Althouse: "Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution."

February 26, 2014

"Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution."

"These Texas laws deny plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person of the same sex."

303 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 303 of 303

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Inga said...
Garage and ARM, have you noticed... and certainly in 2016

I do not think Hillary is as certain to win a general election as most do. I think she will certainly win the nomination if she runs but the general election seems more difficult. A lot will depend on how women view her candidacy, which for obvious reasons I do not fully understand. My wife calls her 'the Beast', approvingly. When I suggested that someone like Gillibrand might make a better first woman president, less baggage, my wife dismissed her as a lightweight and wanted the Beast. If a majority of women think like this then she will do well.; 2/26/14, 6:18 PM
jr565 said...: Renee wrote:
Gay people have a mom and dad. How is it discrimination to want them to be loved by their mom and dad?

Who doesn't have a mom and dad?; 2/26/14, 6:19 PM
ALP said...: Real American:
"So, what is the purpose of gay "marriage"? What benefit does it provide to the society at large? What interest does the state have in recognizing these relationships as marriages that is on par with 1m/1w marriages? Very little to none that is apparent."
***********************
I ask the same questions to middle-aged, hetero couples on their 2 or 3 marriage, or in the case of couples getting married after years of living together.

Why? What benefit is there to society if my boyfriend and I (hetero couple) decide to make it legal after 20 years of cohabitation?; 2/26/14, 6:20 PM
Anonymous said...: ARM, I would prefer Hillary didn run, I think we have far better candidates.; 2/26/14, 6:21 PM
Renee said...: @ALP The wedding registry.; 2/26/14, 6:21 PM
Renee said...: OK, that was mean. Sorry.; 2/26/14, 6:21 PM
jr565 said...: ALP wrote:
Why? What benefit is there to society if my boyfriend and I (hetero couple) decide to make it legal after 20 years of cohabitation?

Society defined marriage as it is because of parents raising kids. all our laws on custody in divorce are still based on this biological union.
But society has never checked each person to see if they are sterile. That would be ridiculous. They have the potential to have kids. Even older people have the potential for kids. Gays don't. Absent an external source.
There is an age restriction when you're too young, but I've not heard of too many laws when you lose the right to do something if you get too old.; 2/26/14, 6:24 PM
Renee said...: @jr565

I think it is incorrect to describe the situation by orientation.

Heterosexual behavior may lead to procreation.

Homosexual behavior, doesn't.

You can be gay and still have biological children, if your willing to have sex with someone of the opposite gender.

There are a lot of self describe straight people, who have have a homosexual experiences.; 2/26/14, 6:27 PM
Fen said...: Drago: Should churches, who are opposed to homosexual marriage, be required by the state to perform homosexual marriages?

Yes or no.

Neither. The only way out of this trap is for the State no longer recognize "marriage" (both hetero and homo) as a legal construct.

Since that will never happen, the question becomes: should churches, who are opposed to homosexual marriage, be required by the state to perform homosexual marriages?

Yes or no.; 2/26/14, 6:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Drago, I suppose I could tell you that you are acting like a dick.:); 2/26/14, 6:40 PM
jr565 said...: Renee wrote:
You can be gay and still have biological children, if your willing to have sex with someone of the opposite gender.

There are a lot of self describe straight people, who have have a homosexual experiences.

Right but you have to have sex outside of the marriage, or do soemthing like hire a surrogate outside of the marriage to have kids. Heteros may need to do so on an individual basis because they have issues with their plumbing, but otherwise they have the necessary bioligical tools to create children.
The thing about gay marriage is, it causes issues with paternity. Suppose you are married in a gay marriage and have a kid. Who is the parent? Usually that's determined biologically. Only one parent is by default not the biological parent.
Society doesn't care about orientation or making love connections. It wants a framework for when people have kids. It assumes that in the vast majority of cases the biological parents will have the kids, and then be responsible for the kids that are raised.
Gay marriage is nice and all, but there's no need for society to promote it to the same degree, since it doesn't fulfill that agenda.
Which is why i argue that giving gays civil unions is the better way to go. Marriage doesn't fit, so simply create a civil union that provides the rights requested.; 2/26/14, 6:44 PM
Drago said...: Inga, I suppose you could. It's preferable on your part from taking time out on your "War on Women" chanting to encourage the insulting of women who disagree with you.

I'm not surprised you are not thrilled to have your hilariously blatant hypocrisy noted.

It must be uncomfortable.

Not to worry. Within a day or two you can simply deny it ever happened.

Hey, if obama and sebelius can try it, why not you?

BTW, I thought this might interest you when you say that any assertion that churchs will be forced to perform homosexual marriages is crazy talk.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/gay-dads-sue-church-right-religious-wedding020813

snip: "Britain’s most famous surrogate gay dads have hired lawyers to sue the Church of England for the right to a full-blown religious wedding."

Yep. Never could happen.

Never.

In a million years.; 2/26/14, 6:45 PM
Simon said...: This post advances a somewhat more concise answer to the same question. And, you know, obviously there were impulses and people involved in my conversion to whom I owe profound debts of gratitude, but I didn't jump in just because I was invited (and certainly not because it was easy—it wasn't).; 2/26/14, 6:48 PM
Simon said...: This post advances a somewhat more concise answer to the same question. And, you know, obviously there were impulses and people involved in my conversion to whom I owe profound debts of gratitude, but I didn't jump in just because I was invited (and certainly not because it was easy—it wasn't).; 2/26/14, 6:48 PM
Simon said...: Michael K said...
"I wonder how long before Andrew Sullivan sues the Catholic Church to force gay marriage ceremonies ?"

It's coming. It's already happening in England.; 2/26/14, 6:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Brewer just vetoed the Bigot Bill. LOL.; 2/26/14, 6:50 PM
Renee said...: Call everything Civil Unions, but don't mess with affidavits of paternity and birth certificates isnt good enough for Equality Advocates.; 2/26/14, 6:55 PM
jr565 said...: Here's another example where gays are suing churches for not allowing gay marriages:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/06/will-churches-be-sued-over-gay-marriage-its-already-happened-and-a-judge-ruled-church-teaching-irrelevant/

"A New Jersey judge ruled against a Christian retreat house that refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises, ruling the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.”

On Thursday, administrative judge Solomon A. Metzger ruled that religious liberty did not exempt the seaside retreat, which is associated with the United Methodist Church, from renting its facilities out for purposes that violate its moral beliefs."

So,the state and judges are already asserting such intrusions. And it's only going to get worse.; 2/26/14, 7:00 PM
Revenant said...: Since that will never happen, the question becomes: should churches, who are opposed to homosexual marriage, be required by the state to perform homosexual marriages? Yes or no.

Should they be required? No. Will they be required? Also no. The fact that a government recognizes the right of two people to marry does NOT confer an obligation upon ANY religion to perform the ceremony. Anyone who claims it might is lying or ignorant.

Both the Federal and the various state governments have always allowed marriages that the Catholic church would refuse to perform.

A short and by no means inclusive list of people whose legal right to marry has been ignored by the Catholic Church for centuries:

- Jews
- Protestants
- Muslims
- Atheists
- Divorced Catholics
- Married Catholics
- Excommunicated Catholics

and so on. There is no legal right to force other people to participate in religious ceremonies with you, at least outside of family courts (which can force parents to accommodate the other parent's desires regarding childrens' religious upbringing).; 2/26/14, 7:04 PM
jr565 said...: Renee wrote:
Call everything Civil Unions, but don't mess with affidavits of paternity and birth certificates isnt good enough for Equality Advocates

Why not?
Why would gys being able to marry somehow negate paternity of the parent not in the gay marriage? It sounds like gays want an additional right. They're basically saying things that aren't equal must be. But if we acknowledge that they aren't the same, why not have two separate institutions that acknoledge the difference.; 2/26/14, 7:05 PM
Drago said...: Revenant: "The fact that a government recognizes the right of two people to marry does NOT confer an obligation upon ANY religion to perform the ceremony. Anyone who claims it might is lying or ignorant"

Your first sentence there is present tense.

I made no claims to the present.

So, nice strawman.

Keep knocking them down! They deserve it!

As to the second sentence we are speaking about the future.

Interesting that you take a prediction of what will come in the future as a lie or ignorant.

Circa 1969 you would have called anyone who claimed homosexual marriage would be recognized as a lie or ignorant.

We already see lawsuits related to this scenario in Britain.

If you think this isn't coming here you are lying and/or ignorant.; 2/26/14, 7:10 PM
Renee said...: @ jr565

There human dignity as a same sex couple requires a child to deny a biological relationship with a parent. But straight people do it with sperm/egg donation.... they get dignity lying on a birth certificate.; 2/26/14, 7:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Bob Ellison: I have a problem with polygamy. It tends to lead to incest, child-molestation, denial of access to sex/marriage to those with less power/wealth, and other horrible things.

Is this sort of thing so difficult to understand?

My dear man, thinking about the differences between polygamous and monogamous marriage patterns and consequent social structures would entail acting like an adult. With the consciousness of being an inheritor, instead of having been abandoned in the woods to play with one's shit, as seems to be the case for large numbers of feral children running around here, who somehow got hold of the word "equality" and, having been all un-tutored, ended up having to define it for themselves, and decided it meant "everything is exactly the same as everything else", as the honorable Judge Garcia so neatly demonstrates here.

They've never got beyond a most primitive grasp of concepts like "discrimination" either, seeing it as a simple, literal, and wholly negative incantatory totem meaning "him have something I no have heap bad juju so bonk bonk on the head, bonk bonk!"

Shit's only gonna get stupider from here on in.; 2/26/14, 7:16 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Everything a liberal, or Inga, doesn't like is bigotry.

That shit has really been beaten to death.

When I hear or read the bigotry bullshit, I immediately consign the speaker or writer to the idiot bin.; 2/26/14, 7:18 PM
gadfly said...: "The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in 1996, allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other states."

This part of DOMA remains in effect even after SCOTUS ruled other parts of the act unconstitutional in 2013.

Therefore, logic says that this legal twist also infers that each state controls its own destiny as far as in-state laws are concerned.

So how do individual couples gain standing in attacking state law? I guess the answer is liberal judges, in Texas even!; 2/26/14, 7:22 PM
Revenant said...: Your first sentence there is present tense. I made no claims to the present. So, nice strawman.

The only way to predict the future is by looking at the present and the past to identify facts and patterns. Or, you know, you can use your method and just pull stuff out of your ass.

But sure, let me simplify it for you:

"While it is by definition impossible to disprove any claim that is made about future events, gay marriage opponents' concern that US churches with be forced to marry gay couples is completely without any legal, logical, historical, or factual basis."

Might it happen? Sure, and a unicorn might spring out of your ear and sing the Star Spangled Banner. But there's no rational reason to expect it.; 2/26/14, 7:30 PM
Bob Loblaw said...: Since our black-robed masters seem intent on running the country, why not just abolish the legislatures and skip the pretense of democracy?; 2/26/14, 7:34 PM
Drago said...: Eric: "Since our black-robed masters seem intent on running the country, why not just abolish the legislatures and skip the pretense of democracy"

Between the judges making law and Holder telling States Attorney Generals to not enforce existing law, we've found ourselves in quite an interesting historical position.

It doesn't bode well for the republic.

Looks like we are on the road to have to update our response to Franklins admonishment that we have "a Republic, if we can keep it".; 2/26/14, 7:37 PM
Revenant said...: My dear man, thinking about the differences between polygamous and monogamous marriage patterns and consequent social structures would entail acting like an adult.

You want to know what's more strongly correlated with incestuous rape than polygamy is? Being male.

I suspect that if some leftie proposed a law restricting male access to children, the same people smugly asserting a need to protect kids would suddenly whine themselves inside-out about the presumption of guilt.; 2/26/14, 7:39 PM
Revenant said...: Sooner or later, gay men will start talking en masse about how their sexuality was formed through mother/son incest. It's an epidemic.

What a strange fantasy life you must have.; 2/26/14, 7:48 PM
Drago said...: Revenant: "What a strange fantasy life you must have."

tsk tsk Revenant.

You know the rules.

No Judging.

That will have to go on your permanent record I'm afraid.

You can appeal if you wish...if you want to bring further unwanted attention to your transgression.... your choice of course... no pressure...; 2/26/14, 7:49 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Shouting Thomas said...
The natural reticence of men has dictated against it.

Either this statement is self evidently untrue or ST is not a man.; 2/26/14, 7:51 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: @Revenant

It's not fantasy.

The gay men usually start telling me the story by testing the waters to see how I'll react.

Mother/son incest is a huge, if not dominant factor in gay male sexuality.; 2/26/14, 7:51 PM
Bob Loblaw said...: Looks like we are on the road to have to update our response to Franklins admonishment that we have "a Republic, if we can keep it".

We started down that road in the 1860s, and by now we're quite far along. Remember, if you grow a pot plant in your closet for personal use you're engaging in interstate commerce. And if that's interstate commerce, everything is interstate commerce.

We don't have a federal government. We have a national government.; 2/26/14, 7:52 PM
chickelit said...: ST wrote: My gay men friends would join me in a rousing chorus denouncing Inga as a manipulative cunt.

But aren't they misogynist by default?

Plus it's more hurtful to call a woman a dick and a man a cunt. It's transgressive.; 2/26/14, 7:53 PM
Drago said...: Eric: "We have a national government."

Instinctively I would agree with that.

I would be interested in hearing if Revenant would agree with that.; 2/26/14, 7:54 PM
Revenant said...: The gay men usually start telling me the story by testing the waters to see how I'll react.

Crack's "white racists picked on me at my South Central LA high school" story was an early favorite for "least plausible claim by an Althouse commenter", but Thomas has taken a commanding lead.; 2/26/14, 7:55 PM
Drago said...: Revenant, to be fair, which is more likely: that ST living and working in San Francisco encountered many gay men with some pretty wild stories or that Crack met the Harry Byrd contingent in South Central Los Angeles in the 70's and 80's?

I mean, seriously.; 2/26/14, 7:57 PM
Jason said...: "Read your 1st amendment and have faith"

Oh, fuck off.

The Democrats have been mounting a full-scale frontal assault on the 1st amendment for years, and this Arizona thing is no exception.

Takei and his miserable band of ignorant protofascists (I'm looking at you, Inga, you cheerleader of brownshirt goons who arrest filmmakers) have managed to tear the guts out of 200+ years of long established 1st amendment laws guaranteeing freedom of association.

Those libtard fucks have now decided it's their prerogative to force law abiding businesspeople to enter into contracts against their will.

Sounds kind of rapey to me.

Furthermore, Takei, the NFL and all the godddamned liberal fascists who threatened a boycott were actually trying to exercise their right NOT to enter contracts with those parties whom they deemed objectionable FOR THE PRECISE PURPOSE of denying that very same right to Arizona florists and bakers.

Meanwhile, speaking of the 1st amendment, this Obama Administration is also forcing the Sisters of Mercy and Catholic Charities to provide abortion coverage to employees despite their longstanding religious objection to abortion. This administration is also actively asserting that ONLY churches can have a legitimate religious objection to providing such coverage. Individuals who own businesses and have employees can't. The libtards are actually arguing that the freedom of religious expression is a collective, not an individual right. The very thing you fucks said would not happen is happening right before our eyes.

Clearly, you libtards wouldn't know the First Amendment if it bit you on the ass.

The lot of you can go to Hell as far as I'm concerned.; 2/26/14, 7:59 PM
Revenant said...: Revenant, to be fair, which is more likely: that ST living and working in San Francisco encountered many gay men with some pretty wild stories or that Crack met the Harry Byrd contingent in South Central Los Angeles in the 70's and 80's?

Sorry, but I have a hard time even formulating the thought "gay man shared their darkest secrets with Shouting Thomas" without cracking a smile.; 2/26/14, 7:59 PM
Drago said...: Revenant: Sorry, but I have a hard time even formulating the thought "gay man shared their darkest secrets with Shouting Thomas" without cracking a smile."

I would caution you against using the term "cracking" on this blog site.; 2/26/14, 8:03 PM
Revenant said...: Those libtard fucks have now decided it's their prerogative to force law abiding businesspeople to enter into contracts against their will.

Homosexuals aren't a protected class under Arizona law. That's one of the many things that made the proposed law so insipid -- it "fixed" a nonexistent problem while potentially introducing other ones.; 2/26/14, 8:04 PM
Drago said...: On a related note, Michael Savage is quite a character and he shares alot of the same sorts of anecdotes as does ST.

It may not be dispositive, but it doesn't hurt ST's case.; 2/26/14, 8:05 PM
Drago said...: Revenant: "Homosexuals aren't a protected class under Arizona law."

Given the Supremes decision last year and the courts frowning on state by state inequality, how long will that "fact" even be relevant, Revenant? (yes, I laughed when I wrote the last part); 2/26/14, 8:08 PM
Jason said...: "Protected class"

That is, some states have decided that gays are extra-special deserving of a wedding cake. So much so that they will instruct juries to award damages to the aggrieved parties and attach the homes and businesses of private business owners who don't want to participate.

The mind boggles.; 2/26/14, 8:09 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: My closest friend and confidant for the past 35 years is an HIV positive gay man.

I get along very well with gay men. Always have.

We have a lot of the same interests. Throughout high school, college and my early adulthood, I played in the pit orchestra for musicals.

So much for the canard that people who think gay marriage is an absurd contradiction in terms "hate gays."; 2/26/14, 8:10 PM
Drago said...: 300!

We'll never make it to 400.; 2/26/14, 8:10 PM
Drago said...: ST: "So much for the canard that people who think gay marriage is an absurd contradiction in terms "hate gays."

I'm old enough to remember the homosexuals thinking that gay marriage was the absurd contradiction.; 2/26/14, 8:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Damn ST, are one sick MFer.; 2/26/14, 8:12 PM
Jason said...: Hah! I cut my teeth in the music biz the same way. My first paying job in high school was playing in pit orchestras for musicals.

Sure beat flipping burgers.

Played the gay/lesbian bar scene as well, later. Had a good time.

Didn't hang around, though. Showed up, played, packed my gear and left.; 2/26/14, 8:13 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "Damn ST, are one sick MFer."

What did you find sick Inga?

This? ST: "My closest friend and confidant for the past 35 years is an HIV positive gay man."

Is that what you found sick?; 2/26/14, 8:13 PM
traditionalguy said...: Note well that the Court is framing the question as a secular question. The majority of Christians have decided to let biblical marriage go as a secular legal right and to forget any scriptures that suggest taking another attitude towards protecting its families from God's curse.

But will the Gay Ascendency accept peace with Christians now? I doubt it. There is a political issue to exploit even with the liberal the old line denominations that never offended gays members and gay clergy. The war on Homosexuality has legs.; 2/26/14, 8:16 PM
Revenant said...: Given the Supremes decision last year and the courts frowning on state by state inequality, how long will that "fact" even be relevant, Revenant?

Neither SB 1062 nor any other Arizona state law has the power to overrule the Supreme Court.

So, to sum up: the law would be pointless right up to the moment when it became unconstitutional. Which pretty much means it would continue to be pointless, but states' rights folks could at least have something to grump about. :); 2/26/14, 8:19 PM
Drago said...: Revenant: "but states' rights folks could at least have something to grump about. :)"

Egads, did you just do that?; 2/26/14, 8:20 PM
Anonymous said...: No Drago, this is what I found sick.

"Females are just much more skilled at concealing mother/son incest. And, we don't get as pissed off about mother/son incest.

Sooner or later, gay men will start talking en masse about how their sexuality was formed through mother/son incest. It's an epidemic."

2/26/14, 7:45 PM
---------------------------; 2/26/14, 8:20 PM
Drago said...: It's only "sick" if it's not true and ST is making it up.

If it's not false, then it's just speaking "truth!"

Now, how to go about assessing the claim?

You can't tell me that there isn't some money in the Gay Studies kitty (yes, kitty LOL) at San Francisco State to study that very claim.; 2/26/14, 8:22 PM
Revenant said...: It's only "sick" if it's not true and ST is making it up.

This is why I try to avoid using personal anecdotes in arguments. If an argument isn't plausible on its own merits, why would it be plausible when you add claims by anonymous sources?; 2/26/14, 8:25 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "No only is his premise sick, it's bullshit."

No.

Bullshit is when obama said if you like your plan you can keep your plan.

Bullshit is when Sebelius said (yesterday!) that 7 million obamacare signups was not the goal.

Bullshit is when obama set the "red line" in Syria and then said "I didn't set the red line, Congress did" then "I didn't set the red line, the WORLD did!"

I hope that helps.; 2/26/14, 8:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Anyone can throw out bullshit theories. The least he could do is post a reliable source for his twisted premise. I don't believe for a second that any gay man told ST any such nonsense.; 2/26/14, 8:31 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "Anyone can throw out bullshit theories."

That is true.

Demonstrably so.

For instance, arguing that it's been proven that homosexuality is genetic.

That would be bullshit.

It has not.

Note: I'm not asserting it never will be.

Simply that it currently has not.; 2/26/14, 8:32 PM
Drago said...: Other examples of Bullshit theories might include:

All republicans are racist

All republicans are just Dixiecrats

Republicans hate the poor

Republicans want the poor to die

Things like that.; 2/26/14, 8:34 PM
jr565 said...: From insty:
http://m.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/why-dads-matter/283956/
Why dad's matter. I'm sure you could find a similar link on why moms matter. Which relationship provides a child with a mother and father? Hence the reason why society promotes that one above others.; 2/26/14, 8:35 PM
SGT Ted said...: The opponents of gay marriage forget that those gay people are our family members and we're tired of hearing that they are effectively sub-human and second class citizens.

Don't give me the bullshit about "dude can marry a girl, so they have equal rights". They don't love girls. They love their partners.

First Principles say the People don't get to override other Peoples liberty without good reason.

The ONLY valid criticism of gays is over promiscuity within the gay male community, as it spreads diseases, just like in the promiscuous hetero populations.

Marriage is the opposite of and rejects a promiscuous lifestyle.

To me, Family comes first, then Government. Get Government out of my families life. No one asked you. My gay family members are responsible, productive citizens who committed to one partner until death, which has already happened in their relationships, they are so old.

Your philosophical stalking of my family members is really fucking creepy.

Cut it out.

You are completely fine telling gay people that they can't commit publicly to each other but then have a gall to bitch that some Christian might be forced to bake a cake for them?

I am torn over this issue. I have to admit.

But, when you force me to pick my family over your Government, and my family is not harming you or yours, I will pick my family every time.; 2/26/14, 8:36 PM
Drago said...: AGW is the cause for global warming (which hasn't even occurred in the last 17 years)

Oceans! Yeah oceans sucking in the extra heat is where the heat went.

Oooh, ooh, no, now it's volcanoes that are responsible for the warming pause

Secret Routers!!

There are lots of examples of bullshit theories; 2/26/14, 8:36 PM
Revenant said...: Mother/son incest is a major factor in the sexual identification of many gay men.

The nice thing about saying something applies to "many" people is that in a world of seven billion people it is pretty much impossible to be wrong.

E.g., "many" Catholics receive sexual gratification from being beaten with whips. Why, there must be thousands of 'em!; 2/26/14, 8:39 PM
Drago said...: SGT Ted: "You are completely fine telling gay people that they can't commit publicly to each other but then have a gall to bitch that some Christian might be forced to bake a cake for them?"

No, I'n not fine telling them that.

My solution would be to allow, in a civil way, ALL citizens to be able to log in with the federal and state gov'ts as to who our significant other is.

Additionally, the gov't would get out of the marriage business altogether and leave it to churches to determine who/whom will be allowed to marry in that church.

I hope that helps.

You might have asked first.; 2/26/14, 8:39 PM
Drago said...: Revenant: "Why, there must be thousands of 'em!"

Jason Robards: "thousands of thousands...."

Charles Bronson: "....they call them "millions"...."; 2/26/14, 8:41 PM
heyboom said...: Blogger Inga said...

Brewer just vetoed the Bigot Bill. LOL.

The ironic thing is that the Arizona bill didn't outlaw homosexuality or homosexual marriage, it merely allowed a religious exception for a business to abstain from participating in a ritual that is contrary to their beliefs without fear of a discrimination lawsuit.

Only in today's America can forcing the religious to violate their deeply held beliefs on behalf of a not so aggrieved minority be considered equal opportunity under the Constitution. I say not so aggrieved because there is nothing to stop a gay couple from soliciting other businesses for their services.; 2/26/14, 8:54 PM
Renee said...: SGT Ted

Marriage isnt about a pubic affirmation of a relationship, that is what Facebook is for.

I love and respect my gay family members too, but the government interest is in the need of children. Why else would the government care about marriage. Adults can take care of themselves.

How did marriage move from the needs and obligations to children, to all about affirming someone's sexual orientation.

To love my gay family member, I cant make a distinction for a matter of public policy?; 2/26/14, 8:56 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: @heyboom

You're trying to talk sense to an idiot. A vicious idiot.; 2/26/14, 8:57 PM
SGT Ted said...: Drago,

Then I must not have been addressing you.

I am of your mind. Freedom for all, church and gays, to do their thing.

And yes, I get that the left is using law-fare to go far beyond that, which is where we should remain focused. The gay left is forcing the issue in the courts, so it will be settled by the courts. It will take a USSC ruling to settle the issue ultimately.; 2/26/14, 9:03 PM
SGT Ted said...: What if the gay couple have kids? Many do. Most of my gay friends do. I roomed with a couple that had kids.

Not deserving enough, as they don't love the correct sex?

This "for the children" stuff doesn't sound any better when it comes from a non-liberal.; 2/26/14, 9:07 PM
Civilis said...: For both sides:

Why isn't / shouldn't gay marriage be treated analogously to first cousin marriage? We already have a scenario where the different jurisdictions have different rules about marriage.; 2/26/14, 9:22 PM
RecChief said...: @Inga - guess we will see about the 2014 elections. If I remember correctly, a couple of states have voter ID laws now in effect that weren't in 2013. Just a couple of places that the dead can't vote. And that is a good thing.; 2/26/14, 9:48 PM
RecChief said...: I think Barry Goldwater was ahead of his time on this issue.

“out of our pockets, off our backs and out of our bedrooms,”

That is the second time I have been able to use the same quote from Barry Goldwater in a week.; 2/26/14, 9:54 PM
Renee said...: "What if the gay couple have kids? Many"

How?

No mother (straight or gay) has the right to cut off the father from the child's life.

Being gay doesn't give you that exemption.

BTW I have no problem with gay relatives raising their nieces and nephews, if the parents are incapable of do so. I'm a strong believe in kinship adoption.; 2/26/14, 10:00 PM
Revenant said...: That is the second time I have been able to use the same quote from Barry Goldwater in a week.

He was a quotable dude. :); 2/26/14, 10:03 PM
Renee said...: "Why isn't / shouldn't gay marriage be treated analogously to first cousin marriage? We already have a scenario where the different jurisdictions have different rules about marriage."

Because that's not discriminatory.

I'm all for laws that protect orientation, even the Catholic Church came out to protect gays in first with the AIDS crisis and in 1986 with a pastoral statement. Only in 1988 did Massachusetts have the protection clause.

I strongly support protection clauses, but the function of marriage is not about orientation.

We have our sexual orientation, whether we are in a relationship or not. People don't lose their heterosexuality, simply because they were not in a sexual relationship.

Gosh we have openly gay Catholics, who are just great explaining Church teaching. Sure they aren't in a sexual relationship, but that doesn't make them any less gay!; 2/26/14, 10:06 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: ""Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution.""

Except for that awkward 3/5 business...; 2/26/14, 10:50 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Well, I guessed 427 comments, and I'm ready to concede here. Who had 342? The pool money is ready for you.; 2/27/14, 6:32 AM
SGT Ted said...: How?

No mother (straight or gay) has the right to cut off the father from the child's life.

Being gay doesn't give you that exemption.

That's a fine slap in the face of every step-parent in existence that stepped up where the sperm donor stepped off.

Do you care to tell ME that I was cutting the father out of my kids lives, simply by being a good step-parent?

Are you stoned? Or maybe slow?

Are you really that dense that I have to spell out for you that one of them is a step-parent?

Just like I was a step parent, with a non-involved dad, so much so he calls me "dad".

Or is it only 2 gay parents that give you the creeps?; 2/27/14, 7:02 AM
Civilis said...: "Why isn't / shouldn't gay marriage be treated analogously to first cousin marriage? We already have a scenario where the different jurisdictions have different rules about marriage."

Because that's not discriminatory.

Sure it's discriminatory; it's discriminatory against people that want to marry their first cousins. It may not be discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation, but it does discriminate. Are people that want to marry their first cousins second-class citizens in some states?

I like puzzling out the logic behind rules, especially (as with most human laws) the rules are emotionally arbitrary.

I find the distinction that marriage has to be between legally consenting individuals to be a rational one, so arguments about 'marriage between a person and their pet' or 'between an adult and a child' strike me as being in bad faith. However, here we have a different case where two consenting adults are able to marry in some jurisdictions and not others, and it seems like it would be relevant to the discussion over same-sex marriage.

Please don't make an emotional argument, then disregard the same emotional argument when the subject is tweaked slightly. If you're going to argue that people have the right to marry who they love, then make that case, and clearly point out what distinctions may invalidate your argument.; 2/27/14, 7:25 AM
RecChief said...: "I find the distinction that marriage has to be between legally consenting individuals to be a rational one, so arguments about 'marriage between a person and their pet' or 'between an adult and a child' strike me as being in bad faith. "

Except there are those who don't share your view. NAMBLA pushes for adult/child relationships. so the argument is not in bad faith at all. We've already seen a push in some areas to allow polygamy, that isn't a fever dream, and not necessarily a Mormon push either. Once Gay Marriage is allowed, Polygamy will be next. Then the barn door is wide open.; 2/27/14, 7:37 AM
Civilis said...: Once Gay Marriage is allowed, Polygamy will be next. Then the barn door is wide open.

You're making an emotional argument, as I don't care about polygamy one way or the other, and I don't see the 'consenting adults' barrier being overcome (and, if it is, we have bigger problems to worry about). I don't care about the result, but about the process by which it is derived. (Not entirely true, as I do care when it comes to the rights of association of individuals and speech, which I believe are starting to be infringed on, but that's not the argument in question here.)

The 'right to marry who you love' is overly broad. It's a strawman to clutch when you're out of ways to discriminate against gay couples with children in the home who don't wish to be discriminated against based on their biological parts.

But we discriminate around people based on their biological parts all the time. What, legally or logically, differentiates a 'whites only' bathroom from a 'males only' bathroom? Does 'separate but equal is not equal' not apply? Emotionally, we (correctly) say the comparison is absurd, but can we state a logical reason, and where else might that logical reason apply?

The logic behind barring discrimination behind gays is that people cannot help who they are attracted to, and laws are codified to ban discrimination based on a nebulous concept of sexual orientation. Hypothetical lawyer question: "We all know that Sir Mix-a-Lot is sexually attracted to women with large posteriors. He discovers that one of his employees is attracted to women with small posteriors, and fires him explicitly based on this difference. Does the fired employee have a claim for discrimination based on sexual orientation? Justify your answer."; 2/27/14, 8:05 AM
Civilis said...: Also, just to further disarm irrelevant arguments about NAMBLA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_United_States_of_America

I thought about using this in my argument, but I felt that First Cousin marriage was a better example less likely to generate purely emotional responses.; 2/27/14, 8:18 AM
RecChief said...: "as I don't care"

Apparently the whole argument revolves around what you like/dislike/care about/don't care about. And any competing view is described as emotional.

Actually, I don't think my argument is emotional at all. It is a clear eyed view of the next steps made by calculating the strategy and tactics used by one coalition to date. I can see those strategies and tactics replicated by another group. Ascribe to my argument what you will. Also, your method of refuting NAMBLA's position does not accurately reflect the point being made. NAMBLA advocates changing those laws that you linked to, so I can only assume that you were being disingenuous or more likely seeking a way out of an assertion that NAMBLA itself does not agree with.; 2/27/14, 8:51 AM
Renee said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/27/14, 8:55 AM
Renee said...: Step parents can NOT over step biological ones.

Just because parents are no longer together, they still have an obligation to co-parent together.

It isn't just those who happen to be gay.

I hope that clarifies.

Father/mother absence is still abandonment and traumatic, even if there is a step parent.; 2/27/14, 8:58 AM
Renee said...: Excuse me, where do I say you must subject a child to an abusive & neglected parent?

Many parents who are absent aren't that. I cited in a longer post in the first 200 comments of this thread. I'm citing government policy.; 2/27/14, 10:45 AM
Civilis said...: No, no. Stay on topic, not fear mongering what if's...

There's no fear mongering her, just an open question, which apparently cannot be answered. All I think I'm doing is taking a logical argument, and applying the same argument to a very similar issue.

What I'm getting from your response is that you only care about one specific group, and that this isn't an argument about specific right, but about that specific group. In other words, you don't really believe that the right you are arguing for is a right.

You're fine with capricious restrictions on marriage, as long as the group you favor isn't one of them.; 2/27/14, 11:13 AM
Civilis said...: Apparently the whole argument revolves around what you like/dislike/care about/don't care about. And any competing view is described as emotional.

Not at all; I just don't personally see it as a problem if there is a polygamous marriage. Perhaps I read too much Heinlein when I was younger. Telling me that this could lead to Polygamy isn't a reason for me to oppose the law. I can follow your logic.

Actually, I don't think my argument is emotional at all. It is a clear eyed view of the next steps made by calculating the strategy and tactics used by one coalition to date. I can see those strategies and tactics replicated by another group. Ascribe to my argument what you will. Also, your method of refuting NAMBLA's position does not accurately reflect the point being made. NAMBLA advocates changing those laws that you linked to, so I can only assume that you were being disingenuous or more likely seeking a way out of an assertion that NAMBLA itself does not agree with.

Okay, but even if we remove all restrictions on marriage, including the age restrictions, including allowing minors to enter into a contract without parental or judicial approval, NAMBLA is still blocked by statutory rape statutes which have nothing to do with marriage.; 2/27/14, 11:35 AM
Unknown said...: You all are looking at this wrong. Parents marrying children is just the start in avoiding estate taxes. Next we can all marry each other and exempt all financial transactions from the IRS. Justice! Equality!; 2/27/14, 5:39 PM
Kirk Parker said...: garage,

Not necessarily defending him, but I think he's wanting you to answer either

YES I favor LEGALIZATION of polygamy,

or

NO I do not favor LEGALIZATION of polygamy.

Not 100%, but I'm guessing that when you append "I don't care" each time makes it sound like a dodge.; 2/27/14, 6:28 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Lyssa,

"The rational basis against polygamy would have to do with the incredible complexity of family law already, made far more complex by adding additional people"

GMAB, we have computers these days, we can track these things...; 2/27/14, 6:31 PM
DANEgerus said...: Anyone can get married, even someone who is gay... the only rule for 4000 years has been 'to someone of the opposite sex' because there is a legitimate governmental purpose to supporting social... norms.; 2/27/14, 6:31 PM
Kirk Parker said...: ARM,

That interaction between you and your wife is ... ... ... interesting.

Gillibrand? REALLY? Next, your wife disses her as a lightweight, which I can certainly live with... but doesn't see Hillary! as the ultimate lightweight???; 2/27/14, 6:32 PM
Mitch said...: The Govt should have never been in the Marriage business to begin with and its past time for it to get out.

Any individual should be legally able to choose whom represents their interests in case of emergency. Why is marriage a deciding factor?

The Govt at all levels should be banned from asking or knowing any persons Sex and or Race.; 2/27/14, 6:44 PM
Tom Armstrong said...: and all the NAMBLA members said, "AMEN!"; 2/27/14, 7:22 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Sgt Ted,

"It will take a USSC ruling to settle the issue ultimately. "

This must be some new meaning of the word "settle" I haven't encountered before. (See: abortion, Roe v. Wade.); 2/28/14, 12:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Get government out of the business of licensing and regulating marriage and this problem goes away.

Unless, of course, you like to use government to control other people, grant yourselves rights privileges denied to other citizens and then punish other citizens just for being alive.

Then, of course, you can just create and enact all the laws you like, regardless of original intent or constitutional construction... But, if you do that- and you have - you can no longer make any claim to living in the freest nation on earth - which, again, you can't.; 2/28/14, 6:59 AM
Known Unknown said...: but the government interest is in the need of children.

FOR THE CHILDREN!

I agree with Drago -- get out of the marriage business. Recognize contracts, let churches and families and private organizations handle marriage.; 2/28/14, 9:54 AM
Porkopolis said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/28/14, 2:04 PM
Porkopolis said...: A small government advocate's arguments to uphold Ohio's definition of marriage: http://porkopolis.blogspot.com/2013/12/collection-of-essays-and-posts-on-same.html

What’s in it for U.S.?: The Limited Government Case against Gay Marriage

While many cite cultural and religious reasons to oppose gay marriage, one doesn't need to resort to pathos and ethos-based arguments when formulating our public policy on marriage in general. A simple limited government philosophy offers the appropriate perspective.

The human condition is analog not digital. As in the non-human animal world, human sexuality is found along a spectrum of relationships. From a biological perspective and without scientific intervention, procreation in humans requires an individual male and an individual female.

Before considering the question of gay marriage, a more fundamental question should be considered: Why marriage at all? In the United States, marriage is a tri-party legal agreement. The first two parties, husband and wife, are obvious. The third party is the state/community that acknowledges a marriage. Male and female couples petition the state –and more generally, their community– to recognize their marriage. If it was just a simple relationship amongst consenting adults, the community would have no need –and more importantly no business– acknowledging the relationship.

However, marriage is a relationship that imposes responsibilities on the community and that’s why the state is involved in its recognition and definition (see Update 2/5/2013 below); as in detailing that only two (not more) individuals of the opposite sex will be recognized in a marriage. Married couples get legal tax and inheritance status. Male-female couples asking the state to recognize their marriage are also asking the state to address the care of their biological children if the couples are incapable of doing so.

What does the community get in return for consideration of this ‘special’ status? It is rejuvenated –by the only relationship that can procreate: a male-female relationship– and benefits from responsibly raised children in a marriage. Because of the corrosive effects to the community of infidelity, the community acknowledges only monogamous marriages. This shared responsibility amongst all the parties (husband, wife, community) is the limited government rationale for marriage as a legal construct.

Gay couples asking the community to recognize their relationships have a responsibility to address the question: ‘In return for the community’s recognition, what will you do for the state that justifies more government?’. They may counter that some gay couples have children and that their care benefits the community. But these children are not, and can not be, the natural offspring of a gay marriage. They are the shared responsibility of the biological parents and the state. The existing legal constructs are sufficient to address the children’s and community’s interests.

The state/community will be a party to any marriage and therefore has every right to say which marriages it will recognize. The gay couples seeking recognition must make their case for community involvement in their relationship when the sine qua non condition of biological procreation does not exist and there are sufficient laws to deal with any children in a gay relationship. Until the argument for an expansion of government is made, the basic principle of limited government, the minimal amount of laws our society needs to function, should prevail.; 2/28/14, 2:07 PM