20, 30, 40 or even more years ... That's not "instant gratification" - it's love.

And you're an idiot!

Dave said...

chicklite said..."You are the replacement character archetype..."

Hmmm... thank you? FYI, I am a human being not a "character archetype."

It's always a danger to mix small minds and big words, dear.

Clyde said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anne B. said...

I'm sure the divorce lawyers are delighted.

Anne B. said...

I'm sure the divorce lawyers are delighted.

Dave said...

I can't believe that no one has mentioned how same-sex marriage overcoming the electoral hurdle brings us closer to SCOTUS ruling DOMA and state laws/constitutional amendments limiting marriage to "one man - one woman) as unconstitutional.

chickelit said...

Dave advises: Hmmm... thank you? FYI, I am a human being not a "character archetype."

I'm sure you are IRL, Dave. But here, and because of the curious timing, you're just a character archtype, so deal with it.

chickelit said...

@Dave: Keeping proving my hypothesis!

Clyde said...

If the majority of voters want it, then it should become the law in that state, in a civil sense (as opposed to a religious one). In my opinion, this is far superior to having some judge legislate from the bench, as has happened in some other states.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Then the Democrats must also be in favor of deciding abortion rights at the state level.

I Callahan said...

I can't believe that no one has mentioned how same-sex marriage overcoming the electoral hurdle brings us closer to SCOTUS ruling DOMA and state laws/constitutional amendments limiting marriage to "one man - one woman) as unconstitutional.

OK, I'll mention it. But that was the plan all along, wasn't it Dave? The hell with what the majority thinks - if we can't get it through ballot measures, we'll take it via USSF fiat. Why don't you admit that?

wyo sis said...

It must be a specific nonfunctional part of a system that finds the standard practices of thousands of years of civilization to be "imposing their beliefs" on the ignorant minority. Time and blood and tears have proven the futility of building a culture on the whims of the selfish, childish and/or evil.
And yet someone says, and seems to believe, that homosexuality by virtue of being a "variety" benefits the overall survival of the species.

YoungHegelian said...

@dave,

Homosexual members fulfilled a variety of functions in societies and continue to do so today which makes our species stronger.

Such as what, dave? Having an encyclopedic knowledge of show tunes as an evolutionary niche?

"Winning" in evolutionary terms is passing on one's genes. Whatever may be the evolutionary advantage of the "Gay Aunt/Uncle" theory, there's no way it can compete with the straightforward mathematical simplicity that is passing on your genes by popping out as many babies as possible.

This is another example of gay advocates thinking too hard but yet not too well.

shiloh said...

Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way! ~ Thomas Paine

MadisonMan said...

Then the Democrats must also be in favor of deciding abortion rights at the state level.

I do. And I continue to maintain that the National Republican Party most emphatically does not. Abortion, and the repeal of RvW, is the cashiest of cash cows for the Republican Party.

chickelit said...

@shilho: I'm more of a mechanic--curious about how things work.

Michael said...

Let them have their "marriage" but it won't be real marriage and all the king's horses and all the king's men cannot make it so, all the registrars and preachers and divorce lawyers can't make it so. It will be a legal thing called "marriage" and it might be done in a church with a real priest presiding but it will not be marriage.

I am all for it. Maybe they'll tone it down.

bagoh20 said...

Top, bottom or get the hell out of the way.

Dave said...

I Callahan said..."OK, I'll mention it. But that was the plan all along, wasn't it Dave? The hell with what the majority thinks -"

If rights were simply bestowed based on what "the majority thinks," we would have no need of a Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Perhaps you should learn a little more about the subject before making pronouncements.

I Callahan said...

If rights were simply bestowed based on what "the majority thinks," we would have no need of a Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Could you please point to me the place in the constitution that shows you have a right to marriage. Go on, I'll wait.

Big Mike said...

On topic, I will always believe that the point of gay marriage was to pick a fight with Christians. As a confirmed, but non-proseltyzing, atheist and hardcore heterosexual I have no dog in that fight, but I regard the fight itself as a blunder.

My impression is that nearly all of the effort to reach compromise was on the part of the church-goers. Essentially none on the part of the gay community. Perhaps there was a lot of initial outreach on the part of the gay community but which didn't make it into the news because Democrats find it useful for coalition-building to set groups violently against one another.

And, please don't waste your time at the keyboard by pointing out the numerous idiots in the Republican party and Christian community who say stupid things about gay couples in committed relationships. People of good will ignore the idiots, because like the poor the idiots are always among us. Alternatively, you could have me judge the mental acuity of all gays by Andrew Sullivan and their view of society norms by NAMBLA.

Speaking of Sully, back in 2010 and 2011 his argument in favor of gay marriage was that many, many heterosexual marriages are pathological so it should be okay for gays to marry too. That's quite an argument in favor of gay marriage.

Dave said...

Michael said..."Let them have their "marriage" but it won't be real marriage..."

"a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Macbeth Act 5, Scene 5

Renee said...

A lot of Obama voters who still want marriage as a man and a woman, even in the bluest of states.

I rather have this done by ballot measure, then by courts, even though I disagree with the outcome.

What we should be focusing on is designing new public policies and legal acknowledge for different forms of family constellations, but also recognize one of those forms is/was marriage has/had a goal of uniting both mother and father together to raise their own children.

Yes, I'm preaching morality. Just as we do not want hate against homosexuals, we also do not want children without their mother and father. Both are/can be wonderful and just ideals, but not the same thing in terms of public policy.

Methadras said...

So when will there be lawsuits to prevent such a thing from happening? I mean if Californian's who win initiative measures like Prop. 187 back in 1994 and Prop. 8 just couple of years ago with huge majority only to see them sued into oblivion by leftist lawyers, then seeing a lawsuit against this should be coming up right? rite?

Big Mike said...

@MadMan, looking at Roe v Wade I see a complicated law written as a legal opinion. IMHO that's wrong.

But prior to RvW abortions were always available to those with enough money, with a massive wink-wink, nudge-nudge on the part of powers that be. And that's just as wrong.

Renee said...

@ Madison Man "I do. And I continue to maintain that the National Republican Party most emphatically does not. Abortion, and the repeal of RvW, is the cashiest of cash cows for the Republican Party."

Wall Street is there cash cow. Not pro-lifers. One third of all Democrats identify themselves as pro-lifers.

Dave said...

I Callahan - three state have just voted to allow same-sex marriage joining other states in which legislatures and/or courts have done the same. States regulate marriage, but that marriage is valid everywhere in the U.S. If you're married in Wyoming and travel to New York for a vacation, you don't cease to be married. However, many states and the Federal government are currently refusing to recognize legal same-sex marriages. It's an unconstitutional and unsustainable position.

It really doesn't matter what you think or I think. Marriage is a contract. And our Federal Republic can't allow states to pick and choose which contracts executed in another state they'll recognize.

madAsHell said...

That is completely untrue

I reviewed your suggested reading. Most of the anecdotes presented in the reading are not true in Washington state.

In summary, the initiative seems to lower the cost (lawyers fees) for establishing a civil union.

Bryan C said...

"Winning" in evolutionary terms is passing on one's genes."

Gay people aren't sterile, you know. They can have biological children in the usual way with a member of the opposite sex. If they want to.

n.n said...

Dave:

You fail to distinguish between individuals and behavior. You fail to discern between normalization, tolerance, and rejection of behaviors. As for instant gratification, that is not a classification of homosexual relationships, but of the behavior underlying them. It, incidentally, applies to heterosexual "friends with benefits", etc.

In any case, you fail to understand my position. However, you are welcome to present emotional appeals and hope for rational recognition.

n.n said...

Bryan C:

Then they are responsible for sabotaging the natural, first level of social organization, the family, which consists of a mother, father, and their children. They are responsible for the progressive dysfunction which corrupts individuals and society.

Fortunately, that is not quite true. The burden is not exclusively theirs to bear. There are large numbers of heterosexual men and women who also voluntarily abdicate their responsibility. The most egregious of which is to commit premeditated murder of innocent human life for reasons of convenience and personal welfare.

jr565 said...

Madashelll wrote:

I'm still curious.
What exactly have they gained?
A marriage recognized by a church?
They (homosexuals) have had all the legal rights of a married couple for some time now.
Isn't the state over-stepping the boundary into religion?

my fear is that they wil force churches to recognize gay marriage by force of law. If the state wants to do this then gays should go to city hall and get a license. But they shouldn't force a priest who finds such marriages to not be marriages to oversee such a marriage against there will.

n.n said...

Triangle Man:

And variety of different classes can indeed be tolerated. The issue is not variety, including individuals who practice deviant sexual or other behaviors, but viability. It is about recognizing a reasonable compromise which preserves individual dignity, preserves the intrinsic value of human life, and promotes evolutionary fitness.

I Callahan said...

And our Federal Republic can't allow states to pick and choose which contracts executed in another state they'll recognize.

Really? Then why do lawyers have to be licensed in the states they practice law? Because you passed the bar exam in Michigan, it doesn't mean you can practice law in all 50 states.

Try again.

edutcher said...

Wow!

What a landslide! And in a big blue state like that!

Who'da thunk?

Hatman will be so pleased.

shiloh said...

Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way! ~ Thomas Paine

He knows as much history as politics.

And, speaking of politics, where were you between 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?

Polishing Hillary's strap-ons?

We'll understand.

Promise.

Tell us.

jr565 said...

Bryan c wrote:

Gay people aren't sterile, you know. They can have biological children in the usual way with a member of the opposite sex. If they want to.

but not through their gay relationship. They have to go outside that relationship and enter into a second one that is for all intents and purposes a heterosexual one. Or have to rely on surragetea who are of the opposite sex.

mccullough said...

Dave,

Sports gambling is legal in Nevada, but not in other states. Marijuana is legal in Colorado and Washington, but not other states.

The Constitution does not require one state to recognize a marriage in another state. Some states, like Colorado, permit first cousins to marry. Others don't. No state has to recognize this marriage. The Constitution's requirement that full faith and credit be given in each state of all public acts, records, and judicial proceedings hasn't been interpreted to require recognition of marriages. So, as of now at least, Alabama doesn't have to recognize a same-sex marriage valid in Washington.

lawyapalooza said...

You all crack me up. What exactly is the problem with gays having equal civil rights under the law? I have never seen a divorce caused by the fact that a gay couple wants to get married.

LAws aren't based on some sort of biological imperative or natural "superiority." At least they haven't since the civil rights movement. If you put segregation t oa popular vote, I guarantee you that many states in the south will vote for segregation and miscegenation. Hell, a couple years ago a guy in Mississippi refused to arrya mixed race couple because he "didn't believe in it."

We will have gay marriage in all 50states. DOMA is unconstitional and has been declared so by every court that has reviewd it. Get over yourselves.

Perhaps if straight people spent less time condemning others and more time on their marriages and children, the divorce rate will go down.

Michael K said...

Does anyone think this will shut the gays up ?

lawyapalooza said...

jr565 has never heard of sperm banks, foster care, or adoption.

Also, where are all of the consitutional amendments prohibiting people over the age of 50 from getting married? How about a statute requiring proposed brides and grooms to go through fertility testing as part of the marriage license? As we all know and agree, sex if for the purpose of procreation.

No matter what red herrings you throw, the fact of the matter is that this boils down to bigotry, pure and simple. Your children are already embarrased for your stance (and so the votes show).

Dave said...

Just for the record - there's more than one "Dave" here. I've not commented on this thread til now. I think I need to change my commenter name

Dave said...

t

Dave said...

n.n. said..."You fail to distinguish between individuals and behavior."

My assumption was that the primary behavior being discussed was same-sex marriage despite the tortured logic of your conflation of this subject with abortion and the Russian revolution.

Your assertion that "this" is a result of people who "reject responsibility for their promiscuous behavior" and "dream of instant gratification without perceived consequences" is not only extremely judgmental but also incredibly uninformed. Gross generalized condemnations of other peoples lives and choices serves no useful purpose.

The wisdom passed down to us through thousands of years tells us to "judge not, lest we be judged" - to "not judge a man until you've walked two moons in his moccasins" - and to "love the Lord...and your neighbor as yourself."

It's easy to judge others - the hard work is trying to understand them. You're right, I don't understand what you believe or how you came to it.

Dave said...

Dave said..."there's more than one Dave here..."

No problem - I think there's more than one Althouse too!

Maverick Collecting said...

n.n said; "...first level of social organization, the family, which consists of a mother, father, and their children..."

Really? You obviously aren't aware of the social organisations of Bees, wasps (leather-jackets) or ants then? Nor the social organisations of elephants or lions? meercats? wolves?

Or any species other than the one that conforms to you Judeo-Christian view of what constitutes a 'First-level family'

And - No, I'm not gay, not 'left' (or right) and not looking for a fight but I hate wildly quoted bunkum!

Maverick Collecting said...

Michael K said; "Does anyone think this will shut the gays up ?"

No! They like the sounds of their own voices more than Bloggers!! :-)

garage mahal said...

Does anyone think this will shut the gays up ?

Why should they shut up more than you should?

grackle said...

I wonder how Obama's upcoming SCOTUS appointments will affect this issue. Also, repeal of Roe vs. Wade, improbable to begin with, will soon become impossible. And a host of other issues await an Obama-weighted SCOTUS.

The GOP base stayed home again this election, casting even fewer votes for Romney than they did for McCain the last time around. Like McCain, Romney didn't pass their inspection. Didn't excite them enough. Too bad.

The left has had the MSM, academia, the art world and the intellectuals on its side for some time. Soon it will probably have the SCOTUS locked up as well. Lefty assumptions have been slowly and surely permeating the conventional wisdom since the advent of Marxism. With the judiciary in the tank for the left that process will no doubt accelerate. Elections have consequences.

Freder Frederson said...

They (homosexuals) have had all the legal rights of a married couple for some time now.

Bullshit, try collecting social security survivor's benefits after the death of a same-sex spouse.

Dave said...

mccullough - FYI, problems with same-sex marriage and the Federal government because of DOMA will end with it's repeal. States will eventually have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. If you're not aware of the sort of complications that arise, here are some examples -

Recently (within the last few years) a lesbian couple vacationing in Florida had a medical emergency - a brain aneurysm put one partner into the hospital where she died. Despite the fact that they had executed Health Powers of Attorney, Durable Powers of Attorney, etc. etc. the other partner was denied access to the room or any voice in health decisions.

California is a community property state that treats Registered Domestic Partners the same as married couples for tax purposes. Because of this, RDP's file a joint return with the state and individual returns with the IRS that are adjusted to reflect their state filing. This then raises issues with Social Security.

Also the repeal of DADT (don't ask, don't tell) has created lots of issues with housing, benefits, etc. with legally married same-sex couples when one is in the military.

It's going to be a mess until DOMA is overturned or repealed and states recognize marriages as happened with Loving v. Virginia.

hombre said...

Dave wrote: But, of course, the bigots, bishops and other idiots will never give up trying to impose their beliefs and will on everyone else.

Better your beliefs than theirs, eh, Mr. Tolerance?

Renee said...

I know of a grandfather who raises his grandchildren, he resides with his sister who helps parent.

Should they get married?

Please say yes, if gays are allowed to marry as well.




Sperm banks/Egg donations should be illegal, that's just child trafficking. Foster care should always be with biological family first, not with strangers. With adoption, we should be helping women, as mothers, not take away their babies.


Freder Frederson said...

my fear is that they wil force churches to recognize gay marriage by force of law.

Your fear is completely unfounded. Almost fifty years after the Civil Rights act and Loving v. Virginia, if a minister refuses to marry you and your fiancee because he doesn't believe in racial mixing, there is absolutely nothing you, or the government can do, to compel him.

Renee said...

Without fathers in the homes, neighborhoods become 'police states' for those communities they do not even have the liberty to walk down the street safely. Businesses can not even be set up in these areas in fear of being constantly robbed. We can never bounce back and all the government aid in the world doesn't solve our bigger problem.

No really, look at Chicago and their gang activity or sadly my own city.

Non-absent residential fathers do a lot for a community, when there are high rates of children living with only one parent problems occur.

Fathers matter. If we can't call it marriage, we better make up something quick!

The issues that occur within my own urban community I feel are being greatly ignored, the absence of marriage here is bringing everyone at risk.

Do I sympathize with the real life situations for many gay relationships, yes, but I can not ignore what is happening right outside my door as well.

Alex said...

If you destroy the nuclear family, what is left? Growing humans in vats, like in Brave New World.

MadisonMan said...

my fear is that they wil force churches to recognize gay marriage by force of law.

That'll be about the time they force Catholic churches to marry Baptists.

mccullough said...

Dave,

I agree with you that it is messy. And while I agree that the Supreme Court will probably strike down the federal DOMA, it is highly unlikely they will overturn precedent requiring states to recognize marriages from other states.

It is also highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would say that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. While you cite Loving v. Virginia, notions of racial superiority are at the heart of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.

While I agree that gays and lesbians have a good claim to heightened equal protection, I don't see the Supreme Court stepping in to cut off the democratic process after 10 states (some by judicial declaration) have now permitted gay marriage.

The Supreme Court leanred its lesson with Roe v. Wade and it's not jumping into and pouring fire on a culture war.

hombre said...

Dave wrote: The wisdom passed down to us through thousands of years tells us to "judge not, lest we be judged"....

Are you the same Dave who wrote that judgmental bullshit I addressed in my post at 1:55, or are you a differennt Dave?

Either way, the "judge not" bit is out of context. There is verse 6 to contend with. You do know, verse 6. Don't you?

Freder Frederson said...

The Constitution does not require one state to recognize a marriage in another state.

Actually it does. That was the issue in Loving v. Virginia (whether Virginia had to recognize the legality of the Loving's DC marriage).

Freder Frederson said...

Without fathers in the homes, neighborhoods become 'police states' for those communities they do not even have the liberty to walk down the street safely.

Yes, the children of gay and lesbian parents are prone to criminal behavior and participation in street gangs.

hombre said...

The Supreme Court learned its lesson with Roe v. Wade and it's not jumping into and pouring fire on a culture war.

With most judges, particularly, progressive judges, it is about power, not learning from past mistakes.

As I think on it, that's pretty much true of all progressives. Besides, gays, etc., are among the useful idiots being exploited as part of the social marxist agenda.

Unknown said...

So why, when California rejects gay marraige through a vote, it's not legitimate and overturned by a judge, but when states pass it, it is legit?

Renee said...

Alex, the states that do have marriage defined as a man and woman, need to have the public policy to support the ideal of stability for children with their birth parents.

Marriage is pretty beat up, it is hard to rebuild what you destroyed.

It's a lot like countries that pay to have children to raise their birth rates and it does nothing.

Is the law the determines the culture's values, or the culture's values that determines the law?

In which order do these two things work in?


I focus on kinship and family stability, and hopefully our law makers will come around and see the benefit of that.

FYI I rather see a child be adopted by a gay uncle, that an unrelated heterosexual couple.

Renee said...

Unknown, I guess.

Freder, Actually if they are being denied one of their biological parents, if it is a same-sex couple. Both can not be biological parents.

You can have a gay mom and dad. That's fine. No problem there.

chickelit said...

I love how some gays insist on litigating their way into our hearts instead of celebrating a popular victory. It is the most telling of their true intent.

Dave said...

hombre said..." Besides, gays, etc., are among the useful idiots being exploited as part of the social marxist agenda."

As opposed to the useless idiot who wrote the above!

dbp said...

There are lots of "icky" things that consenting adults can engage in. I'm not in favor of making any of this against the law, but neither do I think such things should be encouraged by laws either.

hombre said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
hombre said...

Dave spewed: As opposed to the useless idiot who wrote the above!

There now, Dave. Wasn't that easier than responding to my comments calling you on your earlier bullshit?

(Sorry, btw, if the "useful idiot" and "social Marxism" political references were beyond your ken. Substitute "cultural Marxism" if it helps.)

el polacko said...

when it's in the legislature, then it should be sent to the courts ! when it's in the courts, they are 'activist' and it should go to the voters ! when the voters want it then...uhh...uhhh...it just shouldn't happen at all!! jeeze louise...and people wonder why gay citizens feel victimized.

hombre said...

My comment at 2:15 should have read: "Besides, gay activists are among the useful idiots being exploited ...."

I apologize for the overbreadth.

I Callahan said...

You all crack me up. What exactly is the problem with gays having equal civil rights under the law? I have never seen a divorce caused by the fact that a gay couple wants to get married.

Have you bothered to read the entire thread? Has anyone said they can't have the same civil rights (which means speech, press, to bear arms, etc.).

I'm with the group that says the government should be out of the marriage business entirely. Maybe even a basic national civil union law that ensconces stuff like survivor benefits, probate court issues, etc. You see, this would be a compromise, and I think a lot of people would go for it. Are there some SoCons who wouldn't? Of course.

The problem with the gay mafia is that they don't want compromise. I agree with Big Mike that they just want to pick a fight with Christians as a whole. And as long as the gay mafia is unwilling to compromise, you'll see people resist them at the polls.

Harold said...

"But, of course, the bigots, bishops and other idiots will never give up trying to impose their beliefs and will on everyone else."

Done being polite. Idiot comment- it's the gays forcing their WANTS on everyone else- and now they've got it. Within 6 months, every judge in every state that sees a case, and I'm sure ordinary gay couples will follow up in every state, will rule that due to changing social mores, marriage is now something completely different. The fight on gay marriage is over.

Which means the fight on polygamy is also over. Within 5 years it will be legalized everywhere. The legal obstacles are fewer. After all, polygamy is already recognozed in all of Sharialand.

Speaking of which, once polygamy is legalized, within a very few short years, your happy gay couples will no longer be able to walk down the street holding hands and kissing in large swaths of major American cities. While the Feds will recognize gay marriage, the locals will enforce sharia extrajudicially- and no political or legal authority will stop them.

Enjoy your gay marriages and relationships while they last. While it may seem paradoxical, the door to sharia is now wide open.

TosaGuy said...

Somehow I think there are alot of folks who love states' rights with regard to these gay marriage votes will be less enamored with the concept when states refuse to set up an Obamacare exchange.

Justin said...

@Harold: You need to go look for your grip on reality because you seem to have lost it.

sparrow said...

Government has to get involved in marraige for two reasons: 1) enforcing contract law (Yes the modern marriage contract is a mess, but just because we have irresponsible divorce laws doesn't mean the government shouldn't be involved) 2) welfare of children (again the modern government does not actually care about the welfare of children but current bad government doesn't mean custody should be a free for all). So there's no way to be fully libertarian on marriage without causing other problems.

Methadras said...

lawyapalooza said...

You all crack me up. What exactly is the problem with gays having equal civil rights under the law?


This argument always comes up. There is no problem, since all homosexuals have the same rights as individual sovereign citizens of the US. They are not excluded in any way from the laws that individual heterosexuals enjoy. Homosexuals have it wrong and have always been wrong about homosexual marriage. Society has made it plainly clear that marriage is a function of and individual man and an individual woman coming together in matrimony. It's not about love, it's not about procreation, it's not about sex. Homosexuals can be married, they never lost that ability because they are crying over something they never had. Instead they are asking that a special concession be made for same sex couples to marry on top of and equal to heterosexual couples. Homosexuals can get married right now to someone of the opposite sex. It's never stopped them.

So once again, homosexuals want special rights above and beyond those they already have that everyone else shares.

Harold said...

"Justin said...
@Harold: You need to go look for your grip on reality because you seem to have lost it. "

I'm projecting into the future, looking at reality as has set in elsewhere.

There are vast parts of gay Paree where the gendarmes dare not enter, and sharia is enforced. That's reality.

Jews in France, Germany, and Norway have all been warned not to wear yarmulkes and show their identity in public- it's dangerous for them to do so. That's reality.

Try walking hand-in-hand with your gay lover (if you're gay) down the streets in Dearbornistan, MI, and stop in front of the local mosque on a Friday afternoon as services are letting out, and give each other a real, wet, sloppy kiss. Before you do so, let me know your names so I can prepare a nice eulogy on your martyrdom in showing the rest of the United States where the future lies.

Brings another thought to mind- Israel. I wouldn't bet a wooden shekel on the survival of Israel for 4 more years. And since it is a well known secret that Israel possesses nukes, and the will to use them as retaliation, the end won't be pretty.

I haven't lost my grip on reality- I've simply overnight become much more pessimistic.

Joe said...

Isn't the state over-stepping the boundary into religion?

It did that centuries ago. How about if the state get out of marriage and declare basic civil unions for anyone who then wants to solemnize their marriage in a church, on a hillside or where ever and how ever they please.

JimGl said...

If gay marriage, why not multi-partner marriage, polygamy has such a bad rep these days.

JimGl said...

If we approve having two types of marriage, gay and straight what's the argument against polygamy. Just asking

Peter Hoh said...

Big Mike: On topic, I will always believe that the point of gay marriage was to pick a fight with Christians. As a confirmed, but non-proseltyzing, atheist and hardcore heterosexual I have no dog in that fight, but I regard the fight itself as a blunder.

The gay couples who were getting married in the 90s -- at least the ones I knew -- involved people who grew up in the church and never really left. They were pastors' kids, missionary kids, and theology students.

Back then, the mainstream gay rights groups were against the push for marriage. If I recall correctly, HRC was still arguing that marriage was going to derail their legislative priorities as recently as 2008.

My impression is that nearly all of the effort to reach compromise was on the part of the church-goers.

I'd like to know what leads you to this conclusion.

Yes, there are some denominations that have been moving toward greater acceptance, but in the civil arena, much (if not all) of the opposition to same-sex marriage and civil unions has been organized and funded by church groups.

The Catholic Church was opposed when civil unions came up in the New Hampshire legislature in 2007. If I recall correctly, they fought against civil unions in Washington state, too. It seems that the Bishops have started to see civil unions as preferable to marriage, but I think it's come a little too late.

In 2008, Richard Crizik was asked to resign from the National Association of Evangelicals after he said that he supported civil unions.

David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch proposed a civil union compromise in 2009 with an opinion piece in the NYT, but their proposal went nowhere.

Had there been movement toward federal recognition of civil unions, then this might seem like a viable alternative to marriage, but it doesn't seem that this is likely. You might recall that there were a number of state constitutional amendments that explicitly forbid the recognition of civil unions.

Links provided if you want them.

Peter Hoh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter Hoh said...

jr565: my fear is that they wil force churches to recognize gay marriage by force of law. If the state wants to do this then gays should go to city hall and get a license. But they shouldn't force a priest who finds such marriages to not be marriages to oversee such a marriage against there will.

This is an unfounded fear. There are churches that won't perform straight marriages that don't fall within their religious teachings -- interfaith marriages, remarriages, etc. -- and to the best of my knowledge, no one has successfully challenged this.

What's more, most of the states that are passing legislation that allows for same-sex marriage are passing some form of religious liberty language explicitly stating that clergy are not required to marry anyone they don't want to marry.

jr565 said...

Lawyapalooza wrote:
Hell, a couple years ago a guy in Mississippi refused to arrya mixed race couple because he "didn't believe in it."

well for one, they are not equal rights you're asking for. They're DIFFERRENT rights. Not saying that they should be excluded because of that, only that you're being disingenuous with the equality argument.
Gays have the same rights now that heterosexual do. Gay men can marry women just as straight men can. I can't marry a man just as a gay man can't. Which is why the idea of interracial marriages is not analogous.
Marriage as defined is a bride and a groom and a man and a woman. A black man is a man and would take the role of the groom, whatever his skin tone.

Two men would equal two grooms, which is not the same as a bride and a groom. Adding the word gay to the front of the word marriage shows right off the bat that it's different.
Definitionally, it's different. Therefore demanding equality for a gay relationship is different than an interracial one.
And equality doesn't apply to all marriages. Like for example polygamous ones. I suppose you can find plenty of people who refuse to marry "polygamous couples because "it's different too". If tht guy in Mississipi came down similarly on marrying a trio or a harem what would your stance be about it? Would you compare it to gay marriage, or interracial marriages.

jr565 said...

Big mike wrote:
My impression is that nearly all of the effort to reach compromise was on the part of the church-goers. Essentially none on the part of the gay community
how many states have accommodated gays already with civil unions,,which is what a gay marriage in effect is. Yet that is met with a separate but equal argument, as if you couldn't achieve everything gays need through a civil union.

Peter Hoh said...

jr565: how many states have accommodated gays already with civil unions,,which is what a gay marriage in effect is. Yet that is met with a separate but equal argument, as if you couldn't achieve everything gays need through a civil union.

How many states have civil unions or domestic partnerships? About 8. There are a few states which approved civil unions and have switched to recognizing marriages, so that makes the number a little trickier to pin down.

And about 19 states have constitutional amendments that prevent them from recognizing civil unions.

Peter Hoh said...

And the idea of compromise between "the gays" and "the church-goers" is complicated by the existence of gay church-goers and straight church-goers who support full marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Harold said...

Wow. People must be getting tires of this issue. Only two days of commenting, and far less then the hundreds of comments this subject normally gets.

And that's one of the reasons SSM finally won at the ballot box. A large enough number of people thought "F- it, ain't worth the hassle fighting it any longer."

I don't know about the rest of you, but the vast majority of people I know who actually support SSM, aside from the gays, still think it is a really stupid idea, but they're convinced it has something to do with "equality". So now, the really stupid idea will be put into law.