No Justice dissented.
The ruling can be interpreted as an indication that the Court wants to have further exploration in lower courts of the basic constitutional question of state power to limit marriage to a man and a woman. Had it refused the state’s request for delay, that would have left at least the impression that the Court was comfortable allowing same-sex marriages to go forward in the thirty-three states where they are still not permitted by state law.IN THE COMMENTS: Fen says:
Who cares? I'm so tired of hearing about gay marriage.And I say:
When you thought you could defeat it, you were only too happy to talk about it all the time. Defeated, you're "so tired of hearing about" it.UPDATE: Fen returns to the comments to say that he is not an opponent of same-sex marriage. What I said (above) — hedged by "That's how it looks to me anyway" — assumed a mindset of those who profess to be "tired" of posts about same-sex marriage. I seem to get these comments every time I post on the subject. I don't understand why people who are tired of posts about this subject don't simply skip them. Why don't they go on to something that they are interested in? Why drag down the thread by announcing that you aren't interested in it? Why do you think that's interesting? So the "you" in my little rant is everyone who comes by to say they are tired of hearing about the subject. I guess I have to concede that some people who feel compelled to announce their tiredness actually wish for the success of the marriage equality movement. Fen offers no explanation for his behavior, dragging down the thread when he isn't a same-sex marriage opponent, and he proceeds to make many hostile remarks which I won't front page. What's that all about? I'll decline to speculate.
Another way of putting it is just to admit that you're really sad about losing. If you'd won, you wouldn't stop talking. You're promoting no more talking about this because it's all you've got.
That's how it looks to me anyway.
But you're certainly entitled to be tired. Your position is old and wearisome, and your expression about it has been mightily tiresome, which is to say, I'm tired of hearing about how tired you are.
And I won't be silenced. Same-sex marriage is still not established across the country (and in the world), so those who support it have good reason to keep talking. The argument for shutting up is a con.
Posts
175 comments:
Maybe they sense a crisis of judicial authority among the rubes.
It's too early to read too much in to this but perhaps the courts ruling in NFIB regarding the limits in how much the federal government can coerce the states might come in to play here.
Who cares? I'm so tired of hearing about gay marriage.
The question, of course, is not the Court's comfort level with allowing same-sex marriage to go forward in the remaining states, but whether they are comfortable with that result being mandated by our Constitution.
Most of the people who wanted to get married have done so in the last 2 1/2 weeks. So there is gratitude for that.
I like this cartoon published in the SL Tribune:
bagley
Homosexual unions are exemplary. The courts ruling must be comprehensive or it will be arbitrarily discriminatory. I wonder if people are prepared to discuss the issue on its merits. It is not restricted to homosexual behavior or to individual rights.
So Fen doesn't care about his fellow American's civil rights under the Constitution. Yawn, no surprise.
At some point, they're going to have to come up with a good answer to the question, "What's special about 2?"
Solution. Get the government out of the marriage business. Create 1 flat income tax rate and eliminate all deductions except for a deduction for dependents under 18.
One man's request for delay is another man's restoration of the status quo ante.
Get the government out of the marriage business.
Yes.
If you want benefits for your life partner, the government can grant them, beneficiently and magnanimously.
Make a marriage the religious rite that it is. The (any) church can define it.
For government recognition, require some kind of civil ceremony/form between two people.
Bonus for bureaucrats: It requires forms and a person to stamp them! JOb security!
PB you can't get government out of marriage. You can can call it something else but between property, inheritance , child custody, support and other aspects of law it just isn't possible.
Just go for civil unions already. Thats's what gay marriages are. Don't force a change of a definition and dont' call people bigots if they think 2+2=4 and not 3.
"So Fen doesn't care about his fellow American's civil rights under the Constitution. Yawn, no surprise."
What RIGHT are you talking about? Marriage is not a right. But even if it were gays have the same rights as straights.
What you are talking about is redefining something to accomodate a "right". If you have to redefine it to make it fit was it a right to begin with? No.
rhhardin said...
Maybe they sense a crisis of judicial authority among the rubes
O you poet! Robes to rubes is but a vowel change.
Marriage IS a Fundamental Right, 14 SC cases that say it IS.
You can support marriage equality and also the rights of citizens in states to decide that question.
This federal judge abused his power by not staying his decision until higher courts could weigh in. Judicial hubris.
Inga it's not a right. It's a civil institution.
But even if you want to define it as a right, gays have the same rights as straights now.
There are lots of ways to define marriage. When the Supremes said marriage was a right did they mean any way you define marriage is a right? Or were you bound by marriage meaning what it meant? So, if there were a restriction in place (and lets pretend it's not gay marriage so you can actually put your thinking cap on and not blindly regurgitate your dumb talking points)wouldn't that mean that you could only marry if you abided by the rules?
take another instance of a restricted marriage. Do you have a right to polygamy? Polygamy is marriage.
No, you don't have a right to polygamy but you do have a right to marry AS DEFINED by the state.
Gays have a right to marry AS DEFINED.
What they are seeking is a new right that redefines what marriage is.
Do you not grasp that?
Obviously this is the work of Phil Robertson. Or maybe Evander Holyfield.
GLAAD has another sad.
Inga is underage marriage a fundamental right?
Are incestual marriages a funamental right?
Are harems a fundamental right
IS bigamy a fundamental right?
Because last time I checked none of these were fundamental rights.
But if you wanted to marry a member of the opposite sex who was of age and wasn't a blood relative you could do so.
Your idea of a fundamental right is far differnt than mine.
The next question is SHOULD society provide an avenue so that gays can "Marry". In my opinion it's a state mater, but it's not to be done by redefining marriage and calling people bigots for not sudenly believing something that has always meant one thing must now mean something else.
No, you want a new type of codified relationship. That's a civil union.
There is something special about 2 when children are involved. Of course no one can do this research anymore because it supports a non-progressive idea, but the research was overwhelming that kids from 2 parent intact families did better than kids from single parent families (of course there were exceptions). So, since only heterosexual couples can produce children that are the children of both of their parents, there is an interest in promoting marriage of heterosexual couples who have children because it is in the best interests of their biological children and it reduces poverty, social problems, etc.
Carrie wrote:
. Of course no one can do this research anymore because it supports a non-progressive idea, but the research was overwhelming that kids from 2 parent intact families did better than kids from single parent families (of course there were exceptions).
Not only that, but biologically its the two parents that are actually having the kid. Our whole concept of child support is based on the notion that the parents take care of the kids (So that the state doesnt have to).
As such, the relationship that supports this unique relationship is valued more than ones that don't do this.
Society is not in the business of making love connections.
"Who cares? I'm so tired of hearing about gay marriage."
When you thought you could defeat it, you were only too happy to talk about it all the time. Defeated, you're "so tired of hearing about" it.
Another way of putting it is just to admit that you're really sad about losing. If you'd won, you wouldn't stop talking. You're promoting no more talking about this because it's all you've got.
That's how it looks to me anyway.
But you're certainly entitled to be tired. Your position is old and wearisome, and your expression about it has been mightily tiresome, which is to say, I'm tired of hearing about how tired you are.
And I won't be silenced. Same-sex marriage is still not established across the country (and in the world), so those who support it have good reason to keep talking. The argument for shutting up is a con.
Solution. Get the government out of the marriage business. Create 1 flat income tax rate and eliminate all deductions except for a deduction for dependents under 18.
Do they have to be human?
Actually...I agree totally with you.
Fundamentally the question is, how is marriage defined? And can it be restricted.
My argument and the argument that society seems to have been functioning under is that marriage can be defined any way the society wanted. And restricted any way it wanted. Then, if you wanted to marry you were bound by those restrictions.
As in life itself. Your fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are still bound by the limits set by society. You can't for example pursue happines through burglary because burglary is illegal. And if you are caught stealing you can lose your liberty.
Your freedom is bound by the framework set by socitey.
"Who cares? I'm so tired of hearing about gay marriage."
It's not just gay marriage, its gayness itself. Every day we hear about the latest celebrity coming out and then hear about their bravery for coming out.
Is it even that brave anymore? And is it intersting? Well as about as intersting as talking about twerking.
My, how the "disinterested observer of the culture" facade falls away when the Prof runs across something she KNOWS is the only correct moral position, rendering all who do not agree stupid, evil, or some stoop-vile combination of both.
Book mark this one for the next time the Prof makes one of her formalistic denials of advocacy or bias. They usually issue once a quarter or so.
Finding a right to same sex marriage will open an incredible can of worms.
How will you then deny close relatives?
Whether it will open the door to polygamy- if it's a right? - yeah, I think it could. If it there is a right to marry the person you love, should that be prohibited simply because he or she is already married?
Are there very many government controlled contracts that limit the number of people who can be bound by that contract to 2?
I support same sex marriage, but it's hard to believe the right to it has been hiding in the constitution all these years.
Your position is old and wearisome, and your expression about it has been mightily tiresome, which is to say, I'm tired of hearing about how tired you are.
Sort of like your position on pot legalization.
"MadisonMan said...
Get the government out of the marriage business.
Yes.
If you want benefits for your life partner, the government can grant them, beneficiently and magnanimously.
For government recognition, require some kind of civil ceremony/form between two people.
Bonus for bureaucrats: It requires forms and a person to stamp them! JOb security!"
But then blacks, college students, and the elderly couldn't get married. Or at least we have been told.
Gayness as an issue is like reality show families that keep pushing the product over and over endlessly.
How much Kardhashians or Brittany's can you take before you say enough already?
Oversaturation is not helpful for any product being marketed. And god knows, gayness as a civil right is being marketed.
I do find it amusing that the folks who decided we had to obliterate the limits of "marriage" now think they can arbitrarily set new limits on marriage that will preclude polygamy, polyamory, etc.
The only rule the left wants is: You have the right to marry who(m) you love.
Once that becomes the baseline, there are no limits.
That's been a major point of contention all along.
But hey, "War on Gays" was needed along with "War on Women" and "War on Immigrants" (forget about differentiating legal vs illegal immigrants), "War on (insert needed voting bloc here)".
What we are all "tired" about is the inevitable and inescapable long-term battle that will result in no limits whatsoever on marriage.
Along with, of course, the cultural and social pressure to redefine a "natural" occurring outcome (homosexuality/bisexuality etc) into a "normal" result.
"If you'd won, you wouldn't stop talking. "
I don't know much about Fen, but this reaction to him sounds like liberal projection to me, particularly since the SCOTUS action sounds like a "win" for his side.
Add to it the comment, "The argument for shutting up is a con," given the propensity for libs themselves to stifle dissent, and the case for projection becomes stronger, doesn't it?
Some of us are actually just tired of the whole gay marriage bit. That is the strategy, isn't it, to wear down the opposition?
I support marriage between consenting adults of any number and any sexual orientation. And I am tired of hearing about gay marriage.
Oh, and let me take a moment to thank Igna for her blindingly ignorant analysis of the Constitution and SCOTUS marriage cases purporting to establish a right the Supreme Court hasn't fully invented yet.
Ann Althouse said...
When you thought you could defeat it, you were only too happy to talk about it all the time. Defeated, you're "so tired of hearing about" it.
Another way of putting it is just to admit that you're really sad about losing. If you'd won, you wouldn't stop talking. You're promoting no more talking about this because it's all you've got.
For something's that's been defeated, it sure does seem to be popping up in a whole lot of court cases. And pissing you right off!
For what it's worth, I'm not against talking about it. I say talk about it more. For instance, I'd love for gay marriage proponents to explain why they stopped pushing for civil unions that would give gay couples the same rights and benefits as married couples (which I supported, and still do) and switched to marriage.
I'd like to know why I was politically correct when I supported civil unions but a bigot when I didn't support marriage, even after having been told over and over again that homosexuals had no interest in marriage, thought it was a lame institution for straight people, and were absolutely, positively not going to push for it. Am I a bigot if I point out those people were full of shit?
I'd also like gay marriage supporters to explain why homosexuals should be given the "right" to marry but polygamous and incestuous couples shouldn't. If it's a right, how can it be denied to any consenting adult?
But for all your gay marriage talk, you haven't answered those questions. I can only assume that's because it's easier to say "nyahh nyahh, you're a bigot and a loser."
What kind of fallacy is that, by the way?
Ann Althouse said...
And I won't be silenced.
Pointing out that somebody's being a bore isn't the same thing as trying to silence them.
If you'd won, you wouldn't stop talking. You're promoting no more talking about this because it's all you've got.
That's not true. If the people who voted to ban gay marriage had not had their votes stolen from them by judges inventing or finding a right that had never existed before, they would spend exactly no time discussing it or thinking about. People opposed to the homosexual agenda don't go around hating homosexuals all day. (The same is not true for those supporting the homosexual agenda...witness their open and contemptous use of the term "breeder") They live their lives.
AA
And I won't be silenced. Same-sex marriage is still not established across the country (and in the world), so those who support it have good reason to keep talking. The argument for shutting up is a con.
People (or at least not me) aren't trying to silence you or shut you up, they're (we're) just telling you this subject is boring. Is there some new wrinkle I've missed other than "your side" spiking the football and taunting those who disagree with you?
No, it's a boring subject, and it's not an important subject either (in a global sense, it is important to the relatively very few people who want to get gay-married).
@Hamber,
I trust the analysis of the people who posted that website and the 14 times that the SC found that marriage was a Fundamental Right, than your opinion on gay marriage any day. Your opinion is tainted with bigotry and hate, and is to be rejected by thinking people.
I feel so sorry for all those gay couples in Utah whose marriages are now in question. Think of the financial hardship on those who now have to find new housing so they won't be living in sin by cohabiting without the benefit of marriage.
And I won't be silenced.
Who is threantening to silence you? So now expressing disagreement with you, or the fact that your endless preoccupation with homosexuality can be boring is an aatempt to silence you?
Farmer
For what it's worth, I'm not against talking about it. I say talk about it more. For instance, I'd love for gay marriage proponents to explain why they stopped pushing for civil unions that would give gay couples the same rights and benefits as married couples (which I supported, and still do) and switched to marriage.
It is important to call it marriage so that they can jab their fingers in Phil Robertson's eye. Having the same exact rights is not enough.
Here's my problem with it, as a non lawyer, I don't care much for the legal aspects of this and its essentially not something I can do much about, not matter how I feel. People don't vote in order to set the SCOTUS, one way or the other. Its about bitching or celebrating and I have better things to bitch about or celebrate.
Oh bullshit, of course there are those here who want to silence Althouse on gay marriage. Every single time she writes a blog post on any subject that mentions gay people, the haters, bigots and fools come out. No one is being deceived here, you try to give her hell so she will shut up about what you don't want to hear coming from the owner of one of your favorite "conservative" blogs.
When Althouse dares to show her moderate side she gets punished. She throws you conservatives more than enough red meat, why be so greedy. I guess y'all just like echo chambers, which is boring as hell.
Althouse: When you thought you could defeat it, you were only too happy to talk about it all the time. Defeated, you're "so tired of hearing about" it.
Bullshit. I supported it. Palladian was the one who brought me over.
Another way of putting it is just to admit that you're really sad about losing. If you'd won, you wouldn't stop talking. You're promoting no more talking about this because it's all you've got.
No, you're the one that always chooses to rant about this. Most here say its your bias due to your son being gay.
But you're certainly entitled to be tired. Your position is old and wearisome, and your expression about it has been mightily tiresome,
Yah, you have no fricken clue what my position was. You're just lashing out in reflexive defense.
which is to say, I'm tired of hearing about how tired you are.
First time I've ever said I am tired of it. Again, your strong emotion is clouding your judgement.
And I won't be silenced.
Go you. You are SUCH a firebrand. Blazing a trail for the oppressed.
Same-sex marriage is still not established across the country (and in the world), so those who support it have good reason to keep talking. The argument for shutting up is a con.
The argument is that its less than 3% of the pop and gets waaay more coverage than it deserves.
You want to impress me (as you reference "the world") take on Islam. They actually kill gays for being gay. Not that it shows up on your radar here.
BTW, you've been incredibly stupid with me over the last week. What is your issue? Quit being such a little passive-aggressive bitch and make your case. You're supposed to be a Woman Hear Me Roar...
LMAO! Fen thinks Althouse is being mean to him. Cry baby.
Don't take my naked bigotry out on me, take it out on Islam!
The screams will never cease. GLAAD was not silenced, they were overruled. Some maintain they were "over-rubed,' other that they "over rubbed." But robes rule.
Inga: are those here who want to silence Althouse on gay marriage.
There are people who actually think they can silence her? Yah right, I'd like to have some of what you're smoking.
No one is being deceived here, you try to give her hell so she will shut up
Oh sure, we've only stood by her over the years as she took on the feminist left pretty much all by herself. Now we think we can shut her up?
Cool story Inga. Now put down the wine bottle.
Inga's historical litany would carry weight if "marriage" were construed as she sees fit. Isn't this obvious?
Fen it's weak and cowardly to intimate someone is a drunk when YOU are losing the argument. It's such an unimaginative insult. It makes you look like the small person you really are. You fall to the level of President Mom Jeans and losers like him.
Gay has become boring.
Tedious.
Tiresome.
Oh how cute of you Ann, frontpaging your remarks to my response.
Are you brave enough to include my counter? Where I responded that you got all the facts of my position wrong?
"Now, now...
the fat ladies haven't actually sung just yet."
It's bad enough we have to read their scribblings, but now you want Garage and Inga to sing too?
That would be cruel and unusual punishment.
It was a forgone conclusion that a stay would be granted in this case, the only surprise is that one wasn't granted immediately. The 10th circuit will have it's say, perhaps the hysteria can be postponed until something other than the status quo in Utah happens.
I am very much enjoying the "cruel neutrality" on display today. Some unbiased observers are more equal than others apparently.
Inga: it's weak and cowardly to intimate someone is a drunk when YOU are losing the argument.
Well, you're either drunk or stupid. Trying to play the narrative that *anyone* here thinks they can tell Althouse what she can and can't write about.
at 1:18 Ann, assuming you have the guts.
Just equal people, with equal citizenship and family rights, under the law.
Why is that so hard to let happen?
Because the homosexual movement is not willing to settle for that. They could have that in all fifty states tomorrow. The vast majority of Americans support civil unions.
However the homosexual movement demands that we change an institution that has been a fundamental part of civilization for thousands of years instead.
Once again, Althouse proves herself to be utterly effing incapable of talking about gays and gay marriage like an adult.
Yup, again:
"Reason is the first victim of strong emotion" - Frank Herbert
Yep. And when the queers start infringing on the freedom of speech because it offends them - and want to set up state run censors like they did in Canada - people like you will sit around and wonder how it happened.
Women. They haven't changed since Pandora. You will open the lid on this can of worms, Ann - and be shocked and disgusted and surprised by what comes out.
After the gays get their 'gay marriage' they will be wanting to adopt. Then they will want homosexual sex ed taught in the schools. They will start suing clergymen that speak out against them - and then go after stand up comics that tell gay jokes and want censorship for that too...THEY will be the judges of what's funny and what's not! Then they will sue you if you say anything about queers too.
For me, the discussion is over, the courts can go eff themselves, I will comply with them only if it suits me. Otherwise, they can't prosecute you if they can't catch you or enforce the idiotic laws they create.
Mary said...
'I'd love for gay marriage proponents to explain why they stopped pushing for civil unions that would give gay couples the same rights and benefits as married couples (which I supported, and still do).
... Having the same exact rights is not enough.'
------
Because that never happened, and never will happen.
It was just promises, premised on slowing down the progress of individual rights. ie/ Settle for the promise of this today, like DOMA or Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
But unlike civil unions, those half-way measures were actually implemented.
Fictional compromises do not provide legal relief to people and families in need.
Huhwhaa? Civil unions were pushed by homosexuals and their supporters (including me). It was the pro-gay stance. Anti-gay people vehemently opposed civil unions. They didn't "promise" anything - they rejected the idea of civil unions!
Or so I thought. Maybe we've always been at war with Eastasia!
As Fenny, sore loser. You folks DO try to silence her with words, but of course you CAN'T because it's HER blog, that sticks in the craw of more than a few folks here. When commenters make ad hominem attacks on other commenters OR the blog OWNER, it demonstrates that they have NOTHING in their arsenal that they can use to defend their argument with. THOSE types of ad hominem attacks are used to SILENCE people.
I'm tired of hearing about gay marriage, too.
The only redeeming feature the topic has is that it's adherents are so fucking obnoxious and stupid that it provides entertainment value - in a Jerry Springer train wreck kind of way.
Inga: "When commenters make ad hominem attacks on other commenters OR the blog OWNER, it demonstrates that they have NOTHING in their arsenal that they can use to defend their argument with."
Inga takes time out from launching her many ad hominem attacks to thoughtfully reproach those who engage in ad hominem attacks.
Inga. Nobody is trying to silence anybody, and rhetorical pushback among adults is not silencing them. Give people credit. Not everyone is as stupid as you are.
garage: "Don't take my naked bigotry out on me, take it out on Islam!"
We can't.
Because obama: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam".
Nope, if I call you a bigot and hater it's because you have demonstrated you are by your own words, wanting to deprive fellow Americans of their rights under the Constitution, merely because they have a different sexual orientation than you do. Not an ad hominem.
Inga: you CAN'T silence Ann because it's HER blog
Ding ding ding! She gets it!
Glad to see you are sobering up.. at 3pm in the afternoon
Jason: 'Inga. Nobody is trying to silence anybody, and rhetorical pushback among adults is not silencing them. Give people credit. Not everyone is as stupid as you are."
Jason, you don't understand.
Inga's latest rhetorical gymnastics are simply the tried and true first steps on the path to silencing critics.
Next up for Inga: declaring viewpoints opposed to hers as hate-speech.
Or, even better, disagreement with Ann on Ann's blog over a liberal policy position labeled as "War on Gays".
Except, there really is a war on gays...under Islam.
But garage doesn't like to talk about that.
Althouse: I support gay marriage, and have done so for many years, and I find it to be a tiresome subject. Mainly because my fellow gay marriage supporters tend to be so damn sanctimonious.
Drago wrote:
Except, there really is a war on gays...under Islam.
those gays would be the people that we shouldn't lift a finger to protect according to Inga.
Althouse: I support gay marriage, and have done so for many years, and I find it to be a tiresome subject. Mainly because my fellow gay marriage supporters tend to be so damn sanctimonious.
Inga thoughtfully explains why her ad hominem attacks don't "count" since her ad hominem attacks are directed at non-lefties and therefore cannot be ad hominem attacks.
See: "Blacks can't be racists" and "Castro's lobotomies on homosexuals "are different than capitalist lobotomies"".
Also see: Only Soviet citizens are truly free, unlike those in capitalist societies.
We seen this game over and over again for the last 90 years.
Jason, Fen and others who are "tired" of hearing about gay marriage, why do you bother to comment here on his thread then? Why not deem it too boring and move on to some blogpost of Althouse's that rings your conservative chimes?
I already had strong, negative views of modern marriage and especially the modern wedding - LONG before gay marriage hit the media.
Thus I am not sick of GAY marriage in the news...I am sick of MARRIAGE in the news constantly. Nearly every article about gay marriage does its part to further shallow, fantasy ideas about what this magic piece of paper does for a couple. In an effort to win SSM, every treacly, sentimental idea is trotted out, my favorite being that couples need the blessing of their home state in order to lend "dignity" to their union, whatever the hell that means.
The whole issue is made worse by juvenile, crappy writing more suited to Hallmark cards. And its making me even more anti-marriage than ever before.
There are not enough Deirdre Mundy's writing about marriage to suit me, I guess.
jr565: "those gays would be the people that we shouldn't lift a finger to protect according to Inga"
That's because concern for the plight of gays in Iran and elsewhere in the ME do not provide any political advantage to the left here.
Further, concern for the gays in Iran and elsewhere in the ME would actually highlight what a real "War of Gays" look like.
Thus, for garage/Inga/Somefeller et al, it much be ignored.
Inga wrote:
Nope, if I call you a bigot and hater it's because you have demonstrated you are by your own words, wanting to deprive fellow Americans of their rights under the Constitution, merely because they have a different sexual orientation than you do. Not an ad hominem
They have a right to marry as defined by the society. No more no less. What you are seeking is a redefinition.
If it requires a redefinition then they don't have those rights under the constitution you ignoramus.
When you thought you could defeat it, you were only too happy to talk about it all the time. Defeated, you're "so tired of hearing about" it.
Another way of putting it is just to admit that you're really sad about losing. If you'd won, you wouldn't stop talking.
If you won, why are you still talking about it? Gloating is poor sportsmanship.
Anyway, gaymarriage, like abortion, is something that most adults have already formed an opinion on. The purpose of continued yammering about it is to influence the young and win through demographics. Thus it's perfectly reasonable that most of us find this yammering pointless and boring.
Once again, we are still waiting to hear from our resident lefties what limits (if any) should actually exist for marriage and what the intellectual/moral/policy rationalization for those limits (if any) happen to be.
...West Wing crabby, the towering big Fen, the rosy red cheeks on the little chick-ken... [more whistling]
Now kiss and make up you two before I rewrite that song.
Mary: "Meanwhile, gay children were born."
Still waiting for the "science" for this assertion to be presented.
Feel free to share your work.
Further... I think there is a certain offense when people parade the details of their relationships out over and over that tires people, similar to a new mother who won't shut up about the wonders of becoming a mother. If I tell a new mom to kindly, PLEASE shut up, does that mean I am against women having babies? NO!
ANY impending marriage has a limited list of people that give a damn - trying to expand that circle of interest to any and all (typical of women planning weddings) irritate people. Impending weddings have a way of turning people into assholes, and gays and lesbians need to be aware of that. IT PART OF THE DEAL! Legalizing SSM also legalizes the ability of gays and lesbians to be total self absorbed pains in the ass - just like your typical Bridezilla.
You wanted equality? That means you are equally annoying. And that needs to be recognized.
This is a case where the state Constitution explicitly laid out what a marriage is. Male and female. No way around it.
It's going to be hard for a state to overturn that, since how marriage isn't a federal issue.
Inga, numerous SC cases ruled blacks had no equal rights to whites. SC rulings aren't always correct.
And I won't be silenced.
Who has tried to silence you? Comments that gay marriage is boring as shit as a topic isn't an attempt to silence you.
It is simply a statement that giving a shit about a pet cause isn't your right to demand.
Fen said...
Who cares? I'm so tired of hearing about gay marriage.
But Fen, don't you understand that nothing on Earth is more important than gays? You're not only supposed to care, it's absolutely mandatory! Live and let live is no longer sufficient. No, YOU HAVE TO CARE! You should start by organizing a gay pride parade in your town and march in it yourself. Nothing is more important than how 1-2% of people have sex. You must celebrate everything about homosexuality and promote it at every opportunity. You should make it a topic of every conversation and your every waking thought, and then dream about it at night. You absolutely must care.
Drago wrote:
Once again, we are still waiting to hear from our resident lefties what limits (if any) should actually exist for marriage and what the intellectual/moral/policy rationalization for those limits (if any) happen to be.
I'd like to hear from Althouse as a law professor what she thinks society's role should be when it comes to marriage. And what it currently is.
Does she think that society can't restrict marriages?
jr565: "So, because we are restricting a marriage it must be unrestricted becuase those feeling the restrictions are reeling the restrictions? That's ridiculous."
Recall that this "movement" has long been underway and the original leftist intent was not really about "gay marriage".
It was more fundamental.
See "Smash Monogamy"
You want to hear something really gay dolls?
I am fucking going to the figure skating championships this Friday-Sunday. The Garden is sold out. You won't be able to swing a cat without hitting a fag.
tits.
damikesc: "Who has tried to silence you?"
Again, the left views disagreement as "hate speech".
Without internalizing that simple fact (along with Fen's Law), it's difficult to understand the rantings of lefties.
One you do internalize those simple facts, you immediately realize that nothing matters to the left save the acquisition of power and control over peoples lives and minds.
Tom Friedman can't wait for us to be more like China.
Titus: "I am fucking going to the figure skating championships this Friday-Sunday."
I. Did. Not. See. That. Coming.
In the case of comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage, did marriage need to be redefined to accomodate interracial marriage? i.e. a black man still could only marry a woman, couldn't marry more than one person, couldnt marry his sister, couldn't marry someone under a certain age, couldn't marry more than one person at a time.
he was still bound by all the same rules as everyone else. Interracial marriage didn't allow for gay interracial marriage, did it?
The two marriages are not analagous.
jr565: "Many states have allowed for civil unions. But if a state didnt' what's different than if the same state also didn't allow polygamy? Or incestual marriages? Or even set an age limit for marrying?"
You are not going to get answer to those questions.
They can't answer those questions honestly.
Because then the jig would be up.
I am incredibly bored of gay marriage and the whole parade of whining queens and lesbians wanting something that they think is their right. They want middle America to be scandalized by their actions, but we are just bored now.
There are actually two types of marriage restrictions. Ones that would allow for marriage if you only met the requirements. And ones that require you to change marriage to accomodate.
Gay marriage falls into the latter, and incestual marriage falls into the former. Not analagous.
That should have said "Gay marriage falls into the latter, and interracial marriage falls into the former. Not analagous
As I've said before, I'm mostly looking forward to same-sex divorces. Many of those promise to be fabulous.
Professor Althouse it seems to me that there was a lost opportunity with this story.
You could have commented intelligently on the subject of whether Utah District Judge Shelby had gamed the process, by issuing a surprise ruling on a Friday before a holiday week, and then rejecting all requests for a stay of his order requiring Utah, which had overwhelmingly passed by popular vote a state constitutional amendment on marriage, to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
No matter what one thinks about gay marriage, Shelby's procedural handling, much like his written opinion sticking a finger in the eye of Justice Scalia, seems to have been as much as anything a provocation to the attorneys representing the state of Utah, and departed from most of the federal judicial traditions in cases of large-scale political/policy decisions.
Shelby should have granted a stay, and I read the unanimous Supreme Court order as being a communication by the Court that it did not appreciate Shelby's handling.
That's a new, interesting and substantive debate, apart from the usual trashtalk between you and many of your conservative pro-Walker readers.
jr565:
The pro-choice position is to tolerate whatever dysfunctional behavior is solicited when there is an associated return. The legal position is that naturally and culturally proscribed behaviors are subject to progressive acceptance. A corollary of this doctrine is that morality (but not limited to philosophy) is progressive, or rather selected by each succeeding generation, which is actually an evolutionary or chaotic scheme.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/367676/rule-law-gets-another-chance-utah-marriage-case-william-c-duncan
Jason and Fen, You're being castigated and called a liar by a woman who has been PROVEN a liar.
This is the topic that caused the blowup last July. I wasn't part of that because there was too much vitriol, sanctimony and smugness involved in the discussion. The topic arises again and I see some of the same characters saying the same things. Boring!
*chuckle*
Oh Ann. I there a note of Obama-esque "They voted - you lost" -ism there? Think that will serve you well in the long run?
Sometimes I really love reading the comment section of AA's website.
First up, Althouse herself;
"When you thought you could defeat it, you were only too happy to talk about it all the time. Defeated, you're "so tired of hearing about" it.
Another way of putting it is just to admit that you're really sad about losing. If you'd won, you wouldn't stop talking. You're promoting no more talking about this because it's all you've got.
That's how it looks to me anyway."
AA writes this to Fen who writes;
"Bullshit. I supported it. Palladian was the one who brought me over."
And let's not forget Christy who writes;
"I support marriage between consenting adults of any number and any sexual orientation. And I am tired of hearing about gay marriage."
I have to wonder if AA still feels the losers are the ones who are tried of hearing about it?
I am with the professor on this one. Just want to keep the govt from compelling churches to perform the ceremonies. The govt will, of course, but hopefully that will be a long way off.
Appears that very few gays actually want to get married given the chance. Mainly women. What's up with that?
They want middle America to be scandalized by their actions, but we are just bored now.
So?
Does this mean you're trying to out-bore the rest of the world with your claims of boredom?
Who can out-bore me?
Spinelli, have you tried bribing anymore government officials lately? Any men in dark suts with no sense of humor visit you yet? It may still happen, you know what I'm referring to. You are a psychopath, people here should be aware of that fact. I know it all too well as do the commenters over on another law blog you frequent.
n.n. wrote:
The pro-choice position is to tolerate whatever dysfunctional behavior is solicited when there is an associated return. The legal position is that naturally and culturally proscribed behaviors are subject to progressive acceptance. A corollary of this doctrine is that morality (but not limited to philosophy) is progressive, or rather selected by each succeeding generation, which is actually an evolutionary or chaotic scheme.
that sounds like jargon. please elaborate.
Wasn't the court decision that made polygamous marriage illegal in the US based on religious reasoning--this is a Christian country? If so...why does this decision stand? If homosexual unions or marriages are accepted, why not polygamy?
Eric, perhaps you don't know, we do not respond to the commenter in question with the initial M because she gets deleted and those who respond to her her deleted. Just a head's up, hon.
Farmer wrote:
Yes, it did. As someone else pointed out, the civil unions battle is over. Homosexuals could have civil unions in all 50 states. They currently do not have marriage rights in all 50 states (despite Althouse's assertion that it's all over). This clearly isn't about rights.
actually gays could only have civil unions in states that recognized civil unions. Not all did. But the rest of your point is right.
Inga wrote;
"Eric, perhaps you don't know, we do not respond to the commenter in question with the initial M because she gets deleted and those who respond to her her deleted. Just a head's up, hon."
That makes sense, as I was writing her messages began to vanish and I wondered if I were going crazy.
Regardless, they weren't asking questions just to her, but to supporters of homosexuals in general.
And no one has even attempted to answer their questions.
The federal district court's and the 10th circuit's message to the Mormons in Utah is the same message the federal courts sent to them last time in the late 1800s.
And that message is: "Shut up! The remote majority in the east [and now also the west] - a remote majority in other states will tell you what is and isn't a marriage. You don't have any right as a local majority, to decide such matters for your community. Such things will be decided elsewhere for you, and you will obey."
And the last time, that last threat was accompanied by a disenfranchisement of the Mormon church, a seizure of all its property, the removal of the right of Utah women to vote, and a broad jailing of anyone that would not testify in court to aid the hunt for perpetrators.
We only now have to wait to see what the penalties to the Mormons will be this time if they don't "go along."
But we must note, to all you Gays claiming such oppression: despite what theologically driven actions the Mormons took as a voting majority, they never stripped you of your right to property, your right to vote, or your right to not be summarily dragged into court to incriminate your lovers.
You might show some modicum of understanding and relative restraint in your tone.
""Once again, we are still waiting to hear from our resident lefties what limits (if any) should actually exist for marriage and what the intellectual/moral/policy rationalization for those limits (if any) happen to be."
That would be oh so helpful for the libs to chime on and answer those (basic) questions. Also, if there are limits placed on marriage who is determining whether you are a bigot if you support those restrictions? And how is that determined.
For example if you are pro restrictions on adult kid unions does that make you an ageophone? Or, is it personally reasonable to support such restrictions?
Should we consult the Inga's of the world so we can get our marching orders about who we can and can't vilify for holding the counter position.
Since were talking marriage equality why are libs being so selective with their absolutism? Not to mention the moral outrage.
Quayle:
That's worth noting about Mormon tolerance. Homosexual men and women have been "out of the closet", not only in Utah, but in Salt Lake City, since the beginning of the 20th century. They were regular members, business owners, etc., perhaps not of the church, but of the community. Mormons, it seems, are more capable of classifying behaviors appropriately than the insular communities of the major metropolises, where apartheid is either explicit or implicit in their organization.
jr565:
Note that the context is your and Drago's comment about individual and thereby societal boundaries.
The description of "pro-choice" should be self-evident. The only noteworthy aspect of this doctrine is the individual motivation to be flexible when the outcome is otherwise intolerable or irrational.
The description of the legal position can be attributed to Professor Volokh, and can be summarized as progressive morality, and change generally, will only be forthcoming so far as individuals and society will tolerate. The corollary follows from the observation that morality, and other principles whether naturally or artificially derived, will be selected by each generation to accommodate their interests.
This is somewhat telling:
"And I won't be silenced. Same-sex marriage is still not established across the country (and in the world)"
See the goal. It isn't enough that gays be able to move to a state where their relationship is recognized by that state and the federal government as a valid marriage. Nope. Every damn state and even every damn country! As Jonah Goldberg always says, it's pretty clear who the aggressors are in the culture wars. It's also clear who won. Now they are just roaming the battlefield and shooting the wounded.
I think I read this very same post back in June.
Up next: "You stupid stupid splooge stooges! You whining losing losers should stop whining!"
And no, we must not consider that just as your Obamacare victory is causing a whole host of unintended consequences, so goes Compulsory Gayness.
Remember to teach the kiddies that PIV is rape, and all gays are saints, unless they are conservatives, then they are whining cheating stooges who aren't any good at art.
Thought experiment for you Ann..
Your blog posts rules for commenting. You make it clear this is your blog and you moderate it and set the rules. You have tips to "avoid disapproval and deletion."
Now imagine someone comes along you disagree with. You delete them and are free to not do business with them because it is your blog and you disagree.
Now imagine you are a wedding bakery. Like you, they want to do business with people they want to do business with. People they don't want to do business with are completely free to go to another bakery/blog.
Now imagine you and the bakery are sued by someone who absolutely insists on the right to have their opinion regardless of the fact it is your blog/bakery and your ground rules.
The bakery is forced to make the cake for the gay wedding. Why are you not forced to publish any comment even if you disagree? In fact, especially if you disagree because you will be sued if you don't publish what they want.
You say you are protected because this is your establishment and you set the rules of "disapproval and deletion" to do business with whom you want? Tell it to the baker.
This is what people find tiresome. People are generally live and let live. But they don't want to be sued to be forced to publish a comment or bake a cake or perform a marriage ceremony. Yet that is what is happening in the name of "establishing" your opinion in the "country and the world."
There is a better way.
Will, get with the program.
They are righteous and moral and everything they think and say is true and just and inevitable.
You on the other hand are a Wrongthinker thinking Wrong Things.
It's that simple.
Get over it, and wipe your splooge, stooge.
Embrace your Inner Gayness.
Or else.
Will:
Yes, society must be careful with what it chooses to normalize. There are few behaviors which can be considered worthy of normalization. Dysfunctional behaviors, including homosexual behavior, certainly do not qualify. This is not a moral issue per se (despite that framing offering an enticing platform to shut off the debate), other than traditional morality correlates with fitness.
Althouse: I've been thrilled when legislatures and/or voters (such as here in Minnesota) have voted to establish equal marriage rights. I'm not thrilled when courts create those rights (such as in Utah). When created democratically (through legislation or voters), the legitimacy of the rights are unassailable. But, when the rights are created judicially, especially when there is a lack of popular support, the legitimacy can be attacked for years, if not decades (see Roe v Wade).
Just checking in the see if Althouse had the integrity to correct her misrepresentation of my position on gay marriage.
Gotta say I'm surprised to find she didn't. I don't know whats happened to her, but this is not the woman I remember.
Frontpage a lie and never retract or admit you made a mistake. After years of defending her from all comers, I never thought I would compare her to the likes of Maureen Dowd. But there it is.
"The argument for shutting up is a con."
Alternately, gay marriage really is wrong.
I guess there are three court cases to watch. Utah, Nevada & Ohio. Anyone of them could bring most of the arugment to an end. If it is found that Windsor has changed things in such a way that gays have 5th abd 14th amendment protections - most of the anti-gay state bans will fall. So this could be quite a wonderful year!
Everyone agrees that gays have 5th and 14th amendment protections. The exact same ones as anyone else.
The only question is will the courts choose to redefine marriage to mean something different than it meant when the laws regarding marriage were written.
Anyone who values the rule of law should hope that they don't.
"Same-sex marriage is still not established across the country (and in the world), so those who support it have good reason to keep talking."
Althouse, maybe you could explain where this "right" comes from, what it is based upon, and therefore, to what activities it may be considered to extend. At present, American courts have held that a person who makes his living as a wedding photographer cannot refuse to take photos of an activity he finds repulsive, and a person who bakes wedding cakes for a living cannot refuse to bake a cake celebrating homosexual acts. It is evident that the people behind these lawsuits are not "celebrating" anything. They are trying to shove something distasteful down someone else's -- throat.
Madam Professor, may I take it that you will continue writing about gay marriage after some of the issues it raises start to bite?
Like what happens when a married lesbian couple have a child by a sperm donor and then later divorce? Only one of the parents has any genetic relationship to the child; what rights, if any, does the other parent have?
Like what happens when any gay couple divorces, for that matter. Current divorce laws treat the husband and wife differently; what happens when the law cannot use genitalia to distinguish between spouses?
Many companies provide healthcare benefits to "partners" of employees. Is it okay for a company drop such coverage in states where gay marriage is legal?
That list is what I came up with after a couple minutes' thought on the matter. I'm sure there are other issues lurking out there, and probably more sticky.
The bottom line to me is that Democrats as a party have been pushing a whole lot of social science experiments at American society during the past five years. Some of them will surely have nasty side effects and there seems to be no notion on the parts of you or any of the lefty commentators that the rest of us are going to have to wrestle with the downside of your pet science projects. Maybe gay marriage will go okay, possibly not. Obamacare certainly not. What are we going to do when the female soldiers get captured and raped and tortured? It's already happened in Iraq, but the news got buried, strangely enough.
The last time there was this much turmoil was a full fifty years ago. As a society we still haven't come to grips with the fallout from the 1960's. What's it going to take to fix what you've broken this time around, Professor?
Big Mike: "Like what happens when a married lesbian couple have a child by a sperm donor and then later divorce? Only one of the parents has any genetic relationship to the child; what rights, if any, does the other parent have?"
Mike, these are "difficult" to answer questions and any answers offered up by the "pro-compulsory make everyone "like" "normal" non-heterosexual relationships"" crowd cannot afford to even begin answering them.
And plus: racist.
Mike: "The bottom line to me is that Democrats as a party have been pushing a whole lot of social science experiments at American society during the past five years."
Also in the financial realm.
Also in the business realm.
Also in the illegal immigration realm.
Cloward-Piven on full display with predictable results.
Of course, those who predicted the inevitable outcomes will need to be dealt with.
Perhaps a "surprise" IRS audit is in order.
Sunsong: "So this could be quite a wonderful year!"
What is your position on extending marriage to cover polygamous and polyamorous relationships?
If in favor, why?
If against, why?
Sunsong, don't worry.
We already know you won't offer an answer to obvious and inevitable questions such as these.
lorentjd: When created democratically (through legislation or voters), the legitimacy of the rights are unassailable. But, when the rights are created judicially, especially when there is a lack of popular support, the legitimacy can be attacked for years, if not decades (see Roe v Wade).
Excellent point. If was gay I wouldn't want a "win" this way.
It also damages future voting. People on the fence who might have sighed "sure why not" and pull the lever may be more likely to retort "screw them, I'm so tired of hearing their bullshit"
This whole thing just demonstrates once again the need for limits on the capricious rulings of the court system. Court rulings should be subject to congressional override.
Big Mike,
"... Democrats as a party have been pushing a whole lot of social science experiments at American society during the past five years."
Yes, but this didn't start a mere five years ago! The cultural stuff was more like 5 decades, and the economic stuff even longer than that.
Thanks for having the integrity to fairly correct your frontpage attack on me. A few points:
I seem to get these comments every time I post on the subject.
I did not know that. I've been away from your blog for awhile. If I had known you were so sensitive because of past comments, I prob would not have felt the need to remark that the topic bored me.
I don't understand why people who are tired of posts about this subject don't simply skip them.
Uh.. self-expression? The same reason you blog. Is it okay with you if I post my thoughts about whatever you are blogging on? Please let me know.
I could turn your question around: why do you feel the need to hector someone who is not interested in your topic? Why didn't you just skip my remark? Why did you feel a need to turn it into a big deal?
Why drag down the thread by announcing that you aren't interested in it?
I still don't see how saying "Who cares? I'm so tired of hearing about gay marriage" drags down the thread. I have zero influence on your commenters, they are independent thinkers.
I think you are upset that my remark caused a cascade of commenters agreeing that they are also tired of talking about gay marriage. But I coudn't predict that outcome and its not what I intended to happen.
Tell ya what, Oh Guardian of Free Speech, next time I want to express an opinion here, I''ll be sure to register it with you first.
and he proceeds to make many hostile remarks which I won't front page.
Actually, they are many hostile responses to hostile remarks YOU made about me.
You seem to be angry with me about something you won't voice, instead preferring to engage in passive-aggresive behavior. Thats your call, but lets not pretend I drew first blood here. You've been a bitch to me since I came back, and you're too much of a coward to address it head on.
Fen said...
I have zero influence on your commenters, they are independent thinkers.
I'm not!
Fen, when you come into someone's home, do you proceed to say "oh your furniture is so boring"? Then when they get miffed, do you proceed to insult them yet further? Do you understand this, at all? It might just be about having manners.
Igna wrote: "@Hamber, I trust the analysis of the people who posted that website and the 14 times that the SC found that marriage was a Fundamental Right, than your opinion on gay marriage any day. Your opinion is tainted with bigotry and hate, and is to be rejected by thinking people."
You are a caricature of a lefty troll. Of course you agree with anything that supports your position even if it begs the question: "a fundamental right for whom (or what? or how many?)?
My opposition to gay marriage is not based on bigotry or hate. You are projecting.
Begging the question and projecting in one short post. Unimpressive, but typical.
Igna wrote: "Fen, when you come into someone's home, do you proceed to say "oh your furniture is so boring.... It might just be about having manners."
Take it from Igna, Fen, the purpose of these comments is to provide a forum to agree with the hostess, not to express any type of adverse reaction to a blog post - particularly when the hostess agrees with Igna.
It's manners, you know. ROTFL.
Inga: Fen, when you come into someone's home, do you proceed to say "oh your furniture is so boring"?
Course not. That would be rude.
Now, if they wanted to start a conversation about gay marriage, I might say "I'm so tired of hearing about gay marriage". Most sane hosts would nod and turn their attention to the other people in the room.
But then, my friends allow each other express boredom re a topic without experiencing an emotional breakdown.
And yours?
Althouse didnt have any emotional breakdown, she called you on your rudness as she has the right to do as the owner of this blog and probably hoped you would take your rude self elsewhere, who knows? I think some of you are getting too comfortable again, thinking that insults toward the owner of the blog won't be returned or addressed. So, I guess Fen and Hamber, you can hand it out, but you can't take it in return, hmmm? That sounds rude and cowardly.
@Kirk, it's coming much faster since the era of Obama began.
Fen was engaging in "microaggression".
Inga: Althouse didnt have any emotional breakdown,
Yah, she kinda did. Review the comments, even people who don't know (or support) me found her behavior to be irrational.
she called you on your rudness
The remark wasn't rude. In fact, I recall several people making similar remarks in the past. None of them were made into a big deal.
See, the real problem here are the illiberal homosexuals that demand you approve of everything about them. If you find anal sex "icky" or the topic of gay marriage boring, you're a hateful bigot.
adjective: illiberal
1. opposed to liberal principles; restricting freedom of thought or behavior.
This is why Althouse's behavior was so bizarre - its the antithesis of everything she has come to stand for.
Ironically, Fen is boring.
jr565,
Just go for civil unions already. Thats's what gay marriages are. Don't force a change of a definition and dont' call people bigots if they think 2+2=4 and not 3.
I argued this for a long time. What I wanted to see was the name of legal marriage changed to "civil union," and available to same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike. You want to get "married," you do it in church, or via any ceremony you like. But all the legal rights and responsibilities attach to the civil union, not the marriage.
That seemed to me to get past all the difficulties. It put gay and straight couples on an equal footing. It avoided calling a union by the name of a sacrament that some people fervently believe is possible only to opposite-sex couples. It guaranteed exactly the benefits to same-sex couples as it did to opposite-sex couples. It allowed everyone to have a formal wedding who wanted one. And, incidentally, it got rid of the hetero "domestic partners" racket. You are in a civil union or you're not. You don't get to be sorta-kinda-married.
Unfortunately, things haven't shaken out this way.
And look! I'm not silenced. No one is violating my freedom of expression. Ann didn't just spike the entire thread by declaring she's bored with me. Imagine that.
Not only boring, but predictable, which is boring come to think of it.
See, what neither of you can grasp is that, after all the PCBS surrounding the topic, it actually felt GOOD to express that I was tired of entertaining the subject. It was a relief to just come out and declare it.
I think others here felt the same way. And you can't have that, can you?
Fen, does it feel good to come into a friends house and shit on their carpet? Do you always do things that make you feel good without respect for where you do them? Ew.
See how you have to exaggerate? If you actually believe expressing boredom = taking a dump in someone's living room, you reall need to get mental help.
Igna wrote: "So, I guess Fen and Hamber, you can hand it out, but you can't take it in return, hmmm? That sounds rude and cowardly."
More ad hominem following a reiteration of the peculiar and indefensible assertion that it is "rude" to offer an adverse opinion, i.e., "I'm tired of the subject," on a blog that claims to solicit varying points of view.
Hamber,
No, not an adverse opinion, an attempt to silence her. She wasnt mistaken, she got it right. Fen just wasn't as in your face abouti like Shouting Thomas usually is. You folks get crazed every single time she posts about gays and gay marriage. You fail in your attempt to deflect.
Althouse wrote: "Ironically, Fen is boring."
That may be true, but it's not ironic. "Boring" was injected by Tank at 1:01, not Fen, who merely said he was tired of hearing about gay marriage.
Fen said:
"I could turn your question around: why do you feel the need to hector someone who is not interested in your topic? Why didn't you just skip my remark? Why did you feel a need to turn it into a big deal?"
Good questions.
No, not an adverse opinion, an attempt to silence her.
“Ironically, Fen is boring.”
“Your position is old and wearisome, and your expression about it has been mightily tiresome, which is to say, I'm tired of hearing about how tired you are.”
"So, I guess Fen and Hamber, you can hand it out, but you can't take it in return, hmmm? That sounds rude and cowardly."
“It might just be about having manners.”
“Nope, if I call you a bigot and hater it's because you have demonstrated you are…”
"Fen, does it feel good to come into a friends house and shit on their carpet?"
"Not only boring, but predictable, which is boring come to think of it."
Well now that my Irony Meter is a smoking wreck and the Heathers have totes decided that nobody in the whole middle school likes Fen, can we get back to the gay marriage supporters ignoring the question of why they are deny rights to people whose crime is to love close relatives or more than one person?
"Don't make any personal remarks and don't go back-and-forth with another commenter (except at the level of responding to ideas about the topic under discussion)."
I see these rules do not apply the brave Althouse who will not be silenced, nor to her sauced up intellectually embarrassing sauced up old crone Inga.
And you, a law professor!
Ugly.
"No, not an adverse opinion, an attempt to silence her. She wasnt mistaken, she got it right."
The adverse of "I'm tired of it," is "I'm not tired of it," not silence. I assume Althouse was being humorously provocative when she made the "can't silence me" remark. If not, she's as deluded as you are.
And: "You folks get crazed every single time she posts about gays and gay marriage. You fail in your attempt to deflect."
"You folks?" All of us?
"Crazed?" Like "deranged?" Really?
"Deflect?" How was I deflecting, exactly?
Illogical hyperbole is not a substitute for critical thinking.
BTW, Igna, "Igna" is a clever play on language coined by one of your earlier detractors.
"Hamber" is neither clever, nor a play on language. It's kid stuff, but suit yourself.
I think Fen's comments were spot on. It may be too early for AA to spike the football on SSM. He's correct in noting that other commenters in the past have said much worse things than he did, but somehow he got hauled in the front of the class and was made to wear the duncecap.
The Utah case will probably be the "big one", because in that case you have a governor who *wants* to defend the state constitution (as opposed to California). If Utah isn't allowed to regulate marriage, then it means *no* state will be able to regulate marriage within their State ... which means that marriage laws will be Federally regulated.
Which means that "first cousin marriage" (FCM) will have to be addressed by Congress.
It's funny how the "rights" of first cousins is never addressed. I mean, I understand the Left not wanting to talk about Father-Daughter marriages, or Mother-Son, or even Father-Son or Mother-Daughter. Because Icky.
However I don't understand why the Left can't explain why States are allowed to make *some* laws regulating marriage (first cousins), but not allowed to make others (SSM). There's no "right to get a marriage license" in the Constitution, just as there's no "right to a driver's license" or "right to own a house". So States either get to regulate marriage, or they don't. Which is it?
Or did y'all not think that through when you were getting Outraged(TM) about Teh Marriage Inequality?
You seem to be angry with me about something you won't voice, instead preferring to engage in passive-aggresive behavior
Pretty much describes every woman I have ever known.....
Althouse wrote: "Ironically, Fen is boring."
Hombre: That may be true, but it's not ironic.
Althouse only made that insult because she was stung by my realization that she's become what she hates. She even violated her own "if its boring, why comment?" logic to lash back.
Pianoman-
I don't think your argument holds up. There are many areas where states are allowed to regulate an activity, but only up to a point. Obscenity laws, gun control, and voting laws just to name a few. Even with marriage, while the states are allowed to regulate it, they cannot ban interracial marriage.
Also, I don't think cousin marriage is a good comparison. If someone wants to marry their cousin, and is not allowed, they are likely to be able to find someone else whom they are attracted to who is not a cousin whom they could marry. If you want to marry someone of the same sex, most likely anyone whom you would like to marry will also be of the same sex.
@IIB: "Even with marriage, while the states are allowed to regulate it, they cannot ban interracial marriage."
States aren't allowed to trump Federal law, in other words. So the States can't ignore the Civil Rights Act of 1965. And the States couldn't ignore DOMA either. But there's been no such Act passed by Congress that guarantees a SSM right. So the States are still within their rights to regulate it .. unless SCOTUS decides otherwise.
This is why I think Utah is so important. If Utah can't regulate SSM, then it means the power to regulate marriage can be taken from the States at any time, and for any reason.
"If someone wants to marry their cousin, and is not allowed, they are likely to be able to find someone else whom they are attracted to who is not a cousin whom they could marry. If you want to marry someone of the same sex, most likely anyone whom you would like to marry will also be of the same sex."
I understand your point, but that's not how SSM advocates have framed the argument. They always state that "if two people love each other, who are you to say they can't marry?" It's always a civil rights argument ... so, what about the civil rights of first cousins?
As long as SSM advocates characterize their battle within the context of a civil rights battle, it's fair to bring up not only first cousins, but polyandry as well.
Their hypocrisy over polygamy is a much stronger argument, bringing up cousins distracts from the stronger point.
The cousins approach does point out that their right to marry whomever you want is a stupid argument. I don't want to be debating their worst arguments, I want to be debating their best.
>> "Ironically, Fen is boring."
And Ann is petty.
@Ig: The reasons I think first cousins are a good argument are:
1) States have had different laws regarding first cousin marriage for years, and there has never been a national argument made that their civil rights are being violated. Some states allowed it, other states didn't, and the country was fine with that.
2) There was never any question that the first cousins would be same sex. The restrictions weren't based on sex. They were based on genetics. So first cousin marriage has far more in common with "traditional" marriage.
3) The inevitable "We meant TWO PEOPLE who are in love" argument doesn't apply.
In order to justify their stance, pro-SSM advocates *must* claim that their status precludes the States from being able to govern their own marriage laws. This is a huge step, and I think it's bigger than the pro-SSM advocates realize.
It's a trivial step, already taken in Loving v. Virginia.
This is such an interesting blog. You are very knowledgeable about this subject. Please check out my site.
Utah attorney
Post a Comment