Althouse: "I don't know why you so-called traditionalists don't dissolve your legal marriages now that the definition of 'marriage' has been changed and corrupted."

June 28, 2015

"I don't know why you so-called traditionalists don't dissolve your legal marriages now that the definition of 'marriage' has been changed and corrupted."

"Words no longer have meaning. In protest and on principle, dissolve your unnatural government 'marriage.' Your 'traditional' Christian marriage is no longer protected by the government. Protected from the gays and now the polygamists. Why not do the honorable thing? — dissolve your legal marriages, go back to your church and reaffirm your vows. That's the only real marriage now, right? Otherwise, how can you continue to endure this indignity?"

Meade challenged.

194 comments:

Tank said...: Meade and Althouse trolling and taunting together.

Nice.; 6/28/15, 10:26 AM
rhhardin said...: The definition of marriage hasn't been changed, is why.; 6/28/15, 10:28 AM
Fernandinande said...: Words no longer have meaning.

Often true when the words are emitted by government lawyers in wonderland; self-refuting nonsense otherwise.; 6/28/15, 10:30 AM
Ann Althouse said...: How is it trolling to take the viewpoint that is underrepresented in a conversation where like-minded people are supporting one another and not testing their ideas against opposing ideas?

As far as what I am doing here, I'm following my normal blog standards, on my blog, and deciding to blog something Meade wrote because I thought it was good.

Is the attention I sent there unfair in some way? Privacy was expected and people though they were only talking to like-minded people?; 6/28/15, 10:31 AM
Steve M. Galbraith said...: If you don't like voter ID laws then don't vote.

If you don't like Citizens United then don't engage in political speech.

If you don't like our tax structure/rates then don't accept government benefits.

If you don't like......

Let's counter silliness with silliness.; 6/28/15, 10:32 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: The way to have good marriages is to have good marriages. Gay people didn't destroy marriage. Heterosexuals did. If they want to fix marriage, then they should do it. Starting with their own.

If you think marriage is good for children, then be good parents. If you think it's the bedrock of society, then be a bedrock. If traditional marriage is best, then show it is the best.

Far too many critics of gay marriage do not live up to the ideals they profess. The sexual revolution wasn't caused by gay people. Own up to what happened.; 6/28/15, 10:33 AM
Lorenzo said...: Your side won. Why be snotty about it?; 6/28/15, 10:33 AM
traditionalguy said...: Best Brave New Marriage Order as a Consttutional right thought so far has been to eliminate Estate Tax by having the widowed and near death grandparent marry their granddaughter and pass the family wealth to the third generation sheltered by the marital deduction.

This may work better as soon as polygamy is acknowledge too so the third generation can share equally among all of the grandchild multiple brides.; 6/28/15, 10:34 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Your side won. Why be snotty about it?"

Scroll up and read the thread that Meade's comment is part of. You'll have your answer.; 6/28/15, 10:36 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: It's always been the only real marriage. The other thing is a contract enriched (or not) with emotion. Every capable adult should be allowed to make the contract.; 6/28/15, 10:40 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: Meade is such a fucking asshole.

He's been to half a dozen websites over the past week denouncing as many people as he can find to denounce as racists and bigots.

This is his life. Denouncing others is all this piece of shit knows how to do.

Doesn't say much about you, prof, that you are associated with such a fucking sanctimonious lout.; 6/28/15, 10:41 AM
Hagar said...: That Justice Kennedy wants to count dogs' tails as legs does not mean that they actually are legs. Tails they remain except as a legal fiction in court cases.; 6/28/15, 10:43 AM
Paul said...: You know where all this word perversion first started?

When 'Slick Willie' Clinton got away with what does "is" mean.

Unintended consequences.... hope you liberals and progressives like the consequences you've created 20 years down the road. It's going to be your children and grandchildren who have to live with them.; 6/28/15, 10:45 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: Fortunately, The Crack Emcee, who your fucking lout of a husband used to use in his campaigns of denunciation now denounces both of you daily as bigots and racists.

Perfect justice, isn't it?

All do-gooders are ultimately Stalinists. You are too, Althouse. You're very good at covering it up with a dense thicket of hypotheticals, rhetoric and schoolmarm "niceness."

You're still just a fucking Stalinist do-gooder. You can't live without these asshole blackface moral crusades. What's the next one?

The moral purges and denunciation campaigns ultimately eat their perpetrators. It's fun to watch.; 6/28/15, 10:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Althouse wrote:

"Scroll up and read the thread that Meade's comment is part of. You'll have your answer."

I read the thread but wasn't impressed.

Mead, stick to your dog photos.; 6/28/15, 10:50 AM
Steve M. Galbraith said...: Douthat captures it here: Gay Conservatism and Straight Liberation.

Two things have been happening and feeding off one another: a view by Americans, gay and straight, that marriage has lost its importance in society, that the traditional view of marriage no longer applies AND a greater acceptance of the normalcy of gay couples.

Nut grafs: "The gay rights movement has won twice over. Its conservative wing won the right to normalcy for gay couples, while rapid cultural change has made the definition of normalcy less binding than the gay left once feared.

"In vain social conservatives have argued that this combination isn’t a coincidence, that support for same-sex marriage and the decline of straight marital norms exist in a kind of feedback loop, that an idea can have conservative consequences for one community and revolutionary implications overall."

Although he's overstating things greatly by attributing the cultural changes to the gay rights movement. That's straight people making those changes.; 6/28/15, 10:50 AM
Henry said...: You know where all this word perversion first started?
Madam, I'm Adam.; 6/28/15, 10:50 AM
Birches said...: Megan McArdle wrote an article about this POV in 2005. She called BS on it, because while it might not affect "you" personally, it affects people on the periphery. As she put it, the loosening of moral standards 50 years ago might not have affected "You Ms. Middle Class College Educated" to have children out of wedlock, but it did affect an 18 year old in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. That is most obvious.

Meade's argument is akin to "Shut up, because I said so" and he forgets that most of the people rallying against the changing of the definition of marriage are also against

1)Premarital sex
2)No fault divorce and most divorce in general
3)Abortion

The bigotedness of this group is not limited to homosexuality when viewed through this lense. They've got some crazy ideas all across the board that haven't been followed by much of America for decades.; 6/28/15, 10:53 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: Once the state and federal registries of hate speech offenders is established (and it will be), you can bet that Meade will be there daily denouncing and informing.

He's the perfect stooge.; 6/28/15, 10:55 AM
Ann Althouse said...: @SMGalbraith

The reason your list isn't apt is that anti-ssm people were arguing that marriage for heterosexuals was getting damaged and undermined by gay people wanting to be recognized as married too.

The sarcasm mocks that argument.

In that light, you are really agreeing with Meade, mocking that argument.; 6/28/15, 10:55 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: Yeah, that thread doesn't do Meade much credit. It makes him come off as a bitter lightweight. It doesn't help that Althouse feels she has to rush to his defence. It's funny, but there's a schoolyard-honor dynamic that male interactions never really outgrow and that females are never really capable of sensing.; 6/28/15, 10:58 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: Your husband is a fucking Stalinist stooge, schoolmarm. Do you hear?; 6/28/15, 10:58 AM
bleh said...: "Words no longer have meaning"?

Wrong SC decision, Meade. Try to keep up.; 6/28/15, 11:00 AM
DougWeber said...: As a radical singleton, I am all in favor of the state getting out of the business of supporting and providing special resources to couples.

The claim seems to be that couples are more stable and produce a more stable society and so it is proper to give them special support. But given the divorce rate, has anyone compared the costs to society of all this divorce and the instability to society that it causes against the stability that marriage brings. Looks to me like a close call at best.

So let's make marriage something between a set of people, their priest, and their god and see only individuals with the state's eyes.; 6/28/15, 11:01 AM
bgates said...: How is it trolling to take the viewpoint that is underrepresented in a conversation where like-minded people are supporting one another and not testing their ideas against opposing ideas?

Suppose a blog commenter were to suggest that deep down, everyone knows that gay marriage - and for that matter gay sex - is an abomination, and that the only reason anyone becomes an advocate for gay marriage is out of a desperate attempt to pretend that people who are close to the advocate who engage in gay sex are normal, and the more persistent the advocacy, the stronger the advocate's secret unwanted belief that gays are engaged in an abomination.

That would be underrepresented in this conversation. I think virtually everyone on this blog would support one another in opposing that idea.

Would that be trolling?; 6/28/15, 11:02 AM
Skyler said...: I think we will see that happening. The states will, in an effort to curb sham marriages, end any benefits to marriage. Churches wil create unions of men and women and use some term other than "marriage" and what will be left? A destroyed system. Something that has worked well for a long time is ended for political points.

Unintended consequences.; 6/28/15, 11:03 AM
Steve M. Galbraith said...: I don't think most anti-SSM believers are saying that this change by ITSELF has completely corrupted marriage and has essentially ended any meaning of it. So Meade's challenge is a bit over the top (of course, that's why he made it).

They are arguing the Douthat point - which I think is valid even if he exaggerates the influence of the gay movement when it comes to the traditional view of marriage - which is that this re-definition of marriage is a continuation of the assaults on marriage that have been taking place for decades. The two go, dare I say, hand in hand, down the aisle.

I think he's right even if I agree on changing the definition by statute.; 6/28/15, 11:06 AM
Skyler said...: States have to recognize marriages, but nothing says that it must give any benefits or rights to marriages. Only the Feds must do that, and in a limited way.; 6/28/15, 11:07 AM
Unknown said...: At this point, were I to marry, I would do so in a church and would not register it with the state. I suspect we will see a few states simply no longer recognize marriage, period. Why should they? If the argument for same sex marriage is based upon the idea marriage exists as a romantic arrangement why should the state have an interest?; 6/28/15, 11:15 AM
fivewheels said...: #LoveWins. Maybe for some subset of actual gay people. But from the straight allies, all the celebration I see on Twitter and Facebook is taunting the losers. In your face, rednecks! Suck it, Christians! It's a bad week to be a bigoted asshole! Woo!

It's basically exactly like the Red Sox beating the Yankees. There's no love involved. Just us against them, those conservatives you hate. And as with the Red Sox, you became what you said you were against. You're kicking down just as much as any privileged white male ever did, and you're reveling in it. Because you're a jerk.

The smugness on Twitter is unbearable right now. And I've always been for legal gay marriage. I'm just not a fricking douche about it.; 6/28/15, 11:16 AM
$9,000,000,000 Write Off said...: My parents were unable to get married in a church. Like our govt the communist govt there only recognized and granted legal rights via a marriage license issued by govt apparatchiks. The difference was that the license was granted exclusively for civil ceremonies, not church ceremonies. It was nice when 40 years into the marriage he finally got the Catholic wedding he wanted (she didn't care at that point).

I'm not making a point here, just sharing.; 6/28/15, 11:17 AM
Ironclad said...: Actually Meade is correct - and the States should immediately end issuing "marriage" licenses and replace them with civil partnership contracts. That way we can make a clean break between the legal and the religious parts of marriage - "marriage" would be a strictly legal ceremony, devoid of legal meaning (except in some states with common law public declaration requirements).

That way too we can follow Kennedy's "love and dignity" argument to end any tax breaks for marriage - making it the same as for singles. We can reserve any tax help to people actually with children (divorcing it from the "love not biology" argument) - and limit that to 2 kids, with a sliding scale of reduced help for additional offspring ( "for climate change" or something catchy like that).

And while we are at it - we can make divorce a LOT simpler too - just file on line (or send a text message like they do in Muslim countries)

Now that you have lectured us that marriage is not about biology or religion - let's burn it down and start over from ground zero.; 6/28/15, 11:19 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: So, there you have it.

A white couple making in excess of $175,000 a year constantly seeking a new grievance to be pissed off about, and constantly searching for new bigots to denounce.

That's what all this shit has been about from the beginning.

It won't be long until these two rats find another grievance to be pissed off about that blows up their egos with sanctimony.

They don't have anything else to do. Painting on the blackface and portraying themselves as fighting an eternal war on behalf of the niggers against the bigots is their addiction.; 6/28/15, 11:21 AM
fivewheels said...: P.S. -- Of course, I was in favor of the slower, legislative path where the people get to decide that's what they want. I actually believe in doing things right, not just getting what I want.; 6/28/15, 11:21 AM
William said...: If a Methodist decides to become a Unitarian because that church is nearer and offers better parking, I would not characterize the conversion as a crisis of he faith. If, however, he joins a radical mosque and goes on to become a suicide bomber, I would say that his faith is as genuine as it is wrong.........I have moved from approval of civil unions to approval of gay marriage. It wasn't such a distance. I wish gays and their supporters would participate in the summer of love by enjoying their victory and not ferreting out pizza makers who don't want to cater to gay weddings. Let gays and Christian pizza makers live out their lives with dignity ad respect.........Random thought: Pedarastry was part of the Socratic method. Cromwell had sexual morals that we all can only aspire to. I'd rather live in Socrates' Athens than Cromwell's England. That's not an endorsement of pederastry......And, of course, if you were a woman or a slave//serf, it didn't much matter either way because your life sucked. I just don't think either the approval or banning of gay marriage will have much effect on my life either way.; 6/28/15, 11:22 AM
Gahrie said...: Meade's comment isn't sarcastic, it is juvenile. It is how a middle school student would respond.; 6/28/15, 11:24 AM
SGT Ted said...: Why is Meade being an asshole?; 6/28/15, 11:25 AM
Gahrie said...: The best description of how Althouse, Meade, and the Left are behaving is that they are wandering around the battlefield executing the wounded.

The Left are amazingly bad winners.; 6/28/15, 11:27 AM
Bobber Fleck said...: Many of us regard traditional marriage as an important institution that is integral to the health of our society and our families. As such, we have no plans to disavow marriage. Traditional marriage is too deeply ingrained in our social fiber to walk away from it. It is also too important to be subjected to willy nilly changes to support the latest politically correct fads.

Like the dissolution of the two parent family, the redefinition of marriage will likely have unintended consequences. But results don't matter to the ideologically driven.

The suggestion we "dissolve our legal marriages" is just one of those clever one-liners that liberals use to end rational discussion. It is unusual to see that kind of comment offered by our hosts.; 6/28/15, 11:28 AM
CStanley said...: Because, so far at least, we still have the freedom to "advocate" for traditional marriage. We are free to say that marriage means what it has always meant, and demonstrate that in the way we live it out, while legally others are now free to create a different partnership and call it marriage.; 6/28/15, 11:32 AM
Wince said...: Ann Althouse said...
How is it trolling to take the viewpoint that is underrepresented in a conversation where like-minded people are supporting one another and not testing their ideas against opposing ideas?

This post is trolling because it baits and amplifies one easily mischaracterized argument of your choice to deflect engaging with other, more persuasive arguments. If "like-minded" people are coalescing around one idea actual refutation should be easy in that thread.

Especially after Althouse issued a direct challenge in a previous post...

Thomas should at least have articulated a legitimate government interest to be advanced by excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage. In my view, it cannot be done.

...and what follows when (at least one) commenter points out answerable, good-faith argument to answer that challenge, Althouse remains silent and Meade steps in with "zingers".

It's as if those who see the point of Douthat's column ascribed to the pro-SSM people the 1968 quote of the US major in Viet Nam: “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”

Overall, in the eyes of a reader-commenter it devalues the commitment of the Althouse blog to reasoned debate on both legal and an intellectual level and is quite disappointing.; 6/28/15, 11:35 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: Anyone want to take any bets on how long it is until these two denunciation and blackface artists turn on one another?

Ought to be fun to watch, huh?; 6/28/15, 11:36 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: What I'll never understand is people who think their rights are abrogated simply by the extension of those same rights to others. If there's any more straightforward an example of a "right" being confused for a "privilege", someone please point one out to me.

The arrogance astounds. The ignorance stuns.; 6/28/15, 11:41 AM
Michael K said...: "The best description of how Althouse, Meade, and the Left are behaving is that they are wandering around the battlefield executing the wounded."

I'm starting to wonder if Meade is like Goldwater's second wife who shifted him to the left. Peggy Goldwater was the real conservative in that couple, it seems.; 6/28/15, 11:42 AM
CStanley said...: Yuck I just realized the excerpt was from another blog. I usually like the Meade who shows up on this blog, but it's like a completely different persona there. Maybe take a hint and avoid people who bring out the worst in you because it's some pretty ugly stuff (like that which got deleted the other night.); 6/28/15, 11:50 AM
Anonymous said...: AA: The reason your list isn't apt is that anti-ssm people were arguing that marriage for heterosexuals was getting damaged and undermined by gay people wanting to be recognized as married too.

It is further undermined by the state recognizing homosexual unions as marriage. If you are aware of a major structural problem in your house that needs fixing, you don't ignore the termites or the leaky windows, do you? There's more than one nail in a coffin lid. Anti-ssm people aren't against ssm because they think (or argue) that heterosexual marriage was getting undermined only by the push for gay marriage. But you knew that. Stop playing dumb.

I realize that thinking of social consequences empirically, on a larger, long-term scale isn't your forte (as opposed to playing with simple abstractions derived from feelies, mostly synchronically), but there's a point where this preference just becomes willful obtuseness.

In that light, you are really agreeing with Meade, mocking that argument.

Meade's snot-nosed comment is only a "challenge" to someone who insists on playing dumb.; 6/28/15, 11:50 AM
Robert Cook said...: "If the argument for same sex marriage is based upon the idea marriage exists as a romantic arrangement why should the state have an interest?"

Who has ever said that marriage exists only as a romantic arrangement? It is precisely the aspects of marriage as a legal arrangement that is important to gays who wish to marry. For that matter, this is what is important about marriage to straight couples, as well. Otherwise, why marry at all? Simply live together until death or other circumstances ends the relationship.; 6/28/15, 11:52 AM
CStanley said...: Scroll up and read the thread that Meade's comment is part of. You'll have your answer.

So the answer is, "Someone on the internet was wrong!"?

That is why you have to go where your presence is unwanted and stir up negative feelings?; 6/28/15, 12:05 PM
Bobber Fleck said...: Excerpted from the Northern Colorado Gazette:

"Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals."

It's "love" after all.

God only knows
God makes his plan
The information's unavailable
To the mortal man
We work our jobs
Collect our pay
Believe we're gliding down the highway
When in fact we're slip slidin' away; 6/28/15, 12:07 PM
grimson said...: I agree with DougWeber: "I am all in favor of the state getting out of the business of supporting and providing special resources to couples." As the professor pointed out in another thread, your marital status "affects taxes and employee benefits--huge amounts of money." Plus singles get to pay for the education and indoctrination of only other people's children without being given any input about the same.

Married with children is no longer the norm; this is the big change in society that the laws need to be changed to recognize. Gay acceptance is just a tiny part of that, and hardly the most pressing.

The number of gays who want to get married is nothing compared to the number of single people; I think singles even outnumber marrieds. Where are the court cases for singles?; 6/28/15, 12:10 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Ideological relationships, like Althouse's marriage to Meade, have no real emotional foundation. I've seen dozens of them in San Francisco, the West Village and Woodstock.

If I were in their shoes, I'd be searching for a new front in the eternal war against the bigots, lest they be lawyering up for divorce.

Their fury and hysteria at the end of the gay marriage crusade is indicative of the fragility and emptiness of their relationship. It's virtually non-existent except as an intellectual war against the bad guys.

They are desperate to find a new crusade that will hold their relationship together.; 6/28/15, 12:12 PM
Carl said...: That's kind of brainless. Is Meade unaware of the declining rate of legal marriage?; 6/28/15, 12:18 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Why didn't gay people move to bigot free Canada and get married up there?; 6/28/15, 12:21 PM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: Saw some pics recently of a "gay pride" celebration.

When Mrs. Gritzkofe and I got married 50 years ago, we did not go out in the street and dance around wearing only multicolored underwear.

So - there's one difference.

- Hammond; 6/28/15, 12:21 PM
mccullough said...: if you don't like the direction society is headed, then try and carve out your own subculture. That's what Muslims do. They are smart people. Emulate them. Establish your own communities and make the rest of society be a bit afraid of you. Disengage from the larger society. Dress differently and make your differences religious based. None is going to mess with you.

Let the elites serve in the military and on police forces. This is their society. Let them protect it.; 6/28/15, 12:22 PM
mike in houston said...: Ann

Here is a simple question in the form of a "what if' lets say that a knights of Columbus hall offered its facility for marriage ceremonies. As a Catholic organization they would not condone a gay marriage in their hall. Lets say that a gay couple wants to get married in that hall and sue to force them to comply. Your the judge how would you decide. There is no local ordinance to compel.; 6/28/15, 12:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Meade's retort is funny because to genuine traditionalists, there's no such thing as dissolving a marriage.

In general though, for churches, there's already an example out there of how to go about dealing with marriages not considered doctrinally acceptable. The Catholic Church has dealt with lots of straight people entering into marriages it doesn't recognize these last 50 years since divorce became acceptable, and I suspect it will continue its practice of not recognizing marriages that don't meet its doctrine regardless of what civil law happens to say.

The only question really is whether the progressives will permit churches that don't go along with the program to continue to function. My bet is that black churches (as long as they vote Democrat) and Muslims will be fine, Catholics and Evangelicals not so much.; 6/28/15, 12:22 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: All of this anti-gay marriage rabble is the largely result of so much other nonsensical baggage in the first place. It's important to clear out the cobwebs. Will some people harbor irrational disgust of gays or their inclusion no matter what? Sure. But the problem is mostly energized by these so-called "civilization defenders" who think anything that calls into question the need for papal dictates over our constitutional rights is the road to hell and destruction. It seems that they overemphasize the role of the Church in (let's face it, medieval) Europe as somehow being the sine qua non of modern Western civilization.

But the real concerns are so much more parochial than that. Basically, Catholicism is a declining institution that requires unmarried gays (and maybe even pedophiles) to remain available in order to fill the ranks of a subservient clergy - a clergy committed, first and foremost, to vows of supposed celibacy. If homosexuality is understood not to be pathological and relationships, even lifelong committed relationships, between them allowed approval, then who will fill the ranks of a Church in decline? Who else will choose to enforce a dogma starting with a personal commitment to the elevation of a largely unnatural asexuality? Who will defend irrational dogma if not people so infused with shame as to think their most natural romantic inclinations, even and especially those leading to lifelong commitments, are evil ones?

This is all about keeping a clergy committed to the irrational - an aim that is virtually impossible unless you have people so marinated in irrational shame, self-loathing and commitment to the institution sustaining it, that the reasoned step of leaving or even challenging it is just as nearly impossible as well.

It's about keeping a clergy devoted to dogma too irrational to be sustained by people who aren't taught to hate themselves in a way that its leaders fear gays will no longer be inclined to do.

That's a big part of what this is about.; 6/28/15, 12:24 PM
Bricap said...: @Michael K. Peggy Goldwater was one of the founders of Planned Parenthood in Arizona. I think many misunderstand Goldwater. He absolutely despised the religious right, even when he was married to Peggy. He once said that all good Christians should give Falwell a swift kick in the ass, for example. He was closer to libertarian than anything else.; 6/28/15, 12:26 PM
mccullough said...: Meade and Althouse are aware of declining rates of marriage and divorce and increasing illegitimacy rate. Gay marriage will have no effect on this or the decline of marriage. Gays will get married and divorced at the same rate as non gays. They have no effect on the illegitimacy rate unless they are bisexual.; 6/28/15, 12:27 PM
mike in houston said...: US Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage. Now what?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcGf_yOlai8; 6/28/15, 12:27 PM
FullMoon said...: If you believe human existence is responsible for global warming, kill yourself.

Same vein as Meades comment. (add apostrophe as required); 6/28/15, 12:28 PM
mccullough said...: society also isnt as religious as it used to be and church attendance is down. Progressivism is basically religion for non believers who don't like sports; 6/28/15, 12:29 PM
Roughcoat said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/28/15, 12:37 PM
Roughcoat said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/28/15, 12:39 PM
Michael K said...: "He once said that all good Christians should give Falwell a swift kick in the ass, for example. He was closer to libertarian than anything else."

Oh, I agree. I didn't know that about Peggy. Interesting. He certainly swung left after she died. Maybe it was just senility.; 6/28/15, 12:43 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "...and what follows when (at least one) commenter points out answerable, good-faith argument to answer that challenge, Althouse remains silent and Meade steps in with "zingers". "

I haven't read all the comments. I did listen to the goverment lawyer's effort under pressure from the justices. If there's something in the comments that you think is the answer, copy it here. Don't expect me to see everything in comments. I don't have enough time to do that, and this was not an instance of me challenging a commenter and then ignoring him.; 6/28/15, 12:44 PM
The Bergall said...: Micro aggressions!; 6/28/15, 12:45 PM
Roughcoat said...: I don't know why you so-called traditionalists don't dissolve your legal marriages now that the definition of "marriage" has been changed and corrupted.

Good snark. You're a master snarkist.; 6/28/15, 12:46 PM
Etienne said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/28/15, 12:48 PM
Alex said...: ST - for you to speculate on the nature of the Althouse relationship is rude and crude. You should apologize and take it back, immediately. Or promise to leave this blog and never return.

What will it be?

#LoveWon
#HateLost
#InYourFaceBigots; 6/28/15, 12:51 PM
John henry said...: Lorenzo said:

Your side won. Why be snotty about it?

For the same reason a dog licks its balls.

Its simply what they do. They know no other way.

The old Bob Hope joke is looking more and more true.

"I just flew in from California where homosexuality is legal. I had to get out before they made it mandatory."

As for reaffirming vows in church, yeah, lots of us cis-normal people do that anyway. I've done it twice over the past 40 years.

How much longer will we be able to? Next stop is to go after churches that refuse to do same sex marriage. Some churches will fight, I suspect others will simply stop performing weddings.

Fuck the gays. I've always been a live and let live guy. No skin off my nose what 2 consenting adults do with each other. All I ask is that they follow the golden rule and let me alone.

They won't. Many will but there are enough that won't that they cause problems for everyone.

So fuck 'em. I hope they enjoy their marriages.

Now that Ann's son can marry, I hope she enjoys her grandchildren. Oh, wait.... Nevermind.

John Henry; 6/28/15, 12:51 PM
Alex said...: Coupe said..

The saving grace may be how easy it is for ISIS to off 25 people with one car bomb.

So this is the last stand of freepers, allying with ISIS? Oh boy, you guys are sick puppies. So filled with HATE.; 6/28/15, 12:53 PM
John henry said...: To clarify, that is twice with the same woman, plus the original ceremony.

John Henry; 6/28/15, 12:53 PM
Etienne said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/28/15, 12:55 PM
mccullough said...: Alex,

I read coupe as saying let the progressives fight ISIS and let the tradionalists stay on the sidelines. Progressives don't tend to join special forces or police departments in large cities. Let them defend their vision of society and also let them experience first hand what evil backasswardness really is.; 6/28/15, 1:00 PM
traditionalguy said...: The anger level off the charts from many good Christian people about Gay people being their equals has puzzled me since I first encountered it. Bitter hostility came from many. It was hard to say they were wrong, but they were not right to be that angry either.

At about the same time many gay men and women became hostile at me for being a known Christian that had always been very good to them.

It seems there was a war going on that I did not understand. Then a good friend pointed out that it is not my business or any ones business to tell another how to have sex. That was my position for a long time. And the gays in the military issue finally opened my eyes that gay people have always served in the military and were just not being honored for their courage and skill in war over a fear that made little sense.
Today is time to actually forgive others like Meade has been proposing today. But legalists don't forgive much because they are mad at God for freely giving grace in place of the Law they have tried so hard to keep but got nothing for keeping it .; 6/28/15, 1:09 PM
Etienne said...: I think ISIS is more afraid of same-sex marriage, then they are of democracy.

Although, they have to have some respect for a court who blew up ancient relics with mere words.; 6/28/15, 1:18 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Althouse was lonely and couldn't find a spouse. Her son was gay and she felt guilty.

Since the prof is a Brain in a Jar without much connection to the corporeal world, she did what she knows how to do, which is to start an ideological campaign on all fronts, with Dylan invoking the glorious 60s in the background.

Ideology brought her a man, a nitwit and Stalinist, but a man nonetheless. It was like being in a movie. She fought the wretched bigots and assauged her guilt about her son. The relationship with Meade was empty on the level most of us think of a relationship, but she filled it up with the battle with the bigots and he responded with his version of protecting his Damsel in Distress.

Today, they woke up to discover they don't even know one another. Better find another war to fight against the bigots lest they are left alone to look at one another minus the theatrics.

Crusaders, regardless of the right or wrong of their cause, are always awful people. I've met a ton of them.; 6/28/15, 1:19 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: I have never heard a Christian person say that a gay person was not their equal, trad guy. Are you sure that these people weren't Zoroastrians or Scientologists? That would explain your puzzlement.; 6/28/15, 1:21 PM
mccullough said...: Tradguy,

What is the view of American Muslims toward gays and gay marriage?; 6/28/15, 1:24 PM
CStanley said...: "...and what follows when (at least one) commenter points out answerable, good-faith argument to answer that challenge, Althouse remains silent and Meade steps in with "zingers". "

I haven't read all the comments. I did listen to the goverment lawyer's effort under pressure from the justices. If there's something in the comments that you think is the answer, copy it here. Don't expect me to see everything in comments. I don't have enough time to do that, and this was not an instance of me challenging a commenter and then ignoring him.

I thought this was a good one and would like to see your rebuttal:

Anthony said...
The case that government has a legitimate interest in excluding same-sex couples from marriage is not all that hard.

Marriage, as an institution, is to provide legal means to ensure that men support their children, and that their children to not become an undue burden on society. This interest allows government to regulate who may marry, as existing laws forbid certain close relatives from marrying, forbid persons with certain diseases to marry, and forbids certain people from marrying with the sole intent of claiming certain benefits (though the remedy in green-card marriage is denial of the benefit, not of the marriage).

Since marriage imposes some costs on the parties, government includes some benefits available only to the married, and extends some of those benefits well pay the point where all the children of the marriage are independent adults.

The government can choose to not exclude certain persons from marriage for practical reasons and for privacy reasons. Many people are infertile, and cannot have children, but we let them marry because, quite often, the couple does not know that at all, or does not know with certainty that they are infertile or whether the infertility is curable or not. Infertility is a deeply personal and private issue, so it's appropriate for the government to not inquire. (Especially since the answer is often not entirely certain.) Because marriage is a symmetric relationship, we do not exclude women over 55 from remarrying because we do not exclude men of that age. However, the possibility that two men or two women would produce a child is zero, and that does not require an evaluation of medical history to determine.

Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to exclude couples (or groups) who are facially incapable of producing children from receiving the benefits of marriage, without excluding couples who are incapable, but not obviously so.

6/27/15, 2:49 PM; 6/28/15, 1:25 PM
Etienne said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/28/15, 1:33 PM
Etienne said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/28/15, 1:37 PM
Michael said...: Sophomoric. Extremely so.; 6/28/15, 1:45 PM
damikesc said...: How is it trolling to take the viewpoint that is underrepresented in a conversation where like-minded people are supporting one another and not testing their ideas against opposing ideas?

Already married in a church before lawyers fucked up THAT institution.

So...pass.

Far too many critics of gay marriage do not live up to the ideals they profess. The sexual revolution wasn't caused by gay people. Own up to what happened.

Feminists sought to destroy marriage and have been eroding it for decades.

THAT is what happened.

And whether you love it or not, gay marriage will never be real marriage. Nobody will take it seriously...especially the gays who tend to either be polygamous or abusive, according to stats.

But we should marriage as difficult to break as a contract. It's amazingly easy to break it now.; 6/28/15, 1:45 PM
traditionalguy said...: @Terry....I must be older than you and my friends are old too. When we were raised we were told homosexuals were defectives boys that were Queers.,We believed that. The law said they were criminals.

To be gay in Atlanta was once a good reason to leave for New York City for any community acceptance. The Glass Menangerie's narrator speaks about that old south reality.

Oscar Wilde dealt with that same realty in London.

Times are different now.; 6/28/15, 1:47 PM
damikesc said...: But legalists don't forgive much because they are mad at God for freely giving grace in place of the Law they have tried so hard to keep but got nothing for keeping it .

I forgive little because ACTIVISTS WON'T LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE.

They have to fuck up everything for everybody so their precious snowflakes have their precious feelings protected.

Fuck them.; 6/28/15, 1:47 PM
walter said...: Cook:
"It is precisely the aspects of marriage as a legal arrangement that is important to gays who wish to marry."

Not so sure about that..those are available if one pursues them. Marriage is a shorter route..but the routes are available outside it.
Like the oft repeated argument about visiting a loved one in the hospital. But a healthcare POA is easily filled out to be presented and entered into a hospital's record. Many hospitals encourage patients to fill out a form provided on site.
But yes..things like spousal benefits from employers are usually only attainable by specific marital status. Though some public sector jobs have entertained benefits for live-in boy/girl friends.

But I'm seeing an increase at this site of starting new threads on essentially the same issue. In this case, I guess we're supposed to view Meade's comment as being so powerful as to demand a reset.; 6/28/15, 1:50 PM
JD said...: I went over to the website your comment linked to, all I can say is wow. This ndspinelli person is certifiably insane. How does he know all these details about your lives, past marriages, etc? This sounds like he is either making these details up or has actually stalked you two. This guy sounds dangerous, I'd be careful if I were Meade and Ann. As an attorney Ann, you should look into legal action against this individual.; 6/28/15, 1:52 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Since the prof is a Brain in a Jar without much connection to the corporeal world, she did what she knows how to do, which is to start an ideological campaign on all fronts…

I think the "brain in a jar without much connection to the corporeal world" bit applies more aptly to the clergy. Maybe if they were able to get married and have gay kids then they wouldn't have been waging such an ideological war against them, instead.; 6/28/15, 1:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Prof. Althouse, What do you think of Christians (and Jews and Muslims) whose scriptures say that homosexual conduct is sin? I am such a person, and I sometimes wish I could wish away those verses, but I can't. I'm not someone who "hates," (as the ubiquitous "lovewins" implies) -- I have gay friends and relatives who I love very much -- but someone who is a good faith believer who can't get around the scriptural boundaries I believe God has imposed. Even if I wish He hadn't. Is it fair for others not sharing my Christian faith to label me a bigot and hater? Are they right? I honestly am asking. Is scriptural Christianity now a form of hate speech?; 6/28/15, 1:53 PM
traditionalguy said...: @McCullough...The Muslims are strict forbidders by the Law of Moses too. They get around it by using word games for their favored men. They just assert a homosexual act is not homosexuality if only done for sex rather than love. Then Iran just says those gay men are actually women and gives them surgery to transition to women or else the death penalty.; 6/28/15, 1:54 PM
The Bergall said...: Oh come on everyone, lighten up. At least SCOTUS didn't rule it was mandatory or else pay a fine...........; 6/28/15, 2:00 PM
jimbino said...: The demographic group that is sorely missing from the graphic are the singles, who are now going to get even more screwed in taxes on wealth and income that they were before, now that gays will be feeding at the gummint welfare, tax-benefit and immigration trough reserved for married couples.

Under singles, I include even family pairs and groups like cohabiting grandmother and her two grand-daughters, two elderly sisters and so on.; 6/28/15, 2:04 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Why did Meade and Althouse get married when the marriage laws were defined in ways that were obviously defined to be hateful, exclusionary, and bigoted?; 6/28/15, 2:07 PM
Skyler said...: I'm no christian. One need not be christian to see that homosexuality is perversion. People are free in this country to be perverts, but I resent being forced to agree with them.

Now I am wondering how I'm going to explain these perverts to my daughter, because I'm sure that schools are going to be forcing acceptance of them in schools.; 6/28/15, 2:10 PM
Etienne said...: Anonymous said......scriptures say that homosexual conduct is sin

To be fair, the only reason God punished women, by having them bear children (Genesis) is that Adam and Eve sinned.

What do you think about allowing any sinner to marry?

The SSM ruling is not bad because it endorses sin, it is bad because it has no basis in law. It is bad because they know Congress is too weak to do anything about it.

Congress can't even agree on a road project let alone dealing with the Executive or Judicial. Why vote anymore?; 6/28/15, 2:10 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: "Maybe if they were able to get married and have gay kids then they wouldn't have been waging such an ideological war against them, instead."
A bigoted assumption that people who are against gay marriage don't know people who say that they are gay, or have loved ones who say that they are gay. How much of the Catholic priesthood is gay, R&B? The jesuits used to be famous for it.; 6/28/15, 2:11 PM
Birkel said...: I derive no value from the state's intrusion into my personal relationships. I wish the state would kindly see its way out of the marriage business, from the IRS code to licensing. It was the state's intrusion into a private affair that begat all this foolishness in the first place.

All the state should do is referee the contractual relations between people, as it does in any other arena.

Given the above position, it is odd to suggest I should disregard my marital vows -- a purely private matter -- because the state has done a thing. They are not a party to my marriage. They should not be involved as much as they are.; 6/28/15, 2:11 PM
damikesc said...: But I'm seeing an increase at this site of starting new threads on essentially the same issue. In this case, I guess we're supposed to view Meade's comment as being so powerful as to demand a reset.

I've read Meade's postings elsewhere and I'm truly baffled why anybody would want to draw attention to THAT thread. It was terrible trolling.; 6/28/15, 2:12 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: "Now I am wondering how I'm going to explain these perverts to my daughter, because I'm sure that schools are going to be forcing acceptance of them in schools."
In Canada, all schools, public and private, are forced to teach what they call "family equality." No one is allowed to opt out. If you, as a parent, keep your kid out of the classes, you will be prosecuted.; 6/28/15, 2:13 PM
Blue@9 said...: I support SSM, but it's a sham that the Supreme Court wrote it into the Constitution.

I predict a crushing Republican victory in the 2016 elections at all levels. The Left is celebrating these victories, but this isn't a war where your enemies lie dead. There will be blowback on a scale that we haven't seen in generations.; 6/28/15, 2:15 PM
Sebastian said...: "Is scriptural Christianity now a form of hate speech?"

Fraid so. Get used to it. "Love wins," except, of course, that haters like you deserve only hate.

Per Anthony Kennedy, you have a right to "express" your identity, except that you have the wrong identity. Tough luck.

As you can tell, even Meade is now part of the shove-it-down-their-throat brigade. Pink guards are next.

An opinion touting its commitment to liberty will unleash fundamental infringement on liberty.

As a non-Christian who still quaintly believes in religious liberty, I will stand by your side. Not sure there are enough of us left.; 6/28/15, 2:15 PM
Etienne said...: The Bergall said...Oh come on everyone, lighten up. At least SCOTUS didn't rule it was mandatory or else pay a fine...........

You don't get IRS loopholes for free. Any new social program costs money. The New Deal, The Great Society bankrupted the country. This new social program merely increases the unfunded liabilities. We are currently at $96 Trillion, including debt.

It's an users tax, and the top 10% doesn't pay user taxes, so there's your "fine".; 6/28/15, 2:17 PM
sinz52 said...: Anonymous: "I ... can't get around the scriptural boundaries I believe God has imposed. Even if I wish He hadn't. Is it fair for others not sharing my Christian faith to label me a bigot and hater?"

Unfortunately, yes.

I've thought about that a lot.
And your argument doesn't work. It amounts to an "I was only following orders" type of argument. You claim to be following the orders of your church regardless of your personal views.

And we learned in the Nuremberg trials what's wrong with that type of argument: It doesn't absolve you from having a conscience.

Plus, it's not the only way.

Millions of Catholic women openly defied the Vatican and continued to use contraceptive Pills. But they still call themselves Catholic.

IIRC, Presbyterians have made their peace with their homosexual brethren.

Reform Jews don't follow every nuance of Jewish dietary laws. Etc.

In fact, that's how religious reformations start: Martin Luther's gripes eventually led to Protestantism. If some Jews hadn't decided that Jewish orthodoxy was becoming outdated in late 19th century America, there would not have been Reform Judaism.

So saying "I was only following my church's orders" rings real hollow after studying history.

Slavish, unthinking adherence to any ideology is the sign of a fanatic. No one has to be one against his will.; 6/28/15, 2:18 PM
Etienne said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/28/15, 2:22 PM
Greg Hlatky said...: Now that there's marriage equality we can start getting data on the rate of STD's among gay couples or domestic violence in lesbian marriages.; 6/28/15, 2:23 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I'm no christian. One need not be christian to see that homosexuality is perversion.

Talk about self-contradiction. What secularist talks like that? "Perversion", indeed. It's a perversion of secularism to talk like a preacher in order to make a simple point.

People are free in this country to be perverts, but I resent being forced to agree with them.

The facts agree with them. The DSM agrees with them. Anyone who knows any of them agrees with them. The fact that their orientation is not common does not make them sick or wrong any more than any unusual trait of yours makes you sick or wrong. In population biology there is "variation" - some of it common, some less so. Only a Nazi assumes uncommon variation to be "perversion".

Now I am wondering how I'm going to explain these perverts to my daughter, because I'm sure that schools are going to be forcing acceptance of them in schools.

Wow.

Newsflash, Huckleberry Hatfield Finn: They're already there. They can't be excluded. And if you were less of a hermit with a hatred of the known, you'd probably realize that your daughter will know more of them and more about them than you'll ever allow yourself to know. But don't worry - maybe you can get her one of those extra special promise ring with extra special powers… powers to keep the queens away from her no less than those evil straight boys.; 6/28/15, 2:25 PM
Michael K said...: "I think the "brain in a jar without much connection to the corporeal world" bit applies more aptly to the clergy. Maybe if they were able to get married and have gay kids then they wouldn't have been waging such an ideological war against them, instead."

The clergy of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church do marry and have no history of pedophilia that I know of. I do think celibacy has seen its day and priests should be allowed to marry if they wish. The vow of poverty is an issue but secular priests do not take that vow.

The usual hate-filled R&B comment has its usual zero content.; 6/28/15, 2:28 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Trad guy, I don't understand your @1:47. Are you saying that people believed that Christianity taught that gays were defective, lesser beings?; 6/28/15, 2:32 PM
Billy Oblivion said...: Hey Meade, you're a twit.; 6/28/15, 2:36 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: The funny thing is that R&B's hate made him entirely misunderstand what Skyler wrote, LOL . . .; 6/28/15, 2:36 PM
Meade said...: Terry said...
"Why did Meade and Althouse get married when the marriage laws were defined in ways that were obviously defined to be hateful, exclusionary, and bigoted?"

Old-fashioned traditional American optimism, the long arc of the moral universe...
plus, I was afraid I'd knocked her up.

In seriousness, I remember on the day we tied the knot, as I drove us up to that mountain top, AA wisecracked aloud something like, "hey, maybe we shouldn't be doing this... until gay people can get married too."

I think I conned her with something like: "We're gay enough. Let's lead the way!"

She fell for it.; 6/28/15, 2:38 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: The clergy of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church do marry and have no history of pedophilia that I know of.

It's great to know that "what you know of" constitutes incontrovertible, objective fact. I'm also glad you got to interviewing all those Eastern Orthodox kids and knew them closely enough to know what was going on. Or well enough to presume that other cultural factors were definitely not at work. Either way, let me know what other ideas cease to be true based on what you don't know. Did you take a shit today? Not that I know of. So it stands to reason that you didn't.

You do like thinking like a dogmatist, don't you?; 6/28/15, 2:47 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Whatever, Terry. If you think you have such a better understanding of what your partner in debunked jurisprudence had in mind, go explain it.; 6/28/15, 2:48 PM
jr565 said...: Rhythm and balls wrote:
What I'll never understand is people who think their rights are abrogated simply by the extension of those same rights to others. If there's any more straightforward an example of a "right" being confused for a "privilege", someone please point one out to me.

The arrogance astounds. The ignorance stuns.

No one thinks that. that was simply a talking point trotted out by the left they though was clver. But if polygamy was legalized tomorrow, it wouldn't directly affect your marriage either. I don't think Althouse would claim that was a reason to legalize polygamy.

Read, the point above from birches by Mcardle where she shows how changes to marriage affect others.
Where it changes is the focus of the institution which then changes the roles of parents. Which then changes the need for such an institution.; 6/28/15, 2:56 PM
jr565 said...: Could a baker align himself with churches for his wedding business and say any cake that I make has to be for a wedding done in one of these churches? That way the beef is with the church not the baker if he doesn't make a cake. The marriage is not a traditional one, therefore you wont get a cake.; 6/28/15, 3:00 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: R&B, Skyler meant that he believed that acceptance of homosexual behavior as a normal lifestyle would now be taught in schools, not that schools would now be forced to admit homosexuals. I think that my interpretation is correct because virtually everyone has had contact with people they believe to be gay throughout their lives, in school and out of school.
Where Skyler is mistaken is in thinking that before 26 June, schools were not teaching acceptance of homosexual lifestyles.
But I invite Skyler to correct me, if I am wrong.; 6/28/15, 3:03 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Military veterans are awarded points on the civil service exams. If you are a disabled vet, you get more points. That's a big FU to pacifists. Time extend the same rights to everyone!
And them Indians. Free land on a reservation? That's a big FU to all non-Indians. Time to extend the same rights to everyone!

Just to keep R&B from misunderstanding me, I wrote the above paragraph to demonstrate that people who say that they want equal rights for all do not want equal rights for all. They want to hand out privileges to groups they favor, and to deny privileges to groups they do not favor, just like everybody else.; 6/28/15, 3:09 PM
traditionalguy said...: @ Terry...everybody taught us young boys that gays were defective human being we should feel sorry for, like a birth defect that was not their fault. And all of those teachers, scout masters, coaches, preachers were good Christians at the time.

Theology is a different matter. The Christian does still live under sexual immorality rules. But only one of those is against sex with the same sex, and forgiveness would be the same as available.

The religious folks first got angry about ordaining gay pastors. That is ancient now. The marriage issue seems more dangerous somehow to some women I know. But we will live through it.

IMO The biggest issue for Christianity today is whether you love Jews or hate Jews, or refuse to take a position, because we are all going to be judged by a Jewish a Messiah, and very soon.; 6/28/15, 3:17 PM
Mid-Life Lawyer said...: If someone tries to break into your house, just give it to them and move. I mean, you are supposed to be a Christian and all. Turn the other cheek.

So you don't like the tax code, well then why don't you just not pay your taxes in protest, you coward.

So you bought a membership in the Club and then they changed the services provided and requirements for membeship of the Club? Well, if you are so committed to your idea of the club, why don't you just forget your investment and just leave and join another Club, big boy?

What gibberish.; 6/28/15, 3:21 PM
sdharms said...: and if the blacks are so upset about slavery, why are they not headed to Africa and the middle east to stamp it out???? It still exists there, yet they spend their time here whining about a Rebel flag? Is that symbolism over substance or what?

And you can tell Meade, God knows what marriage is.; 6/28/15, 3:32 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: I'm still not sure who you mean when you say "everybody taught us", trad guy. Did gay people teach you this? Your parents, your friends? a religious authority? Sunday school teachers don't count. The amount of theological learning exhibited by Sunday school teachers is abysmally low.; 6/28/15, 3:55 PM
sean said...: I've thought about that. But I'm an Althousean, and now that my wife is retired, there's a big tax saving from the joint return, plus some estate tax simplifications (not really savings, but it's easier to get to the same place). So that's the reason we stay married. It's purely economic.; 6/28/15, 4:00 PM
wildswan said...: Q&A
"Is scriptural Christianity now a form of hate speech?"

Yes

"How much of the Catholic priesthood is gay, R&B?"

The Catholic Church used to accept those who were gay into the priesthood; the result was the massive child abuse scandal. As a result the Church now accepts very few gays as seminarians.

What about the schools?
Common Core teaches that all forms of marriage are equal and your child will not get out of kindergarden unless it says the right words. Now banned "mother, father, sister, brother, male, female."

How long till euthanasia for the old is enacted?
I now expect it from this society and this Supreme Court. If marriage as a contract between a man and a woman can disappear in ten years then euthanasia will come in in five. Social Security is paid for by the children of the generation that has grown old. If you weaken the social institutions that support child-bearing which is what has been done then people in the adult generation won't have enough children to support themselves they grow old. Then the answer is euthanasia - at least in this society. And that's what this group will do.

Will this new society where you can abort your child and kill your parents and divorce your husband and ruin your boyfriend's life with false accusations and still regard your self as super-compassionate and where you can burst into tears at hearing someone disagree with and yet still get a college degree in psychology or journalism - will this society last?
No. It will do damage especially to those who believe in it but it will not last.

Who will run the society that replaces it?
Indeed.; 6/28/15, 4:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Wow, Meade, you're a jerk and a sore winner.; 6/28/15, 4:35 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: R&B, Skyler meant that he believed that acceptance of homosexual behavior as a normal lifestyle would now be taught in schools, not that schools would now be forced to admit homosexuals.

What do you mean "normal"? You conservatives put a lot of stock in that word. It's a meaningless word. Who needs to conform to what and who defines "normality"? Most people are heterosexual. They didn't ask for that or learn it (well, maybe conservatives did). We have no reason to believe they weren't born that way. Same way with homos. It does no one any good to tell people that they're wrong or that they should have to change something as fundamental and intimate about them as how their attractions to other consenting adults are formed. How the hell would you like it if you were told you were "abnormal" for being straight and that the best hope you had for an acceptable "lifestyle" was to be a lifelong celibate or compelled into a relationship with another gay man? Is that something you want to try out? For the sake of testing the viability of your strange theory of legal society?

I guess you wouldn't like that all that much but you're a conservative so apparently free will and shaping one's destiny according to one's harmless happiness is something you can't abide by. But that's that's how it would have to be under your understanding of socially acceptable behavior.; 6/28/15, 4:59 PM
Anonymous said...: R&B wrote;

They didn't ask for that or learn it (well, maybe conservatives did). We have no reason to believe they weren't born that way. Same way with homos. It does no one any good to tell people that they're wrong or that they should have to change something as fundamental and intimate about them as how their attractions to other consenting adults are formed

When I read across the word consenting adult, my mind did a double take.

Surely he's not making a moral argument about normality in the middle of his taking down of the word normal, that would just be stupid.

There's no reason not to accept pedophilia, R&B. Get on the love train.; 6/28/15, 5:06 PM
Gahrie said...: We have no reason to believe they weren't born that way. Same way with homos. It does no one any good to tell people that they're wrong or that they should have to change something as fundamental and intimate about them as how their attractions to other consenting adults are formed.

You need to go talk to the feminists. Most of them are busy telling women that heterosexual sex is rape, and that they should choose to be lesbian.

How the hell would you like it if you were told you were "abnormal" for being straight

I am. In fact I am told that I am labeled a rapist because I am a straight man.; 6/28/15, 5:12 PM
damikesc said...: What do you mean "normal"?

Something that applies to over 95% of the population. It's not complex.

We have no reason to believe they weren't born that way.

And when a genetic test comes out for homosexuality, rest assured that you will see gay babies slaughtered en masse. Glorious new day, eh?

How the hell would you like it if you were told you were "abnormal" for being straight and that the best hope you had for an acceptable "lifestyle" was to be a lifelong celibate or compelled into a relationship with another gay man? Is that something you want to try out?

Given that I don't need the approval of mental deficients, it wouldn't have zero impact on me.

I guess you wouldn't like that all that much but you're a conservative so apparently free will and shaping one's destiny according to one's harmless happiness is something you can't abide by

Because when shit fails, Progressives are so good about saying "Yeah, it failed. Let's undo it"; 6/28/15, 5:27 PM
traditionalguy said...: @Terry....I am telling you about Buckhead area of Atlanta in the 1950s and 1960s.

No teachers grades 1-12 had a theology. The Second Ponce De Leon Baptist Church populated our neighborhood and my friends from that church and I went to they Boy Scouts there , where the authority was a very sure of himself Chiropractor. And we were not even supposed to masturbate or else.

We had a Catholic Church and school and an Episcopal Cathedral there to at the three corners of Peachtree Road and East Wesley Dr., but nobody I met ever had a theology they shared with us. then at college my theology consisted of Thomas Altizer explaining William Blake and Neitsche proved God was dead because he willed His own death about the time Napoleon was doing his thing.

Nobody cared about gay persons who were all in the closet except for some Episcoplaian here and an uncle there and a musician there. That's the way it was.; 6/28/15, 5:29 PM
Phil 314 said...: Well, seeing the Meade trolling was sad.

But seeing all the old commenters at Lem's site was a blast from the past.

The internet is heartless place.; 6/28/15, 5:38 PM
n.n said...: The semantic games began with changing rites to rights, discrimination to [class] diversity, and now exclusion to "equal".

The progressive liberals had the support of libertarians in order to reestablish the ancient Aztec practice of human sacrifice, but will they now support selective exclusion in the wake of homosexual marriage?

It's an interesting game of chicken. I wonder how progressive liberals will rationalize denying others equal rights (e.g. right to life). Will it be a simple application of pro-choice doctrine (a la selective-child)?; 6/28/15, 5:41 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: What do you mean "normal"?

Something that applies to over 95% of the population. It's not complex.

Ok. So are people with red hair "abnormal"? And Asian-Americans? "Abnormal"?

Clueless people like you? Abnormal?

We have no reason to believe they weren't born that way.

And when a genetic test comes out for homosexuality, rest assured that you will see gay babies slaughtered en masse. Glorious new day, eh?

I don't see redheads, etc., being slaughtered en masse, but it's good to know what fascists like you will plan to do once in charge. Helps us prepare.

How the hell would you like it if you were told you were "abnormal" for being straight and that the best hope you had for an acceptable "lifestyle" was to be a lifelong celibate or compelled into a relationship with another gay man? Is that something you want to try out?

Given that I don't need the approval of mental deficients, it wouldn't have zero impact on me.

It's nice that everyone charged with making decisions affecting your life is so talented and competent. It's good to know your opinion of government is so high.; 6/28/15, 5:41 PM
Anonymous said...: jimbino said...
The demographic group that is sorely missing from the graphic are the singles, who are now going to get even more screwed in taxes on wealth and income that they were before, now that gays will be feeding at the gummint welfare, tax-benefit and immigration trough reserved for married couples.

Under singles, I include even family pairs and groups like cohabiting grandmother and her two grand-daughters, two elderly sisters and so on.

Serious suggestion: what rational or legal basis can there possibly be for preventing related same-sex couples from marrying at this point? That marriage is only and solely about Love and its attendant Benefits is now the law of the land. So my advice to those two elderly sisters would be to marry as soon as possible to get whatever benefits accrue to marriage. Ditto the grandmother and granddaughter.

I specified related same-sex couples. I suppose the state might still seek to prevent grandmother and grandson from marrying, but isn't that now just another form of benighted prejudice? The Supreme Court itself has told us that "Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there." Marriage, apparently, is the only defense against that lonely abandonment, and surely the nature of someone's chosen antidote to the horror of that "no one" is no longer any concern of the government?

You may think that if you have no co-habiting relatives, you are out of luck, but I say au contraire. As marriages are easily dissoluble, you could choose to undertake the risk of marrying a roommate and getting the benefits of that arrangement. True, you might risk an ugly legal battle, despite the ironclad prenup you made sure to require, if you invent the next Facebook, but it's up to you to say whether the risk is worth it.; 6/28/15, 5:45 PM
Kelly said...: What a childish response. I know you are, but what am I. Watching the Presidents reaction was like watching someone viewing a championship game. That's what we've devolved into. No class. We know the next step is to force churches to conform. You know it, I know it. I don't go to church, but feel sorry for those who do take religion seriously. They' won't be left alone. Congratulations.; 6/28/15, 6:27 PM
Anonymous said...: You don't choose to be red headed.

You choose to have homo sex.; 6/28/15, 6:29 PM
damikesc said...: I don't see redheads, etc., being slaughtered en masse, but it's good to know what fascists like you will plan to do once in charge. Helps us prepare.

"Fascists like me" oppose abortion while progressives support it with few meaningful limits. So, naturally, the one who opposes the practice is the bad guy.

It's good to know your opinion of government is so high.

Government is incompetent. You're the one who wants to give those baboons MORE power.; 6/28/15, 6:45 PM
Gahrie said...: And when a genetic test comes out for homosexuality, rest assured that you will see gay babies slaughtered en masse. Glorious new day, eh?

I don't see redheads, etc., being slaughtered en masse,

How about women? Hundreds of millions of babies have been killed simply because they were female.; 6/28/15, 6:58 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: "I don't see redheads, etc., being slaughtered en masse, but it's good to know what fascists like you will plan to do once in charge. Helps us prepare."
For exercising choice?
About 2/3 of Downs Syndrome babies are aborted in the United States.
You're funny, R&B.; 6/28/15, 7:06 PM
hombre said...: Other than, "How silly can you be?", two questions for Meade come to mind:

1. Do you love bugs who support gay marriage and Kennedy's syrupy drivel ever run out of straw men?
2. Have you ever met an orthodox Christian?

Finally, let me recommend some reading: "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life," Kahane and Cavender. It's relatively short and has pictures and it's much less challenging than the Bible.; 6/28/15, 7:17 PM
hombre said...: Rhythm and balls wrote:
"What I'll never understand is people who think their rights are abrogated simply by the extension of those same rights to others. If there's any more straightforward an example of a "right" being confused for a "privilege", someone please point one out to me."

The point is a straw man and has nothing to do with the Christian objections to gay marriage. That is not to say that the argument has never been made by a Christian, only that it is usually offered by the love bugs to discredit Christians.

OTOH, lefties, Dems and their consorts in the media in their never ending promotion of class warfare constantly encourage covetousness - the idea that possession of wealth by some creates poverty in particular others.

I'll bet you understand that, Ritmo.; 6/28/15, 7:36 PM
hombre said...: Wow. Trooper, Allen, Pogo, April, etc. No wonder Althouse had to recruit some help for the hapless Meade.; 6/28/15, 7:48 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: The image of R&B and his ilk lined up in front of an abortion clinic, arms linked to block the entrance of those who seek to abort the non-person in their wombs is pretty funny.; 6/28/15, 7:49 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: You know, for a guy who calls himself "hombre" (no longer "el hombre", because he felt feminized by the way "el" could sound like "elle") to be that concerned about what gays do in their matrimonial affairs (he was previously very concerned about their sex lives), you really have to wonder about his own internal, sexual and psychological issues.

But then, he did live for quite some time in Texas, a place well known for steers and certain kinds of "hombres".; 6/28/15, 7:56 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Oh, look at what happens when the gay marriage debate is lost! It's on to abortion. I think self-appointed Guardians of the Annals of Logical Fallacy would call that a "red herring".

Well, you know. When you're done losing one unwinnable battle it's important to move on to another unwinnable battle. Maybe they'll revive the 2012 campaign and trot out all those hoary rape philosophers.; 6/28/15, 7:59 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "Prof. Althouse, What do you think of Christians (and Jews and Muslims) whose scriptures say that homosexual conduct is sin? I am such a person, and I sometimes wish I could wish away those verses, but I can't. I'm not someone who "hates," (as the ubiquitous "lovewins" implies) -- I have gay friends and relatives who I love very much -- but someone who is a good faith believer who can't get around the scriptural boundaries I believe God has imposed. Even if I wish He hadn't. Is it fair for others not sharing my Christian faith to label me a bigot and hater? Are they right? I honestly am asking. Is scriptural Christianity now a form of hate speech?"

I think the Old Testament has a lot of sins enumerated. I would read them all, note which ones you violate (like pork-eating or masturbating), and wonder why you should care so much about homosexuality. Maybe dwelling on homosexuality is a sin.

I would read the New Testament, read the Gospels over and over until you internalize the Jesus instinct, and take that to heart. There's something that transcends all the details of the particulat rules, even though Jesus didn't say he was overruling the rules.

I think that makes sense even for non-Christians.; 6/28/15, 8:02 PM
heyboom said...: Sinz52 said:

And your argument doesn't work. It amounts to an "I was only following orders" type of argument. You claim to be following the orders of your church regardless of your personal views.

Except that it's God's law, not the church's.; 6/28/15, 8:06 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Althouse wrote:
"I think the Old Testament has a lot of sins enumerated. I would read them all, note which ones you violate (like pork-eating or masturbating), and wonder why you should care so much about homosexuality."

The laws of Leviticus were specifically revoked in the New Testament's book of Acts.

" . . . even though Jesus didn't say he was overruling the rules."
But he did, at times, especially with regard to marriage. Red letter words. So the usual exegesis is that if it is not countered in the NT, the OT rules hold. If Christ disagreed with the Law on homosexuality, it would be in there.; 6/28/15, 8:23 PM
Meade said...: Honest question that I don't know the answer to, Terry — What did Jesus say about circumcision? Did he revoke the OT rules on circumcision? Were they Red letter words? Or did those rules get revoked by someone else after Jesus went to be with his father in heaven?; 6/28/15, 8:35 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Jesus said; "17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18 For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
20 For I say unto you that unless your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."

I know Paul said something else.; 6/28/15, 8:46 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Meade, there are some interesting episodes where Christ reached out to Gentiles (healing the Centurion's servant) and also episodes where He seemed to be saying that He was not only the savior of the Jews (the Samaritan woman at the well). Most of the non-OT stuff is in Acts and the letters of the apostles. Jews in the days of Christ were very strict about keeping themselves separate from the people of other nations. The Samaritan woman wanted to drink from the same well as Christ, which would have made it unclean for a Jew to drink from.
Non-religious historians say that the apostles turned to Gentiles when they failed to convert their fellow Jews.
I'm going by memory, here, so don't take what I've written as Gospel :).; 6/28/15, 8:50 PM
hombre said...: Althouse wrote:
"I think the Old Testament has a lot of sins enumerated. I would read them all, note which ones you violate (like pork-eating or masturbating), and wonder why you should care so much about homosexuality."

Ever hear of the "New Covenant," Professor. Evidently not. It is nice to see you stop faking the Christian bit though.

Who is it exactly who "cares so much about homosexuality?" It was just another sin until gay rights activists started pissing on Christians and lying about our beliefs. Do we care so much about gluttony? Sloth?

Meade: "Or did those rules get revoked by someone else after Jesus went to be with his father in heaven?"

Yes. St. Paul, the converted Pharisee, discusses circumcision at length in his letters, particularly in his letters to the Romans and the Galations.; 6/28/15, 8:54 PM
John henry said...: this may be interesting:

Today, the leadership of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America issued the following statement:

AT-M Ad
“In response to the decisions announced today by the United States Supreme Court with reference to the issue of legal recognition of same sex marriage, we reiterate the historical position of the Jewish faith, enunciated unequivocally in our Bible, Talmud and Codes, which forbids homosexual relationships and condemns the institutionalization of such relationships as marriages. Our religion is emphatic in defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. Our beliefs in this regard are unalterable. At the same time, we note that Judaism teaches respect for others and we condemn discrimination against individuals.

(Emph added JRH)

It is one thing to go after Christian churches. Is govt (ie Demmies) really going to go after their most loyal monetary contributors?

Sounds like they are throwing down the gauntlet. Good for them.

John Henry; 6/28/15, 8:56 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: It's in Acts 10.

9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

Catholics depend on Church teaching more than the literal words from the Bible. Apostolic succession gives them special insight on God's will. Protestants are more likely to biblical literalists, because they don't have the authority of Apostolic succession. I'm Lutheran, which puts me sort of in the middle. Christ is the living word, so the literal words of the Bible are not the last word.; 6/28/15, 8:57 PM
hombre said...: Althouse: "I know Paul said something else." (8:46)

The old, "It was only Paul" game played by the Christianish social justice crowd, eh? Really? Try 2 Timothy 3:16.

Those verses quoting Jesus out of context don't mean what you think they mean.; 6/28/15, 9:04 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: The Samaritan thing is pretty funny. The Jews get carried away to Babylon to be slaves. They get back to Israel generations later and find people living there.
Jew: What are you doing here? This is Jewish land!
Samaritan: It's okay! We're Jews too!
Jew: No you aren't! We were all taken away to Babylon!
Samaritan: I guess not, cuz we're Jews and we're still here.
Jew: You've got a penteteuch?
Samaritan: Sure! It's even better than yours!
Jew: You mean it's different? Then you're not a Jew!
Samaritan: Yes I am!; 6/28/15, 9:05 PM
Ann Althouse said...: I know what's in Acts, Terry, but I was talking about Jesus, acknowledging something I know is there. It's the most difficult statement of his, and we're all lost if it's not overridden. I assume Christianity would not have been passed down to us without Paul's helpful, Anthony-Kennedy-like interpretation.; 6/28/15, 9:13 PM
n.n said...: John:

Judaism (Christianity, Islam)... Our religion is emphatic in defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. Our beliefs in this regard are unalterable. At the same time, we note that Judaism teaches respect for others and we condemn discrimination against individuals.

Integrity and conscience. Good for them. Pro-choice is a reprehensible doctrine. Let's see if "equal", "no labels", etc. will have an epiphany, or if they will conceive of a legitimate (i.e. principled) argument to deny others the same rights. They haven't yet.; 6/28/15, 9:19 PM
averagejoe said...: Douglas Kelley, chief psychologist charged with studying Nazi war criminals before the Nuremburg trials: “I am quite certain that there are people even in America who would willingly climb over the corpses of half of the American public if they could gain control of the other half.”

We seem to be witnessing the climb of that half of the population at this time.; 6/28/15, 9:22 PM
Skyler said...: I don't need a bible to understand that homosexuality is perverse. It's a definition thing. Perverse as a definition is homosexuality. It's just a simpler way to say "homosexual." Perverse can also refer to other unnatural things, but the main meaning is homosexuality.

Having a son or relative might make it harder to acknowledge that fact, but it doesn't change the fact.

We don't need to beat up homosexuals, but mocking them is perfectly fine in my book. I would really like to go back to the day when such perversions were kept to oneself. I simply cannot believe that soon my daughter will be getting taught that our government requires us to approve of this behavior.

The more I see of these political agendas and associated shenanigans that succeed all the way to the Supreme Court despite overwhelming disapproval, even in California, the less I'm inclined to want to cater to political correctness. I've always been polite to perverts, but I don't know that I will be so inclined from now on.; 6/28/15, 9:33 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Maybe Romans chapters 2 & 3?

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.; 6/28/15, 9:38 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Dante, Inferno, Canto III:

Through Me Pass into the Painful City,
Through Me Pass into Eternal Grief,
Through Me Pass among the Lost People.
Justice Moved My Master-Builder:
Heavenly Power First Fashioned Me
With Highest Wisdom and with Primal Love.
Before Me Nothing Was Created That
Was Not Eternal, and I Last Eternally.
All Hope Abandon, You Who Enter Here.

In Dante's Hell people suffer terribly, but none of the damned souls ever utters so much as a single word of regret for the sin that put them in Hell. The souls in purgatory express regret for their sins, but not the souls in Hell. At the core of the Comedy is the concept of free will. Every soul is where it is because of choices it knowingly made. If your soul is eternal, and you choose not be saved, you have to go where souls go when they choose not to be saved. Hell was created out of love and wisdom. That's why Dante called it Comedy.; 6/28/15, 9:49 PM
Meade said...: Thanks, Terry.; 6/28/15, 10:02 PM
LakeLevel said...: Blah blah religion, blah blah morality. Lets face it, this whole thing is about lawyers making more money. Hey gays, you can now sue for common law palimony. Leave your partner now and get tons of money. And think about two women suing each other for divorce: The lawyers will get all the money. Ha, suckers.; 6/28/15, 10:02 PM
Anonymous said...: I would read the New Testament, read the Gospels over and over until you internalize the Jesus instinct, and take that to heart. There's something that transcends all the details of the particulat rules, even though Jesus didn't say he was overruling the rules.

I think that makes sense even for non-Christians.

Christ was pretty clear about marriage.

Jesus replied. 6“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’a 7‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,b 8and the two will become one flesh.’c So they are no longer two, but one flesh.; 6/28/15, 10:32 PM
Etienne said...: The Jews were actually pretty smart. It was found that anal sex, and sex with animals led to all sorts of health issues. Then men would come in after not washing their penis all day, and expect the wife to be all excited. So they figured out that if you circumcised the brute, that it solved all the smegma problems.

Course the Arabs spending way too much time in the desert, and their four wives wanting sex every day, figured out if you circumcised three of them, they would spend more time making blankets. Not really a smegma problem, but it did reduce their playing with themselves all day with dirty hands.; 6/28/15, 10:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Blogger Ann Althouse said...
Jesus said; "17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18 For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
20 For I say unto you that unless your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."

I know Paul said something else.

I suspect you don't understand this passage.

Christ was teaching that you cannot work your way into the Kingdom of God. That we are all sinners. Murderers, Thieves, Homosexuals, whatever. You name it, we are all guilty.

The scribes and the pharisees thought they could keep the law and the commandments and therefore, through their righteous actions, would deserve admission into Heaven.

Christ point is, none of us deserve admission into Heaven. We all fall short. It's only through His sacrifice that we are able to bridge that gap between us and God and be saved.; 6/28/15, 10:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Blogger Ann Althouse said...
I know what's in Acts, Terry, but I was talking about Jesus, acknowledging something I know is there. It's the most difficult statement of his, and we're all lost if it's not overridden. I assume Christianity would not have been passed down to us without Paul's helpful, Anthony-Kennedy-like interpretation.

Paul didn't interpret anything. He wrote down what the Holy Spirit had him write down.; 6/28/15, 10:39 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: "The Jews were actually pretty smart. It was found that anal sex, and sex with animals led to all sorts of health issues."
I think that the important thing about religious rules, Coupe, is that they not make sense. If the Jewish laws were so healthy to follow, why were there so few Jews? Wouldn't a law to cook pork thoroughly before eating it make more sense than a law not to eat pork at all? Christians threw out the dietary laws, and they prospered. This is a really interesting topic, though. Most Jews of Caesar's time were, I think, very poorly educated. They had to learn the laws through rabbis, rather than reading Leviticus themselves. Hebrew was not a vernacular tongue in Caesar's Palestine, at least I don't think that it was. The exchanges in the NT between Christ and the clerics I find fascinating, because the only authority Christ could claim to refute their words was as a prophet or messiah.
Also I have always been curious about Matthew 5:17. First Christ says he has come in fulfillment of the Law, and then he says the Law will not pass away until it is fulfilled. Maybe it is a translation issue.; 6/28/15, 11:12 PM
hombre said...: Althouse: "I know what's in Acts, Terry, but I was talking about Jesus, acknowledging something I know is there. It's the most difficult statement of his, and we're all lost if it's not overridden. I assume Christianity would not have been passed down to us without Paul's helpful, Anthony-Kennedy-like interpretation"

Acts has nothing to do with it. "We're lost if it's not overridden." Who is going to override it, the Supreme Court? We're not talking about the Arizona State Legislature, we're talking about Jesus!

"... the most difficult statement of his." Try John 3:18 or 14:6.

You "know [it's] there?" What do you think you're talking about.

"Paul's helpful Anthony-Kennedy-like interpretation?" Paul and Kennedy? Paul was a Pharisee inspired by Jesus. Kennedy is a maudlin, fallen Catholic. There is no basis for comparison.

My God. Your combination of arrogance and ignorance is mind-boggling. You can't be serious. You are just pulling our chains, right? Or are you channeling Bishop Spong?; 6/28/15, 11:23 PM
hombre said...: Terry: "First Christ says he has come in fulfillment of the Law, and then he says the Law will not pass away until it is fulfilled. Maybe it is a translation issue."

He speaks of fulfilling the "Law and the Prophets." It is important not to separate the two and also to note that in the verses following, Jesus clarifies the law, i.e., "You have heard that it was said,.... But I say to you ...."

Also, Jesus's life, ministry and his interpretation of the law complete and clarify God's intent and the meaning of the OT. Hence, the references to the "New Covenant" in Luke and in Paul's letters. Essential to understanding the distinctions here is understanding the rabbinical distinctions between "light" commandments and "weighty" commandments and the impact of Jesus's clarifications and the New Covenant on their applicability to Jesus's followers.; 6/28/15, 11:44 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: You don't have to go to Paul. You can read further into Matthew. When you get to chapter 19, the "Who then can be saved?" question is asked amd answered by Jesus.

If you are to save yourself, you must be perfect. Good luck. Or you can forget saving yourself and follow Jesus. Then He will save you.; 6/29/15, 12:35 AM
Gahrie said...: There's something that transcends all the details of the particulat rules, even though Jesus didn't say he was overruling the rules.

Here we have the sumation of Althouse's political, judicial and religious beliefs:

Transcendence.

She believes she has found the essential truth, and if you ignorant rubes would just listen to her, you can too. Stop paying attention to the actual meaning of words, and look for the truth beyond them. In other words, feeling over thought, emotion over reason.; 6/29/15, 3:11 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "You don't have to go to Paul. You can read further into Matthew. When you get to chapter 19, the "Who then can be saved?" question is asked amd answered by Jesus. If you are to save yourself, you must be perfect. Good luck. Or you can forget saving yourself and follow Jesus. Then He will save you."

That's why I said "There's something that transcends all the details of the particular rules, even though Jesus didn't say he was overruling the rules."

And Jesus did also say "You must be perfect."

We can't do it, but there's another way, and I think within that way, you could find the answer to the serious question I was trying to answer: ""Prof. Althouse, What do you think of Christians (and Jews and Muslims) whose scriptures say that homosexual conduct is sin? I am such a person, and I sometimes wish I could wish away those verses, but I can't. I'm not someone who "hates," (as the ubiquitous "lovewins" implies) -- I have gay friends and relatives who I love very much -- but someone who is a good faith believer who can't get around the scriptural boundaries I believe God has imposed. Even if I wish He hadn't. Is it fair for others not sharing my Christian faith to label me a bigot and hater? Are they right? I honestly am asking. Is scriptural Christianity now a form of hate speech?"; 6/29/15, 6:17 AM
CStanley said...: We can't do it, but there's another way, and I think within that way, you could find the answer to the serious question I was trying to answer

The problem is that your solution creates a scandal for a believer. On the one hand, yes, we believe that all of us sin and only Jesus' sacrifice can save us from the conseuences of that. But it is a different thing altogether to ask us to profess that the sin then doesn't exist at all or is inconsequential.

And basically your response to that person implies that we can only be allowed on the "Love Train" if we subject ourselves to that scandal. This is exactly what we are worried about with respect to religious liberty going forward from this decision.; 6/29/15, 7:14 AM
Laura said...: I don't know why you so-called progressives don't start outlawing arranged marriages, marriages of covenience, and loveless marriages now that the definition of "marriage" has been changed and love wins.

Have you provided the courthouse with proof of love today? Natural children don't count since not every modern marriage can produce them, and we will be reviewing your marriage periodically to see if you've met current government standards.

Fun game you started there.; 6/29/15, 7:18 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "But it is a different thing altogether to ask us to profess that the sin then doesn't exist at all or is inconsequential."

Where did I ask that?

Consider how Jesus handled the case of adultery he was presented with. He didn't say adultery wasn't a sin.; 6/29/15, 7:27 AM
Ann Althouse said...: I think Jesus called us to love.

Consider the example set by the family of the victims of the Charleston massacre.; 6/29/15, 7:29 AM
SeanF said...: "No way! Why should I change? He's the one who sucks."
--Michael Bolton, Office Space; 6/29/15, 8:01 AM
CStanley said...: Where did I ask that?

Supporting a public policy that states that there is no difference between heterosexual and heterosexual unions. If you live in a society and that is the public policy, but you are not free to express your opposing viewpoint without recrimination then your silence means consent and approval of that policy.

And of course we are called to love sinners. Why do you feel the need to lecture Christians about that? The issue is that when we love sinners but refuse to say that their behavior is not sinful, we are called haters. Perhaps you personally can see that this lack of acceptance isn't hate (frankly it is hard to discern what you think about this) but it's more than obvious that many non-Christian LGBT activists do not see it that way. I think the questioner asked a legitimate question that you skirted- can we profess our beliefs about this without being labelled as haters?; 6/29/15, 9:37 AM
Meade said...: "can we profess our beliefs about this without being labelled as haters? "

Labelled? Isn't "sinner" a label? And you want to be free to speak about what you believe to be sins, right? So, no, I don't think you can expect others to have their speech restricted while yours is free.

But why not just own the label? You: Sinner. They: Hater. You: Yes, I am a hater — I hate your behavior because I believe it to be sinful. But I'm also a lover and I love you, sinner.; 6/29/15, 10:07 AM
Meade said...: They: I love you too, hater. But don't worry — it's not that kind of love I have for you. (Not that there's anything wrong with it.); 6/29/15, 10:11 AM
Ann Althouse said...: @CStanley You haven't responded to my question, "Where did I ask that?" That was in response to your statement: "But it is a different thing altogether to ask us to profess that the sin then doesn't exist at all or is inconsequential."

I would like a straightforward response from you along the lines of: I'm sorry, you never asked us that, but I just felt as though I was being asked to do that. I really do owe you a more careful reading that perceives the respect you are showing to religious believers. I have my problems with implications I see in what you are saying, but I care that you are taking religious believers seriously and trying to mediate the conflict between the rights of gay people and the rights of religious believers.

Something like that, okay?

If you were me, would you respond to commenters who don't answer a straightforward challenge to a statement about me?; 6/29/15, 10:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Prof. Althouse, I don't agree with your interpretation of scripture, nor do at least half of the Christian thinkers in this country. Let's posit that I and those who believe like me do it in good faith. Not from animus or disgust or a desire to exclude. But a belief that God has laid out the definition of marriage and that we are not free to depart from it (even if, like I said, we wish we could). Are we hateful people? Bigots?

And let's go beyond Christians -- are orthodox Jews hateful bigots? Are Muslims hateful bigots?

Live and let live used to be considered tolerant. Loving your neighbors (even if you disagreed with their lifestyle) was admirable. Your position now is that a wrong opinion, the wrong religion, makes you the worst of our society -- a hateful, bigoted, homophobe.

And I think that's sad.; 6/29/15, 10:51 AM
gerry said...: Now that Ann's son can marry, I hope she enjoys her grandchildren. Oh, wait.... Nevermind.

Unless, of course, they (perhaps Granma and Granddad can help, too) can buy a timeshare womb and artificial insemination can generate a grandchild. Now, true, this is not that different than owning slaves and having children by them and then trafficking the children for your own amusement and pleasure (like Elton John, when he bought a child). Of course, the child will very likely know nothing about biological mommy or daddy (depending upon which gender the SSM "marriage" is), or their heritage or history, but that's also just like slavery here in the old U.S., since slaves here were basically stripped of their history and heritage, as well. Nice going, Progressives: you'll revive something we thought we'd outlawed 150 years ago, and all as unintended consequences.

It's kind of nice the way Progressives are making this work out: you force a legal definition upon coupling that is sterile and cannot produce offspring, but which can exploit less wealthy individuals to produce children, and only for a few thousand dollars!; 6/29/15, 11:02 AM
gerry said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/29/15, 11:07 AM
gerry said...: And, I forgot: African-Americans support the Progressive agenda, so, ironically, they will be supporting a new slave trade: the sale of children to wealthly, sterile couples who can, in their pretend marriages, have real, live, DNA-related, bought and paid-for, offspring!; 6/29/15, 11:14 AM
Meade said...: The problem with progressivism is that you eventually run out of other people's money shots.; 6/29/15, 11:21 AM
CStanley said...: I would like a straightforward response from you along the lines of: I'm sorry, you never asked us that, but I just felt as though I was being asked to do that. I really do owe you a more careful reading that perceives the respect you are showing to religious believers. I have my problems with implications I see in what you are saying, but I care that you are taking religious believers seriously and trying to mediate the conflict between the rights of gay people and the rights of religious believers.

I do in fact care that you have some interest in mediating, but feel that you are not at all capable of doing that unless you are willing to see why Christian believers feel that there is a conflict. My response was straightforward, in that I was explaining why we feel we are being asked to profess something that is antithetical to our beliefs. The only kind of apology I can honestly give for my response is the squishy kind where I say I'm sorry if you saw some accusation in my response. It was an attempt to explain why I feel that I'm being challenged to profess something that violates my conscience. I'm not accusing you but I am trying to point out that you really have put the challenge to us even if not in so many words, and even if you don't realize you are doing it.

You may not have asked it in those words, but you've been goading and challenging ever since the decision came down. For instance, if we "board the "Love Train", can we get on if our idea of love is different than yours? And while were riding down the tracks can we have debates where we actually explain our POV, and will that be heard with the respect you claim that you hold? Would you tell your fellow passengers to STFU if they shout us down? Will you cry because we are hurting people's feelings if we refuse to say that their marriages mean the same thing to us as our own?

Because I would like to think that you'd respect both sides and stand up for the maximum expression of individual conscience, but I haven't seen that kind of capacity for mediation in evidence.

As for whether or not. I would respond if I were you: it doesn't matter what I would do, it's completely up to you whether you want to respond. If you felt disrespected by my comment, that wasn't my intent but it's up to you whether to believe that or not.; 6/29/15, 11:59 AM
gerry said...: The problem with Progressivism is that you eventually run out of moral means and you don't care.; 6/29/15, 1:01 PM
hombre said...: R&B (7:56 pm): "You know, for a guy who calls himself "hombre" (no longer "el hombre", because he felt feminized by the way "el" could sound like "elle") to be that concerned about what gays do in their matrimonial affairs (he was previously very concerned about their sex lives), you really have to wonder about his own internal, sexual and psychological issues."

You seem inordinately preoccupied with my sexual identity, Ritmo. Let me just say that unlike you I am a giver, not a taker and in any event am unavailable. I hope that will free you up to try to address the topics at hand.; 6/29/15, 1:02 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: "We can't do it, but there's another way, and I think within that way, you could find the answer to the serious question I was trying to answer:..."

I misunderstood what you wrote. I thought you were implying that Christians should come to the belief that homosexual acts are not sinful because other laws, such as Jewish dietary restrictions, are not binding on Christians. Or perhaps that they were binding according to Jesus, and following all of those rules would be crazy, so why follow this one? But I see that's not what you meant.

Meet everyone with love. Amen to that.; 6/30/15, 12:32 AM