Althouse: "Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban."

June 30, 2010

"Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban."

"In a 7-0 ruling, the court on Wednesday ruled that the 2006 constitutional amendment was properly put to voters in a statewide referendum. The court rejected a lawsuit that claimed the amendment violated a rule that limits referendum questions to a single subject. The lawsuit, filed by a voter opposed to the amendment, argued that gay marriage and civil unions were two different subjects."

226 comments:

1 – 200 of 226 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: Sanity.

If only for a moment.; 6/30/10, 11:47 AM
Anonymous said...: The more significant challenges -- whether or not the ban violates due process or equal protection --were not before the Court. So the decision is of minor importance.; 6/30/10, 11:52 AM
MadisonMan said...: I'm still disappointed in my fellow Wisconsinites for passing it; 6/30/10, 11:53 AM
ricpic said...: Build a reeducation camp for them, MM.; 6/30/10, 11:57 AM
rhhardin said...: I think it's two issues.

Being against gay marriage and for gay civil unions.; 6/30/10, 12:01 PM
Right is right! said...: Thank god for Republicans who got this past!

We need to drive these evil sodomites back into the closet and restore morality in the public square. I would like to see some of the more publicly flamboyant sodomites made an example of and charged with felonies. That will be the only way to take this country back.; 6/30/10, 12:05 PM
Gordon Freece said...: Same nonsense here in Maine. What a clever way for the right to keep on alienating small-government social liberals until the Dems turn us into Greece.

Maybe we'll be a third-world country, but at least we'll have shown the gays a thing or two! Yeah! Right on!

Nice priorities, guys. Good thinkin'.; 6/30/10, 12:05 PM
Jeremy said...: Bigotry...alive and well in Wisconsin.

Embarrassing.; 6/30/10, 12:08 PM
Right is right! said...: And Jeremy you are a defender of immoral genetic misfits. I prefer being on the side of the angels.; 6/30/10, 12:11 PM
TMink said...: The majority of Americans do not support gay marriage. Every time it has been voted on it has failed.

So either the majority of Americans are horrible bigots, or the minority of Americans who want this are out of touch.

Do the math.

Trey; 6/30/10, 12:11 PM
Anonymous said...: We need to drive these evil sodomites back into the closet and restore morality in the public square. I would like to see some of the more publicly flamboyant sodomites made an example of and charged with felonies. That will be the only way to take this country back.

Take a laxative. Wait an hour or two. Then, maybe you can take a shit and feel better.

Bigotry...alive and well in Wisconsin.

Embarrassing.

No issue gets the pea-brained assholes preening their haloes quite like this one.

Idiot sanctimony has no shame.

Next up: some sanctimonious idiot jabbering about Jim Crow.

This issue is the dumbest pile of shit I've witnessed in my 60 years on this earth.; 6/30/10, 12:14 PM
Jeremy said...: Tidy Righty said..."And Jeremy you are a defender of immoral genetic misfits. I prefer being on the side of the angels."

Gays are born gay and are entitled to the same rights as those who are not born gay.

On the other hand, you, being a bigoted prick, is something you chose to be.; 6/30/10, 12:20 PM
Moose said...: *sigh*

Said it before. I was for civil unions in the 80s when all the gay activists were swearing they never wanted marriage. Apparently they were either lying or are now pushing the envelope again.

Gay marriage further trivializes an already weakened institution. Leave it alone.; 6/30/10, 12:20 PM
Jeremy said...: Blogger TMink said..."The majority of Americans do not support gay marriage. Every time it has been voted on it has failed."

And yet another bigot rears his or her ugly head.

If put to a simple minded vote, most Americans would favor all kinds of ridiculous things. What possible difference does it make to you, or anyone for that matter, if gays get married?

Tell me how you or anyone here has ever been adversely affected by a gay couple being married.; 6/30/10, 12:20 PM
Jeremy said...: Moose - "Gay marriage further trivializes an already weakened institution. Leave it alone."

Can we all assume you're not gay?

If so, why do you think you have any right to inject your own personal beliefs into another person's life?

How does a gay marriage hurt you?

And why would a gay couple being married be more hurtful to you or anyone, than someone like Rush Limbaugh or other social conservatives who have been married and divorced over and over again.; 6/30/10, 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...: And yet another bigot rears his or her ugly head.

And yet another sorry ass, sanctimonious fool demands that we lick his halo. Fuck off!

If put to a simple minded vote, most Americans would favor all kinds of ridiculous things. What possible difference does it make to you, or anyone for that matter, if gays get married?

How old are you? 10?

Tell me how you or anyone here has ever been adversely affected by a gay couple being married.

What in the fuck does this have to do with anything, moron?

Jeremy, you are one of the dumbest slugs on the planet.; 6/30/10, 12:24 PM
Fen said...: How cute. Racist Jeremy throwing around accusations of bigotry.; 6/30/10, 12:24 PM
Jeremy said...: shoutingthomas - Calling people out for defending another person's rights is just another way of saying that you yourself are a bigoted asshole.

And have you passed your opinion of this issue on to your friends and relatives that are gay?

Because...they are there...whether you think so or not.; 6/30/10, 12:26 PM
Michael said...: Jeremy: I think you can probably answer a question that has been on my mind.

If "marriage" was permitted between gays but heterosexuals then decided upon another form of union with a different name but made it strictly for heteros would you care? Homosexuals would not be allowed to enter into X which had no legal standing at all. Problem?; 6/30/10, 12:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Jeremy, you fucking dumbass...

I lived in San Francisco for 10 years... just as gay men ignited the AIDS epidemic with their sexually irresponsible behavior.

I lived in Greenwich Village for 20 years. I watched gay men commit suicide by the dozens with their sexual behavior.

Jesus fucking Christ, you moron! We all know that gays are there. Your parents knew it, too. So did your grandparents.

The great repression in which you've been thoroughly indoctrinated is a pile of shit.

Your brain is full of the most useless shit. You aren't some civil rights saint. You're a fucking moron.

Stuff your sanctimonious shit. You are one tiresome SOB.; 6/30/10, 12:30 PM
Jeremy said...: Fen said..."How cute. Racist Jeremy throwing around accusations of bigotry."

Show me a single comment I've ever made that is racist.

You're a liar.; 6/30/10, 12:30 PM
MadisonMan said...: That's a great idea ricpic. I see a whole series of seminars. Can I put you down as a speaker on the history of anti-miscegenation laws?; 6/30/10, 12:31 PM
Opus One Media said...: Geeeeeze Cheeeeese.; 6/30/10, 12:33 PM
Jeremy said...: shoutingthomas - Oh, please.

You're blathering on about the days in SF and the AIDS epidemic?

Been living in a cave?

AIDS didn't originate with gays, dumbfuck...anybody who's ever taken the time actually read and research it would know that by now.

It was and indeed still is spread through specific sexual contact, but it's also spread through blood transfusions, needles, hemophilia treatments, donor insemination, mother to child transmission and other means.

Blaming gays for AIDS...and then, somehow using that as your bigoted views regarding gay marriage illustrates how simple minded and uneducated you really are.

Oh, and by the way; if Ronald Reagan hadn't been as homophobic as you and others here...the spread in SF would have been cut short much sooner than it eventually was.; 6/30/10, 12:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Blaming gays for AIDS...and then, somehow using that as your bigoted views regarding gay marriage illustrates how simple minded and uneducated you really are.

Oh, and by the way; if Ronald Reagan hadn't been as homophobic as you and others here...the spread in SF would have been cut short much sooner than it eventually was.

You know, Jeremy, it's long past time that morons like you get punched out.

The traditional Christian proscription against homosexuality was and is based on a sane understanding of the health risk that gay men pose, along with the needs of a poor community to encourage procreation.

Gay men caused the AIDS epidemic. Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with it. Yes, you've seen "And the Band Played On." A despicable piece of propaganda.

You are a slimeball, Jeremy. A real, low-life slimeball.

Do you talk like this in public? I hope you get clocked for it. You've got it coming.; 6/30/10, 12:41 PM
ricpic said...: The "disappointed" stance only closes off thought about what a vast swath of the population believes, MM. But they're ALL benighted, right MM? Close minded snot!; 6/30/10, 12:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh, and by the way; if Ronald Reagan hadn't been as homophobic as you and others here...the spread in SF would have been cut short much sooner than it eventually was.

Yeah, sure.

The gay guy who worked next to me in the office in 1974 would come into work late and brag to me about his exploits in the bathhouses.

He routinely had anal sex with a dozen men a night, while high on cocaine and amyl nitrate.

Other gay friends would regale me with such wonderful exploits as sitting in a tub while groups of men shit and pissed on them.

Certainly, Ronald Reagan is responsible for this. If only he'd... what?

What a complete jackass you are, Jeremy. Now, shut up, idiot.; 6/30/10, 12:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Statewide referendum...what do those hicks know? They need to start listening to their betters.; 6/30/10, 12:49 PM
TosaGuy said...: "If put to a simple minded vote, most Americans would favor all kinds of ridiculous things"

Like President Obama.

Couldn't resist.; 6/30/10, 12:49 PM
Moose said...: Jeremy -

Not going to go round the tree with you on this, however...

The state allows itself to regulate marriage. In doing so, it confers upon marriage a value that is not trivial. And a value that has nothing to do with love.

Marrying someone of the same gender is not the same as marrying someone of the opposite gender, for the simple reason that in traditional marriage their is the expectation of or at least the possibility of procreation, and childrearing.

Statistically I would wager that you would find that a much larger percentage of straights getting married expect to/intend to have and raise children, and do so.

Sully for instance has to gone to great lengths to justify gay marriage by showing the flaws in straight marriage. Jonah Goldberg once justified gay marriage in men as "taming the wild gay". In neither case is the goal of the parties - generally - coincide with that of straight marriage. It is statistically an aberration.

Civil unions to protect partner's rights - sure. Those make sense. Devaluing the institution of marriage to make you feel normal - no. Sorry.; 6/30/10, 12:50 PM
michael farris said...: I wonder how long before Ann comes out (as it were) against same sex marriage.

The positive feedback she knows she'd get from her comments section has got to be tempting.; 6/30/10, 1:02 PM
Blue@9 said...: Marrying someone of the same gender is not the same as marrying someone of the opposite gender, for the simple reason that in traditional marriage their is the expectation of or at least the possibility of procreation, and childrearing.

That's weak. There's no intent-to-bear-children test when getting married. Old people can get married, as can infertile people. Moreover, more and more people are procreating outside of marriage, so this notion that marriage and procreation are intimately linked is false. Neither causation nor correlation move in either direction.

Civil unions to protect partner's rights - sure. Those make sense. Devaluing the institution of marriage to make you feel normal - no. Sorry.

How exactly does homosexual marriage devalue the institution? It's not as if we heteros are really paying it much honor.

Frankly, the anti gay-marriage arguments have gotten really tiresome. It comes down to this: the gov't regulates civil marriage, but it's not bound by any particular religious traditions or taboos. So should it discriminate against homosexuals simply because a certain religious segment of our population believes that marriage is a purely religious sacrament? I say no. As a policy matter, there's no justifiable reason not to let them get married. What valid government interest is there in preventing them?; 6/30/10, 1:10 PM
Jeremy said...: Shouting Moron - "Gay men caused the AIDS epidemic."

You really need to educate yourself.

As for punching people out...I can't tell you how frightened I am.

Really.; 6/30/10, 1:12 PM
Right is right! said...: This is a good start but we need to continue to quickly roll back sodomite "rights". The good people of Wisconsin should be commended for doing justice in their state.

We as individuals need to also do our part. I don't tolerate people being openly homosexual around me. If they try I get in their face and tell them they should not be promoting their evil ways.; 6/30/10, 1:13 PM
Jeremy said...: Moose - Tell me how a gay couple being married has an adverse affect on you.; 6/30/10, 1:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Can I put you down as a speaker on the history of anti-miscegenation laws?

Anti-miscegenation laws were repugnant because they fundamentally altered the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Race shouldn't enter into it.

Proponents of anti-miscegenation laws and gay marriage advocates are essentially guilty of the same thing: using marriage to politically bludgeon opponents into submission.; 6/30/10, 1:16 PM
Jeremy said...: Tidy Righty said..."We as individuals need to also do our part. I don't tolerate people being openly homosexual around me. If they try I get in their face and tell them they should not be promoting their evil ways."

You're either merely yanking people's chains or just another knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who has deep issues.

I suggest you crawl back into your cave.; 6/30/10, 1:17 PM
Jeremy said...: I realize this is an open forum, but isn't a tad disconcerting (especially to many of the regulars, regardless of their conservative political views), to see so many thoroughly bigoted people posting comments on a law professor's blog site?

It's like evolution in reverse.; 6/30/10, 1:20 PM
Jeremy said...: rocket - "Proponents of anti-miscegenation laws and gay marriage advocates are essentially guilty of the same thing: using marriage to politically bludgeon opponents into submission."

Or...in the case of gays...maybe they just love each other and want to get married.

Ever consider that?; 6/30/10, 1:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Jeremy,

You've gotten the full indoctrination.

Yes, it's become standard practice in classrooms to show "And the Band Played On."

This is not "education," you fucking moron. This is indoctrination. It's a violation of the teacher/student relationship.

I've been subjected to the same indoctrination by asshole teachers.

Seriously, I look forward to the time when you're in the company of somebody who's heard enough of your "bigot" idiocy.

I hope you lose a few teeth in the exchange.

You definitely have it coming.

Will be a great advance in public discourse when it happens.

You're a low-life slimeball, Jeremy. A real piece of shit.

For some reason, this nonsense really brings out the low-life slimeballs.; 6/30/10, 1:23 PM
Moose said...: Blue@9:

Some valid responses, but missing the point. The state decides what is of value - all we're doing is conjecturing what was historically the rationale for the state's involvement.

You change the state's mind about it then you can institute changes. In this case, more people believe that gay marriage is a non starter, the courts agree that the people and the state have the right to make that decision, and bang. Here you are.; 6/30/10, 1:23 PM
X said...: it's true jeremy. you're the only one who fell for Tidy Righty's retard level mobying.; 6/30/10, 1:24 PM
Original Mike said...: I thought Jeremy was going to get it.

I don't know why.; 6/30/10, 1:25 PM
Jeremy said...: Comrade X - I realize you like to take any shot at jumping on me, but if I remember correctly, I did preface my closing remarks with this: "You're either merely yanking people's chains..."

Maybe if you were to actually read the entire post...?

Duh.; 6/30/10, 1:26 PM
Moose said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/30/10, 1:26 PM
X said...: On the other hand, you, being a bigoted prick, is something you chose to be.

duh; 6/30/10, 1:28 PM
Moose said...: How is being against gay marriage make one bigoted?; 6/30/10, 1:28 PM
MadisonMan said...: Are there any other words you'd like to project out of my mouth ricpic?; 6/30/10, 1:31 PM
X said...: I do give you credit for starting to figure it out jeremy. you're just slow on the uptake, like kos with his Research2000 poll.; 6/30/10, 1:31 PM
Jeremy said...: shoutingthomas - Why would someone who posts such nice and loving things about their wife, spew forth with such idiotic and thoroughly bigoted hate speech about gays?

And I find it rather strange to run into someone who fancies themselves a musician, and their wife an artist...to denigrate a group of people who are such a big part of the world in which your lives were intertwined.; 6/30/10, 1:32 PM
Jeremy said...: Comrade - Could you stretch this theory of yours out any more?

Good lord...Kos, Research 2000 and...me?

And all because I can't understand why so many here are so against gays being married?

Duh.; 6/30/10, 1:34 PM
Triangle Man said...: Anti-miscegenation laws were repugnant because they fundamentally altered the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Race shouldn't enter into it.

What? I can't make sense of this.

Proponents of anti-miscegenation laws and gay marriage advocates are essentially guilty of the same thing: using marriage to politically bludgeon opponents into submission.

I also can't make sense of this. How are the goals of those who would prohibit marriage between people of different races remotely similar to the goals of those who think that two people of the same sex *should* be able to marry? You seem to be suggesting some occult motive that I cannot fathom.; 6/30/10, 1:34 PM
Jeremy said...: Moose said..."How is being against gay marriage make one bigoted?"

Well, you could start with being intolerant of another person's lifestyle, sexual persuasion, religion, etc.

Other than that...

And you still haven't told us how gays being married affects YOU.; 6/30/10, 1:37 PM
X said...: Comrade - Could you stretch this theory of yours out any more?

Good lord...Kos, Research 2000 and...me?

sure holmes. Tidy Righty's comments and the Research2000 poll both fit so well with the conservative bogey men that exist in yours and kos's brainpans that you didn't recognize the obvious hoax. But at least you did start to figure it out, eventually.; 6/30/10, 1:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Triangle, I've been perfectly clear. There is no "occult" motive.

If marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, period, then any other consideration that further complicates or alters it is destructive to the institution. Prohibiting men and women of different races from marrying altered the definition and institution of marriage and therefore, at its core, was culturally subversive in the same way thtat altering the definition of marriage to allow those of the same sex to marry would be.

You may not agree, but if you're telling me you can't see any logic to the argument, it's quite simply because you don't want to.; 6/30/10, 1:41 PM
Anonymous said...: There's nothing intolerant about this ruling or the law at issue. People are saying that they don't want the government to recognize gay marriage.

This does not mean that gay people cannot get married.; 6/30/10, 1:42 PM
Jeremy said...: Comrade Dolt - Once again...you need to read the entire comment before blathering on about whatever it is you're trying to say.

Research 2000, Kos...and my criticism of the bigoted remarks posted here?

Get a grip.; 6/30/10, 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Prohibiting men and women of different races from marrying altered the definition and institution of marriage

What? Huh?; 6/30/10, 1:44 PM
Jeremy said...: Seven - "This does not mean that gay people cannot get married."

Well, based on that logic, we can all say we're doctors, but it wouldn't change the fact that we can't practice medicine or have any of the rights or privileges of a real doctor.

What the hell is your point?; 6/30/10, 1:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Marriage does not exist because the state decides it exists. Marriage is a private contract between two or more people. You have a ceremony. You live together. Presto! You are married.

The fact that people on the left cannot get their heads around the fact that something can exist without the sanction of government is so hilarious to me.; 6/30/10, 1:49 PM
michael farris said...: "This does not mean that gay people cannot get married."

Yeah, if the same sex marriage were thinking tactically, they'd simply appropriate the symbols and ceremonies of marriage and identify themselves as such until the government was forced to crack down.

I'll also say again: Drawing the line at gay marriage stinks of populism and electioneering (more shame for those that fall for it). The real rubicon(sp?) was passed a long time ago when gay people started openly setting up households together. That actually was/is a real social innovation. If shoutingthomas and his ilk are real and not just trolls that's what they need to work against.; 6/30/10, 1:51 PM
X said...: Jeremy, I don't object to gay marriage. But if we do get it, I will object to single people being treated differently in compensation benefits from married people.

The current justification for treating singles differently is that the marrieds are generally raising the next generation of society. If/when gay mariage comes, that justification will be weakened. Why should my benefit package be smaller just because I'm not married? Why the bigotry toward singles?; 6/30/10, 1:51 PM
Anonymous said...: What? Huh?

What? Huh? You want to argue that prohibiting a white man from marrying a black woman didn't fundamentally monkey with the definition and institution of marriage?; 6/30/10, 1:51 PM
Anonymous said...: One more thing. You can certainly say you are a doctor and practice medicine without a degree or a license. The state, if it finds out, will force you to stop.

Does any state or locality that does not endorse gay marriage force gay people to stop exchanging vows and living together? Please cite a reference.; 6/30/10, 1:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Rocket -- I understood your post to mean the opposite: that dispensing with laws against miscegenation somehow altered marriage fundamentally.; 6/30/10, 1:52 PM
Michael said...: I had a friend in the early 80s at the beginning of the HIV epidemic. My friend was an actuary at a major life insurance company and he was afraid, very afraid. Based on his firm's calculations at the time it was only a matter of a few years before HIV was a plague-like disease affecting every part of society. This was in the early days when it was believed that HIV was easily transmitted between humans regardless of sexual orientation. His numbers, mercifully, were proven to be wrong as HIV is actually quite hard to get if you do not share needles and do not engage in anal intercourse with infected individuals. The facts on this topic speak for themselves.; 6/30/10, 1:54 PM
Moose said...: Blue@9 -

Great points! Thanks!

Now - here is the continual question that I ask about this: how is marriage of any value if it's freely available with no limits?

We've made divorce easy. We turn our heads when people have affairs (not my issue - who can judge?). We make single parenthood easier and less stigma ridden.

Now we make it so that people of the same gender can marry on an equal footing as straights. Actually, we don't even mandate they be gay. But we'll allow them to marry.

This is the problem. You take child bearing and rearing out of the equation. You make merely a function of love and commitment. Now, where's the state's role? where does the state have a stake in regulating marriage?

Where is, for that matter, the value of marriage to society? The answer is none. It becomes a lifestyle choice. Not an institution. Not a cultural commitment. It's devalued.

Which is where it's headed. This is just another step down that road. If you remove the legal structure around a cultural instituion like marriage, then you're going to have to have some sort of value system like religion to mandate your behavior. If you remove the societal value of marriage as we are doing, then you're left with people maybe staying together, maybe not.

Maybe you're reducing the pool of people who will get married and raise children to exceedingly traditional religious people. Then, you have to deal with shifts in demographics as those people start to become dominant.

Marriage is doomed, and this is just accelerating it.; 6/30/10, 1:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Yeah, if the same sex marriage were thinking tactically, they'd simply appropriate the symbols and ceremonies of marriage and identify themselves as such until the government was forced to crack down.

I think you are missing something vital here. Gay marriage is not illegal. It's perfectly legal. There's no law against gay people exchanging vows and living together. There's nothing to crack down with. States simply choose not to endorse gay marriage and give a preset set of rights and obligation to married gays.

Your argument does work for polygamists, though. Why they don't just exchange vows privately and live together, I don't know. I'm sure there's more to the story, since polygamy is actually outlaws, unlike gay marriage.; 6/30/10, 1:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Marriage is doomed, and this is just accelerating it.

You are forgetting about Tom Wolfe's Great Relearning. My generation saw firsthand the awfulness of divorce as it affects children. As a result, you see less of it now than you did before, at least when there are kids involved.; 6/30/10, 1:58 PM
Blue@9 said...: If marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, period, then any other consideration that further complicates or alters it is destructive to the institution.

WHO defines that? I keep reading that marriage is defined... but where and by whom?

Prohibiting men and women of different races from marrying altered the definition and institution of marriage and therefore, at its core, was culturally subversive in the same way thtat altering the definition of marriage to allow those of the same sex to marry would be.

What are you talking about? You say this shit as if it were rooted in fact and history. Anti-miscegenation laws themselves defined valid marriage in the context of the time and place. You speak of "marriage is defined as," but your definition just arbitrarily picks "man and woman" and ignores any other existing definitions. To a person living at the turn of the 19th century, a black person and white person marrying would have been as definition busting as two men marrying are to you. "Oh, well, it violates the traditional definition of marriage, which must be between people of the same race, because it's about procreation, you see, and you can't let an inferior and superior race intermingle."; 6/30/10, 2:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Rocket -- I understood your post to mean the opposite: that dispensing with laws against miscegenation somehow altered marriage fundamentally.

Sorry if I was less than clear - no, I was speaking about proponents of anti-miscegenation laws. Those that supported such laws were intentionally subverting the institution of marriage, for political ends. In that way, they are like proponents of gay marriage.; 6/30/10, 2:00 PM
Right is right! said...: Those who think that you can be opposed to sodomite marriage while still tolerating public homosexuality are fooling yourselves by drawing invisible lines. Please read Robert Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah".

Those who are promoting this sick perversion on our country are not interested in protecting sodomites. Instead, they want to destroy our country.; 6/30/10, 2:03 PM
Anonymous said...: To a person living at the turn of the 19th century, a black person and white person marrying would have been as definition busting as two men marrying are to you.

My white great-great-great-great grandfather and black great-great-great-great grandmother, legally married in the 1840s, would be surprised to know this, I'm sure.

You say this shit as if it were rooted in fact and history.

Well, yes, I do. History,fact, and tradition. But please, don't let that stop you.; 6/30/10, 2:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Blue -- You can argue until you are blue in the face that it's wrong that states don't endorse gay marriage, and that anti-miscegenation laws are similar. There are two crucial difference, though:

1. Anti-miscegenation laws actively prohibited people of different ethnicities from exchanging vows and living together. There is no law that prohibits gays from doing these things.

2. Anti-miscegenation laws are clearly prohibited under the federal Constitution. Laws that say the state doesn't endorse gay marriage are clearly not.; 6/30/10, 2:05 PM
michael farris said...: rocketeer67,

Please tell me you're playing some joke. You can't be that obtuse.

Defenders of anti-miscegenation laws portrayed themselves as defending traditional marriage, which in their understanding had always been between one man and one woman of the same race.

They even had a point (of a kind) since all kinds of factors usually prevented people of different races from marrying.

My favorite stupid argument they used was an appeal to natural law. Since God made the different races in different parts of the world he obviously wanted them to stay separate and who were these race mixers to challenge God's works?; 6/30/10, 2:05 PM
Jeremy said...: Seven - "The fact that people on the left cannot get their heads around the fact that something can exist without the sanction of government is so hilarious to me."

It's not just the "sanction of government" gays are concerned with, it's the "rights" afforded people who are in fact married.

Have you ever read anything about this subject or are you just throwing shit into the wind?; 6/30/10, 2:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Those who are promoting this sick perversion on our country are not interested in protecting sodomites.

There are plenty of straight sodomites, dude. Trust me.

Further, the story of Sodom is not a story of ass-fucking at all. It's a story about failure to follow proper protocol when new people arrive in your village. This is easy to see if you actually read Genesis.

That said, I do think states need to get serious about laws against bareback fucking. It's a terrible cause of disease.; 6/30/10, 2:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Please tell me you're playing some joke. You can't be that obtuse.

No joke, and I'm not being obtuse.

I do find it interesting that you think anti-miscegenationists had a point, even "kind of."

They didn't.; 6/30/10, 2:08 PM
Triangle Man said...: @rocketeer67

"If marriage is defined as between a man and a woman"

That's the big "if" right?

Thanks for the explanation. What threw me was the notion that it was the abstract interference with the "definition of marriage" that you find repugnant. Anti-miscegentation laws violate fundamental notions of equality and fairness, and the consequences and suffering they would cause are what I find repugnant. The same consequences exist for gay people who would marry and cannot.; 6/30/10, 2:08 PM
Jeremy said...: Comrade X said..."Jeremy, I don't object to gay marriage. But if we do get it, I will object to single people being treated differently in compensation benefits from married people."

I don't know what that would encompass.

What "compensation" are you referring to?; 6/30/10, 2:09 PM
Anonymous said...: We have had this discussion about the rights marriage entails (and the many, many obligations) ad infinitum in these threads. They are either totally trivial or easily afforded by signing a few contracts.

Gays would be much, much better served by trying to change the law to allow them to have those rights more easily under a rubric that is not called marriage.

Attempts to foist gay marriage on an unwilling populace will continue to fail.; 6/30/10, 2:12 PM
Jeremy said...: Tiny Brain - "Those who are promoting this sick perversion on our country are not interested in protecting sodomites. Instead, they want to destroy our country."

THE SODOMITES ARE COMING (no pun intended)...THE SODOMITES ARE COMING!!!

By the way, Tiny...what makes you or Bork think gays are the only sodomites infecting the country?; 6/30/10, 2:13 PM
Blue@9 said...: @7M:

1. Anti-miscegenation laws actively prohibited people of different ethnicities from exchanging vows and living together. There is no law that prohibits gays from doing these things.

"You can marry anyone you like as long as he or she is of the opposite sex."

"You can marry anyone you like as long as he or she is the same race."

We're talking about gov't sanctioned civil marriage, and as long as gov'ts don't recognize gay marriage, it's no different (in my book) than gov'ts refusing to recognize mixed race marriages.

2. Anti-miscegenation laws are clearly prohibited under the federal Constitution. Laws that say the state doesn't endorse gay marriage are clearly not.

You are absolutely correct here. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes a sexual orientation a protected status as is race. My opinions arise from notions of fairness and equality, not from the Constitution. We shouldn't refrain from doing what's right just because there's no law that compels us.; 6/30/10, 2:14 PM
Anonymous said...: No question the sodomites are coming. I would definitely favor laws that mandate condoms for sodomites.; 6/30/10, 2:15 PM
Triangle Man said...: They are either totally trivial or easily afforded by signing a few contracts.

The Wisconsin amendment would seem to preclude this because it specifically outlaws marriage-like alternatives.

"a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state"; 6/30/10, 2:15 PM
TMink said...: Jeremey you bigoted twink.

I never said I was against gay marriage you mental midget. I said that the majority of people in the US are. That is a demonstratable fact.

You are a demonstratable idiot.

Trey; 6/30/10, 2:15 PM
Anonymous said...: We're talking about gov't sanctioned civil marriage, and as long as gov'ts don't recognize gay marriage, it's no different (in my book) than gov'ts refusing to recognize mixed race marriages.

There's a huge, gaping difference. Failure to endorse a practice is vastly different than making it illegal and arresting people who do it. No one is preventing gays from marrying. Gay marriage is not illegal.

Please show me the gay person in America who has gotten married and been arrested.; 6/30/10, 2:16 PM
Jeremy said...: Michael - "HIV is actually quite hard to get if you do not share needles and do not engage in anal intercourse with infected individuals. The facts on this topic speak for themselves."

None of which is relegated to gays.; 6/30/10, 2:17 PM
michael farris said...: rocketeer67: "I do find it interesting that you think anti-miscegenationists had a point, even "kind of.""

The point, morally abhorrent as it is to us today, was that there was no tradition in the US (or much of anywhere else) of people marrying outside their race.
Interracial sex, yeah, but they didn't talk about that.
Anyway, they claimed to be defending marriage as they had always known it. And from the point of view of their time, yeah, they were right.
From our enlightened perspective they were wrong. Well-meaning, in a horribly misguided way, but wrong.

Just hope that in the future someone tries to be as understanding about your current views.; 6/30/10, 2:17 PM
Blue@9 said...: Those who are promoting this sick perversion on our country are not interested in protecting sodomites. Instead, they want to destroy our country.

Dude, piss off. I'm a conservative and I love this country just as much as the next American. The only thing is that I'm not scared of gay boogeymen coming to ass rape me. Seriously, learn to be a man and get off the "I'm so scared of sodomite perversion" wagon.; 6/30/10, 2:17 PM
MadisonMan said...: I do think states need to get serious about laws against bareback fucking. It's a terrible cause of disease.

What a horrible, horrible idea. As if the Government isn't intrusive enough.; 6/30/10, 2:18 PM
Jeremy said...: TMink said..."I never said I was against gay marriage you mental midget."

Your comment certainly implied such.

So...are you FOR gays having the right to marry?

Yes or No?; 6/30/10, 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: The Wisconsin amendment would seem to preclude this because it specifically outlaws marriage-like alternatives.

Here, you can't get your head around separating the naming of something called marriage and contracting for some right marriage entails. Marriage as the state sees it is merely a predefined set of rights that you opt into when you get married. It's very similar to the law about what happens when you die. There are laws stating where your property will go. But you can make them not apply to you with a simple contract called a will.

Similarly, most predefined marriage rights (and obligations) can easily be contracted for. I would be surprised if no gay rights attorney hasn't already set up a contract that does this.; 6/30/10, 2:20 PM
Jeremy said...: Moose - You've never told us how gays being married would impact your life.

Care to share?; 6/30/10, 2:22 PM
TMink said...: "WHO defines that? I keep reading that marriage is defined... but where and by whom?"

It was God.

"The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him'...and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Gen. 2:18, 21-24

Trey; 6/30/10, 2:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Madison -- It's a terrible public health hazard. You can't smoke in bars in Chicago but you can take a stranger home and fuck him or her in the ass? Without health insurance?

That seems very wrong to me.; 6/30/10, 2:22 PM
Jeremy said...: Seven Machos said..."Madison -- It's a terrible public health hazard. You can't smoke in bars in Chicago but you can take a stranger home and fuck him or her in the ass? Without health insurance? That seems very wrong to me."

And...if you're both smoking at the same time...your rates can really skyrocket.; 6/30/10, 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Gay marriage is illegal in many states. Those states won't issue marriage permits to gay couples nor will they recognize such marriages from other states.

You are confusing endorsement with illegality. If the state cannot take action against your person or property when you do something, it's not illegal.

Lack of recognition isn't illegal. I know you can see the difference. I walked across the street today. Nobody from the state saw it or said I could do it. Was my action illegal?; 6/30/10, 2:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Jeremy -- No question that if I am smoking and ass fucking, that's double whammy.; 6/30/10, 2:25 PM
Michael said...: Jeremy: Then why do gays get HIV at a rate of hundreds of times more than heteros?

But you never answered my question: if gays can marry but straights dream up a new concept that has no governmental benefits attached but the new concept which is called something different from ""marriage" prohibits gays from participating would you be ok with that?; 6/30/10, 2:26 PM
Moose said...: Blue@9 -

Again, good points.

So, by denying gays the right to marriage - 2 questions:

1) How are their rights being abrogated? In other words - where is it mandated that marriage itself is a right? Miscegenation laws clearly violate blacks rights to a traditional marriage based on their race. What basic rights are denied to gays? They can still marry people of the other gender.

2) what is the value to society to allow gays to marry?; 6/30/10, 2:26 PM
Jeremy said...: TMink - I don't see anything in your Bible reference relating to "divorce."

Since you're now dragging our Bible passages...and everybody knows God wrote the Bible...why have you not answered my question:

Are you for or against gays getting legally married?

Yes or No??; 6/30/10, 2:28 PM
Anonymous said...: What threw me was the notion that it was the abstract interference with the "definition of marriage" that you find repugnant.

Well, I do find it repugnant, but let me elaborate more if you don't mind. Anti-miscegenation laws weren't abstract, they represented a concrete interference in the definition of marriage. And it was that concrete interference that created the violation of fundamental notions of equality and fairness - I mean, that violation had to spring from somewhere, right?; 6/30/10, 2:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Rocket -- You are making this too hard. The Constitution mandates that people be treated equally concerning race. Anti-miscegenation laws do not treat people of different races equally because they make a distinction about race. Therefore, anti-miscegenation laws are not constitutional.; 6/30/10, 2:32 PM
michael farris said...: Siete Male Animals said: "Anti-miscegenation laws do not treat people of different races equally because they make a distinction about race. Therefore, anti-miscegenation laws are not constitutional."

Well those in favor of the laws said the distinction didn't cause inequality as the same race restrictions applied equally across races. Blacks were free to marry anyone of the same race and Whites were free to marry anyone of the same race etc etc etc

(Again, I do not support such laws, which were an abomination, but I do recognize that in the place and time they were in force they made sense to those in favor of them).

Times and perspectives change and probably within 10 or so years a bunch of current same sex marriage opponents will be trying to pretend they weren't.; 6/30/10, 2:38 PM
MadisonMan said...: It's a terrible public health hazard. You can't smoke in bars in Chicago but you can take a stranger home and fuck him or her in the ass?

Yes, it's a public health issue -- but who is going to enforce the statute?

You can also take a stranger home and smoke a cigarette. I'm not sure your comparison is a good one.; 6/30/10, 2:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Well those in favor of the laws said the distinction didn't cause inequality as the same race restrictions applied equally across races. Blacks were free to marry anyone of the same race and Whites were free to marry anyone of the same race

So what? Those people were wrong. A lot of people say a lot of wrong things. Drawing any distinction based on race is a violation of the Constitution. It's really an easy, bright-line rule.; 6/30/10, 2:39 PM
Jeremy said...: Michael said..."Jeremy: Then why do gays get HIV at a rate of hundreds of times more than heteros?"

I have no idea if that is true, and the kinds of sex gay men engage in certainly puts them at more risk, but it doesn't negate my comment that all of which you refer...is not relegated to gays.

About 47% of new AIDS cases are among gay men, 24% among heterosexuals and 22% among drug users.; 6/30/10, 2:41 PM
Anonymous said...: but who is going to enforce the statute?

If that's going to be your standard, we are going to have to get rid of a slew of laws.; 6/30/10, 2:42 PM
Anonymous said...: 24% among heterosexuals

Correction, assuming your statistic is valid: 24% among people who say they are heterosexuals; 6/30/10, 2:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Rocket -- You are making this too hard. The Constitution mandates that people be treated equally concerning race.

Well, sure. But what's constitutionality got to do with gay marriage? I'm comparing the push for gay marriage with a-m laws. The comparison interests me, and MadisonMan brought up a-m laws in the context of this connversation.; 6/30/10, 2:44 PM
Jeremy said...: Seven Machos said..."Correction, assuming your statistic is valid: 24% among people who say they are heterosexuals."

You're right. I meant to say among those engaging in "heterosexual" contact.

There could possibly be a pony in there, too.; 6/30/10, 2:45 PM
Blue@9 said...: "WHO defines that? I keep reading that marriage is defined... but where and by whom?"

It was God.

Sorry, not my god.

@Moose:
1) How are their rights being abrogated?

They're not. Like I said, I don't think it's a violation of the Constitution.

But I think it's good policy and I think it's fair and just. Call me a romantic, but I think people marry for love. And gay people do love each other--why would I want to deny them marriage?

2) what is the value to society to allow gays to marry?

Increasing participation in the institution of marriage.

Promoting stable relationships, especially among gays.

Great sense of social equality.

Happiness.

Now what are the downsides?; 6/30/10, 2:58 PM
former law student said...: Marriage is a private contract between two or more people.

Can gays get a court to enforce this private contract?

Will this private contract enable gay couple filers to pay tax at "Married" rates?

Will hospitals accept the other party to this private contract as the next of kin?

Will courts accept the other party to this private contract as the spouse under intestate succession?; 6/30/10, 3:01 PM
Blue@9 said...: Seven Machos said..."Madison -- It's a terrible public health hazard. You can't smoke in bars in Chicago but you can take a stranger home and fuck him or her in the ass? Without health insurance? That seems very wrong to me."

All that tells me is that we should be able to smoke in bars. I'm trying to quit, but it's just wrong not to allow me to smoke while enjoying a drink.; 6/30/10, 3:03 PM
Michael said...: Jeremy: I think your stats are wrong or perhaps include Africa; have a look at these which are for the US: http://www.avert.org/usa-race-age.htm; 6/30/10, 3:03 PM
MadisonMan said...: If that's going to be your standard, we are going to have to get rid of a slew of laws.

I'm being practical. You want to propose a law that is so intrusive as to bar unprotected anal sex, so I think you should tell me how it would be enforced.

For example, does the top or the bottom get charged? If it's not both, there is going to be a huge uptick in the number of (s)he said/(s)he said anal rape cases.; 6/30/10, 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Can gays get a court to enforce this private contract?

Yes. A court will agree that you had a ceremony and now live together.

Will this private contract enable gay couple filers to pay tax at "Married" rates?

No. There is a strong rationale for married rates, and this speaks to Blue's question about what's valid about mot endorsing gay marriage. The rationale is multifaceted but it is all rooted in creating kids, which a monogamous gay couple is not able to do.

Will hospitals accept the other party to this private contract as the next of kin?

This is something that you, if you were smart, would simply try to change if it's a problem. A simple law about hospitals is easy to make.

Will courts accept the other party to this private contract as the spouse under intestate succession?

Intestate succession is defeated by a will.

What else?; 6/30/10, 3:06 PM
X said...: Is it me or is Jeremy arguing in good faith moreso than usual as the thread goes on? Congrats Jeremy. Your persuasion skills are more effective than when you insult. And I don't mean this comment as an insult.; 6/30/10, 3:07 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm being practical.

Are you? Why are you lobbying for law that majorities consistently say they don't want?; 6/30/10, 3:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Blue -- If we are going to allow laws based on public health...; 6/30/10, 3:10 PM
Moose said...: Blue@9 -

At least we can agree on the fact it's not a civil rights issue.

Now, for the downsides - I'll be rehashing my earlier points.
1) Dilution of the concept of marriage. This is downside as marriage loses it's traditional focus - broadening (or becoming more inclusive if you like) and thereby becoming less specific.
2) Rolling out some of the more possible ills. Whats to stop marriage at gays? When you broach changing marriage for the feel good goal of including gays, what about minors, multiple wives/husbands, my couch?

Now that I think about it - if the only reason that you think gay marriage is OK is as a feel-good issue - then what are we arguing about? Feel-good issues aren't moral, and they certainly aren't constitutional.; 6/30/10, 3:30 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: It's a great victory for prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness.

Freedom has diminished further as the American Taliban uses the power of the state to dictate personal choices on how people live their lives and who they love.

And it's all done to score cheap political points.; 6/30/10, 3:33 PM
Jeremy said...: Michael - Could be. I've seen a number of different charts and stats.

I have no disagreement with you regarding unsafe sex among anybody, but I have no idea what it has to do with gays being legally married.

I would think those who are concerned about AIDS would welcome the marriages versus the contrary.; 6/30/10, 3:41 PM
MadisonMan said...: Seven, I am being practical about a law you want on the books.; 6/30/10, 3:43 PM
Jeremy said...: Moose - Why do you refuse to tell us how gay marriage would impact your life in a negative way?

It makes your argument moot.; 6/30/10, 3:44 PM
Jeremy said...: Tmink - Why won't you say if you approve or disapprove of gays being able to legally marry?

It negates your argument that you're not a bigot.; 6/30/10, 3:45 PM
Triangle Man said...: Are you? Why are you lobbying for law that majorities consistently say they don't want?

Majority rule cannot be allowed to trample individual rights.; 6/30/10, 3:57 PM
bagoh20 said...: Get the government out of marriage and I don't care who does it or what they call it.

Many who are so determined to have it open to all are also the ones who want the government to give out more benefits to the government-approved lifestyles.

Those who do not submit to the dyad bigotry are the ones being used and punished by marriage policy. I say keep your marriage and your civil union in the bedroom, all of you legalized fornicators and sodomites.; 6/30/10, 4:03 PM
Moose said...: Jeremy -

Interesting point - why should it matter how it affects my life? If people on things that affected their lives, then things might get really interesting. I don't think you'd like it.

It wouldn't affect me one way or the other. No more than say abortion. I however support abortion rights in spite of the fact that I find abortion and women who have ones morally reprehensible.

Be careful where you're looking to make a point - you might be surprised.; 6/30/10, 4:05 PM
bagoh20 said...: Jeremy, you can love and live with whoever you want and openly flaunt it without repercussions. But what you really want is to say that you and your partner are married and force everyone to tell you it's OK. Grow up. What bigots think of you will not change no matter what the law is.; 6/30/10, 4:07 PM
bagoh20 said...: "What a clever way for the right to keep on alienating small-government social liberals until the Dems turn us into Greece. "

No nation ever collapsed from lack of gay marriage. Any fool that chooses socialism just because he can't stand the limitations of the most open society that ever existed deserves what he gets.; 6/30/10, 4:20 PM
Jeremy said...: Bag O' Wind - "I say keep your marriage and your civil union in the bedroom, all of you legalized fornicators and sodomites."

Gay marriage has nothing to do with what you spit out.

It relates to the rights and privileges afforded heterosexuals who marry.; 6/30/10, 4:22 PM
Moose said...: Bagoh20 raises an interesting point.

You can't fire a gay person, not rent or sell them a house, not hire them, deny them accommodations, not sell them things, insure them, etc due to their sexual orientation.

What it seems to be now is that tolerance is the new racism - you also have to embrace their lifestyle, what they are.

You can't just live next to them it seems.; 6/30/10, 4:23 PM
Right is right! said...: Most Americans know that these sodomites who are now flaunt ling their sickness are an abomination and a cancer on our society. Their champions in the Democratic party do not care on iota about their well-being (if they did they would tell them to change their evil ways) instead they are using them to destroy our once great country.

In this way they lured the likes of Matthew Shepard and others to their deaths. I blame these Democrats who, in their overwhelming desire to destroy this country, told him to flaunt his sickness among pious Americans who do not accept such vileness. They are in some ways more to blame than Matthew Shepard or the actual killers.

There will be no peace until we stop trying to normalize the evil that is sodomy. You can take that to the bank.; 6/30/10, 4:25 PM
Jeremy said...: Moose said...(as to gay marriage) -
"It wouldn't affect me one way or the other."

Then why do you say this?

"Gay marriage further trivializes an already weakened institution. Leave it alone."

Or throw this into the mix?

"I however support abortion rights in spite of the fact that I find abortion and women who have ones morally reprehensible."

Well, that's nice of you...to support one's right to make such a decision, yet still refer to them as "morally reprehensible."

Run that one by any of the women you might know who have had such a procedure, I'm sure they'll enjoy hearing what you really think of them.

And then this...?

"Be careful where you're looking to make a point - you might be surprised."

I have no idea what that even means.; 6/30/10, 4:28 PM
Jeremy said...: Bag O' Wind - "Jeremy, you can love and live with whoever you want and openly flaunt it without repercussions. But what you really want is to say that you and your partner are married and force everyone to tell you it's OK."

Once again, you evidently miss the point.
(what a shocker)

It's not repercussions gays are concerned with (and I have no idea what the "flaunt it" thing has to do with this...other than bigotry. Do straights "flaunt" their marriages or behavior?), it's the fact that they are entitled to the same rights as a heterosexual.

There are all kinds of things related to whether you're legally married or not; things that can effect everything from visitation to child rearing to money and ownership.

Things a heterosexual doesn't have to concern themselves with having the rights to because they're protected by laws.; 6/30/10, 4:34 PM
Jeremy said...: Moose - "What it seems to be now is that tolerance is the new racism - you also have to embrace their lifestyle, what they are."

Very white of you.

And you say you're not a bigot?; 6/30/10, 4:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Madison -- I think you know my libertarian proclivities well enough to know that I am at best half-serious. That said, why do you get to shill for changes in law while I cannot? Is it the professorship?

Triangle -- Really? That's the cant you brought here? Whence comes this right of individuals to have the state endorse their marriages, or to have any old thing stuck in any old orifice? Who is the lawgiver there? Further, are you really sure you don't want majorities to trample individual rights? Are you for the right not to serve gay people in restaurants, for example? Are you for Obamacare? Are you for easy gun ownership?

You are lucky Alpha is here to be a poorer thinker than you are.; 6/30/10, 4:36 PM
Jeremy said...: Tiny Brain - "Most Americans know that these sodomites who are now flaunt ling their sickness are an abomination and a cancer on our society."

Which "sodomites," moron?

I guarantee you that there are one hell of a lot more of what you refer to as "sodomites" that are heterosexual than gay...including yourself. (Ever hear of oral copulation...duh.)

Only a bigoted dunce could say something so incredibly dumb...without apparently even realizing it.; 6/30/10, 4:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Jeremy is right here and, Tidy, you are wrong. There is nothing deviant about ass fucking. There are public health concerns galore when people stick penises in strange assholes without the benefit of any protection, but you have no moral case and you will not make much headway making one here, even among us conservatives.; 6/30/10, 4:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Jeremy -- I think it's highly possible that Tidy is a Moby who is fucking with both of us.; 6/30/10, 4:46 PM
Right is right! said...: Jeremy,

I do not interact with those who wish evil to befall our once great nation. Less than fifty years ago you would have been hauled in front of a court charged with a felony for promoting your sodomite agenda. We were a more just and civil society then.

You and your sodomite agenda must be defeated if we are to ever get our former greatness as a moral nation back.; 6/30/10, 4:46 PM
Triangle Man said...: @Seven

Forgive me if I am not persuaded by "majority rule". You can probably do better, but way to go all ad hominem questioning my smartypantsitude! I didn't think paraphrasing Ayn Rand would get you so worked up. I'm not promoting the government's involvement in marriage, that's just the way it is now. If you want to unravel that precedent, have at it. If, on the other hand, you and Mary Jane Rottencrotch can promise to be schmoopy best friends forever then I don't see why two chicks or two dudes can't do the same thing. If marriage is meaningless to the government, then there would be no legal reason, or means, to oppose the marriage of two same-sex adults. If marriage does have some meaning to our government (as is the case), then I think that status should be available to all adults.; 6/30/10, 4:51 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't see why two chicks or two dudes can't do the same thing.

Dude. They can. Get it through your thick skull. There is now in Wisconsin or anywhere that forbids a gay couple from having the same ceremony a straight couple has and living together the same way a straight couple does.

What part do you not understand? Why must I continue to explain this patently obvious fact every other post?; 6/30/10, 4:53 PM
Anonymous said...: ...There is no law...

No law.; 6/30/10, 4:54 PM
Moose said...: Jeremy -

I support abortion because women are insane. You can't make the not abort,and they will endanger their lives in doing so. So in the interest of the public welfare, you make it legal, safe and morally repugnant. that last one can't be legislated.

You can't just take an interest in things that affect you. If that were true, I wouldn't support safe abortion.

You and others who support gay marriage do so out of a personal identification with it. You're therefore biased and not that objective.

If gay marriage had an value to society I'd be for it. However it's a feel-good make the gays fit issue. Nothing else.; 6/30/10, 4:55 PM
Right is right! said...: Seven Machos,

I think your heart is in the right place but you are intellectually weak and morally wavering.

The people some of you call "gay" are evil and sick to their very core. Those who are promoting them as the new norm do not even hide their hatred for this country.

Being against "gay" marriage while being wishy washy about sodomites is nonsensical. This is not about homosexual marriage. This is about radically changing this country and its moral foundation.

Again, please read "Slouching towards Gomorrah" by Robert Bork.; 6/30/10, 4:56 PM
Jeremy said...: Seven Machos said..."There is nothing deviant about ass fucking."

FINALLY...a conservative who puts something other than his head...up an ass.

Thank you for your support in this matter.; 6/30/10, 4:56 PM
Jeremy said...: Seven Machos said..."Jeremy -- I think it's highly possible that Tidy is a Moby who is fucking with both of us."

You would hope there wasn't someone quite this bigoted and flat out stupid...but then again...he apparently doesn't even understand what sodomy is.; 6/30/10, 4:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Tidy -- Either you are an interesting Moby or you are a loon.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and calling you an interesting Moby.; 6/30/10, 4:58 PM
Jeremy said...: Tiny Brain - Can we all assume you don't eat pussy?

You DO know what a pussy is...right?; 6/30/10, 4:59 PM
former law student said...: Intestate succession is defeated by a will.

Wills can be invalidated. If there is no valid will, the default is intestate succession. That means that one's hated parents or estranged brother might end up with all your property, and not your beloved widower.; 6/30/10, 5:00 PM
Jeremy said...: Seven - And right away you lose me by calling Tiny Brain "interesting."; 6/30/10, 5:00 PM
buster said...: Blue@9 said:

"It comes down to this: the gov't regulates civil marriage, but it's not bound by any particular religious traditions or taboos. So should it discriminate against homosexuals simply because a certain religious segment of our population believes that marriage is a purely religious sacrament?"

The idea that opposition to gay marriage is limited to "a certain religious segment of our population" (I assume you mean some subset of Christians) or that it is based on the belief that "marriage is a purely religious sacrament" is silly. There is no evidence that any society anywhere in the world at any time in history ever allowed gays to participate in the institution of marriage. That changed around 1970 when gay marriage began to be recognized in a few places in Europe. It is too soon to know whether this social change will be permanent or successful.

The fact that gays existed in every society but were not allowed to marry is not evidence of discrimination against gays. It is evidence the the restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples may be a good idea, whether or not sociologists and historians can say why. It is also evidence that human nature may be such that gays may not be suited for marriage. Not conclusive evidence, but evidence all the same.

This is not to say that we should not consider extending marriage to gays. But it is to say that it should be done only after a long, careful public discussion has persuaded a solid majority that it is worth trying. It is also to say that recognizing gay marriage by judicial fiat is intolerable.; 6/30/10, 5:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Jeremy -- If you look at his arguments as being faked arguments by a person who doesn't really believe them, he is brilliant. It's not easy to simultaneously argue a cause while at the same time discrediting that cause.; 6/30/10, 5:02 PM
Moose said...: Buster -

You put that well!!

Thanks!; 6/30/10, 5:03 PM
Milwaukie guy said...: The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the will of the people.

Do the people have the right to define civil marriage, including consanguinity, gender and number? I believe they do. In many cultures one is allowed to marry a first cousin or have multiple wives. In ours, we don't. [insert Appalachian joke here]

As far as same gender marriage goes, I have little doubt that it will be legal in 40-45 states in 50 years.

What I want to know is if I can be married to my best buddy, girl-chasing bachelor coworkers, such as we are. The tax benefits could be awesome. Would we have to fuck once to make it okay?

wv: raftecus: When Supreme Courts overturn the peoples' will or find new rights in penumbras it leads to a raftecus of shit.; 6/30/10, 5:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Ha! I just searched through the entire thread for Tidy's comments. Brilliant satire.

I am impressed.; 6/30/10, 5:07 PM
Jeremy said...: Moose - "You and others who support gay marriage do so out of a personal identification with it. You're therefore biased and not that objective. If gay marriage had an value to society I'd be for it. However it's a feel-good make the gays fit issue. Nothing else."

I have no idea what this "personal identification" thing is you refer to, I support it because it's morally correct for all Americans to have the same rights.

As for gay marriage's "value to society," once again...I can't say how it adds or subtracts from society, other than being in line with the same rights heterosexuals enjoy.

But do you think a heterosexual marrying four or more times adds something?

Or how about that 50% divorce rate we have in America?

And as to your abortion comment; "I support abortion because women are insane."...well, I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say.

I guess being a bigot is hard to explain...isn't it, Moose?; 6/30/10, 5:08 PM
Jeremy said...: Seven Machos said..."Ha! I just searched through the entire thread for Tidy's comments. Brilliant satire. I am impressed."

Right.

And his Bork book reference?

Was that also satire?; 6/30/10, 5:10 PM
Right is right! said...: Seven Machos,

I am an American traditionalist who knows that this country was founded on Cristian beliefs. You must be quite young. Up until recently everything I have written was considered mainstream. This tells you how far off the tracks this country has gone.; 6/30/10, 5:10 PM
Jeremy said...: Seven - If you actually think Tiny Brain's comment are brilliant "satire"...you need to get out more.

If e were posting racial comments in the same way would you also think it was terrific or brilliant?; 6/30/10, 5:12 PM
Jeremy said...: Tiny Brain - "Up until recently everything I have written was considered mainstream."

Up until "recently?"

Post some of this "recent mainstream" commentary you refer to.

You're full of shit.; 6/30/10, 5:14 PM
Jeremy said...: Milw - "What I want to know is if I can be married to my best buddy, girl-chasing bachelor coworkers, such as we are. The tax benefits could be awesome. Would we have to fuck once to make it okay?"

Want to run that one by again?; 6/30/10, 5:16 PM
Moose said...: Jeremy -

See, this is the issue. I'm not a bigot. You identifying me as one puts you into the same classification as Tidy Brain.

Women are insane. If you look at their behavior regarding children and abortion, it is really quite clear. Women will die defending their children with their bare hands, and yet will stick bleach and coat hangers into their uterus's to abort a fetus. That dichotomy is NOT a feature of sanity.

But more to the point - how would gay marriage affect you personally? Other than make you feel good?; 6/30/10, 5:16 PM
former law student said...: The Married vs. Single tax rate difference is not conditioned on having children or even on the possibility of children -- there is no IRS fertility test. It benefits couples with one wage-earner and one homemaker.

A simple law about hospitals is easy to make.

And can be difficult to enforce. Would you want to wait for a court order when a nurse is keeping you from visiting your beloved spouse is in an ICU, with her life ebbing away.

Contracts can be difficult to enforce. Did a contract help Ruth Tyrangiel? Further, if gays are forbidden real marriage, and formalized arrangements like civil unions, what makes you think the State of Wisconsin will enforce private contracts between same-sex couples? Won't they be construed as an end-run to achieve the impermissible?; 6/30/10, 5:17 PM
Right is right! said...: Christian, not Cristian.

Also, it is hard not to think that when Robert Bork was so viciously and wrongly denied a seat on the Supreme Court was when this country fully turned its head away from what is right. Now we are considering this week another sodomite for that very same court and there is not a ripple of outrage.; 6/30/10, 5:17 PM
former law student said...: Jeremy: milw man wants to know if one has to be gay to enter into a same-sex marriage; would consummation be required?; 6/30/10, 5:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Read through the thread again, Jeremy. Just Tidy's comments. And try to imagine someone who agrees with you saying them and laughing uproariously because he thinks they are ridiculous things.

The part about Kagan as a sodomite is the clincher. As if she's ever had sex of any kind.

Are you Tidy?; 6/30/10, 5:20 PM
Milwaukie guy said...: 24% among heterosexuals....

Must add a story.

A sister-in-law was a nurse in the AIDs clinic at a big-city country hospital beginning in the early days of the health crisis. They were still trying to figure out what the vectors of the disease were.

A lot married hispanic men with children were getting HIV and insisting they were heterosexual. This skewed early statistics. A year or so later, literally, some one had the bright idea to ask "Have you ever had sex with a woman who turned out to be a man?"

Oh, Sí.

For real.

wv: afeliz: That funny feeling you get when your hand get between that hot gal's leg and ¡ay, caramba!; 6/30/10, 5:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Milwaukie also makes a great point: why wouldn't a couple single dudes get married? Just out of college, needing a tax break.

Are we to have a sincerity test?; 6/30/10, 5:21 PM
Jeremy said...: Moose - "But more to the point - how would gay marriage affect you personally? Other than make you feel good?"

Only in one respect: I believe in equal rights for all American citizens.

What is it about this that you can't get through your bigoted head?

As for you inane abortion comments...that "Women are insane."...well, once again, I have no idea what that even means...even with your ridiculous argument that they protect their own, yet still choose to have abortions.

Most here also believe in the Ten Commandments, but they all still lie and at times kill people.

So...is everybody therefore "insane?"

And why is it so hard for you to admit to being what you are? You throw out bigoted comments, yet act as if they carry no weight.

They do.; 6/30/10, 5:24 PM
Jeremy said...: Seven Machos - "Milwaukie also makes a great point: why wouldn't a couple single dudes get married? Just out of college, needing a tax break."

Yeah...what a "great point."

Or hey...what if you married a chicken?

Or...maybe a dog?

DUH.; 6/30/10, 5:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Most here also believe in the Ten Commandments, but they all still lie and at times kill people.

I've never killed anyone. Also, the commandment about lying concerns under oath, which we still have today. I do that only occasionally.; 6/30/10, 5:26 PM
Jeremy said...: Seven - "The part about Kagan as a sodomite is the clincher. As if she's ever had sex of any kind."

Congratulations...you're pulling even with this ass-wipe.

And the Bork book..."satire?"; 6/30/10, 5:28 PM
Right is right! said...: Seven,

You are quite immature. I realize that you are probably from the generation that came after the abnormal was normalized. You can not appreciate because of your youth how the "American reality" has been turned on its head. Now sodomites (and I refuse to update my language just because it is now politically incorrect) are ruling us and are considered to be cool. When I served in Korea it would have gotten you punched in the nose or worse and a dishonorable discharge.; 6/30/10, 5:30 PM
Moose said...: Jeremy -

Gays do have equal rights. Marriage is not a right.

:); 6/30/10, 5:31 PM
Jeremy said...: Seven Machos said..."I've never killed anyone. Also, the commandment about lying concerns under oath, which we still have today. I do that only occasionally."

What the hell do you think the Ninth Commandment mean? (Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness) You think you have to be under oath for it to count?

As for killing someone, I never said everybody had killed someone, only that, on occasion, we do.

Read the comment before responding.; 6/30/10, 5:32 PM
Milwaukie guy said...: Wait, did Jeremy just compare two dudes getting married with a boy and his dog?

wv: rucoaing: guys and dogs?; 6/30/10, 5:33 PM
Jeremy said...: Moose said..."Gays do have equal rights. Marriage is not a right."

It will be.

Even with bigots like yourself at every turn.

It really bothers you, doesn't it? Probably affects your life every day of the week.

Duh.; 6/30/10, 5:34 PM
Jeremy said...: Milwaukie guy said..."Wait, did Jeremy just compare two dudes getting married with a boy and his dog?"

Just carrying your ridiculous example to another level.

What do you hate gays?; 6/30/10, 5:35 PM
former law student said...: 7M: You never heard that every pot has a lid? Kagan's parents found love; why not their daughter?; 6/30/10, 5:35 PM
Jeremy said...: Well, to all of the local bigots: Adios, Assholes.

Gotta go.; 6/30/10, 5:36 PM
Milwaukie guy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/30/10, 5:40 PM
Milwaukie guy said...: Yo Jeremy, what, with tax bennies, maybe better insurance rates, etc., why shouldn't my bud and me get hitched? What a line to use on the ladies! Right? And if either of us wanted to marry a woman, we've got no-fault divorce.

What is so ridiculous about that? It's about money and honeys.; 6/30/10, 5:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Jeremy,

You're just an asshole.

Let me repeat.

Forgot the argumentation, etc.

You're just an asshole.

It's time for you to shut up.

Then again, AlphLib just shit his pants, too.

Nothing brings out absolute, fermented, disgusting asshole like this subject.

How many times did you watch that vicious propaganda movie, kid? You know, "And the Band Played On?"

That seems to be where you got your information.

There is no civil rights, issue here, asshole.

Returning to the closet is the best thing for gay men. More of them will live longer. You need to go back in the closet and stop being such a childish pain in the ass.

It's really time for your to shut up and stop being an asshole, Jeremy.; 6/30/10, 5:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Let me repeat that, Jeremy.

Shut up and stop acting like an asshole.; 6/30/10, 5:46 PM
Anonymous said...: It is widely agreed among scholars of the Bible that the "witness" part relates to a judicial setting. The heroes of the Bible lied quite a lot. Even Moses, bearer of the Commandments.; 6/30/10, 5:46 PM
Palladian said...: We can't write the word "nigger" but apparently are allowed to spew the most vile, unbalanced hate towards gay people with no repercussions whatsoever.

Nice!; 6/30/10, 5:49 PM
Anonymous said...: We can't write the word "nigger" but apparently are allowed to spew the most vile, unbalanced hate towards gay people with no repercussions whatsoever.

Nice!

Here we go with another sanctimonious moron.

It was only a matter of time until some shithead brought out the "I'm the same as a nigger" bullshit.

Congratulations, Palladian... you're a vile piece of shit.; 6/30/10, 5:56 PM
Palladian said...: I suppose it's good to have a handy reference thread like this one, so I can remember which commenters are mentally-defective toads who apparently harbour genocidal fantasies about eradicating homosexuals like me from the face of the earth, all the while taking the most embarrassing pleasure in writing graphic descriptions of homosexual activities. Typical warped, fag-obsessed fascist thugs.

I suspect a portion of these commenters are also what's referred to as "Mobys", who're writing the most cartoonishly stupid things in order to discredit the decent commenters here.

Of course, the more of this sort of conversation that occurs, the fewer decent commenters will remain. There's already a shortage.; 6/30/10, 5:59 PM
Anonymous said...: I suppose it's good to have a handy reference thread like this one, so I can remember which commenters are mentally-defective toads who apparently harbour genocidal fantasies about eradicating homosexuals like me from the face of the earth, all the while taking the most embarrassing pleasure in writing graphic descriptions of homosexual activities. Typical warped, fag-obsessed fascist thugs.

Jesus fucking Christ!

What a fucking drama queen you are, Palladian.

The "bigot" game is over as far as I'm concerned. You can't stick it up your ass.; 6/30/10, 6:01 PM
Palladian said...: "Congratulations, Palladian... you're a vile piece of shit."

Dear thomas, I do avoid engaging in any sort of repartee with you as you're obviously... challenged, and it's just not sporting to mock the retarded.; 6/30/10, 6:02 PM
Palladian said...: To summarize this mess: There sure are a lot of people here who could benefit from a vigorous ass-fucking.; 6/30/10, 6:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Palladian, the game is up.

You can play your idiot Great Bigot Hunt all you want.

I think you'll find that fewer and fewer people will agree to play out your little drama.

You're a vile human being. Stuff your Great Bigot hunt, idiot.; 6/30/10, 6:04 PM
buster said...: Thanks, Moose.; 6/30/10, 6:06 PM
Anonymous said...: To summarize this mess: There sure are a lot of people here who could benefit from a vigorous ass-fucking.

You always come back around to that one, right?

That, and you're just like a black men under Jim Crow.

Stop the pretending, Palladian. I'm not going to play out your martyrdom fantasies.; 6/30/10, 6:06 PM
dcm said...: Tidy is New Ham.; 6/30/10, 6:07 PM
dcm said...: Tidy is New Ham.; 6/30/10, 6:07 PM