Connecticut Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
posted at 2:05 pm on October 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A done deal, and given Connecticut’s deep blue electorate, one not likely to be overridden by amendment.
Probably good for McCain, though.
The Supreme Court released its historic ruling at 11:30 a.m. Citing the equal protection clause of the state constitution, the justices ruled that civil unions were discriminatory and that the state’s “understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection.”…
In a statement released minutes after the decision was announced, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she disagreed with it, but uphold it. She said she was proud to sign the state’s civil unions law in 2005, the first in the nation enacted without a court mandate, and thought it was “equitable and just.”
“The Supreme Court has spoken,” Rell said. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution — will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling.”…
The opposition will now turn its sights to the November election, when voters will be asked whether the state should convene a constitutional convention. “Connecticut voters will have one opportunity on Nov. 4 to reassert their right to self government. We must vote yes.”
Here’s the opinion. Skip ahead to page 21 for the crux of it, declaring gays a “quasi-suspect class” for purposes of the state’s equal protection jurisprudence. What “class” you are pretty much determines as a rule whether you can be discriminated against by law; if you belong to a class that’s “suspect,” i.e. historically powerless and persecuted, then the legislature has virtually no leeway against you. The Connecticut Supremes decided they couldn’t call gays a fully “suspect” class because the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t declared them that (yet), so they opted for “quasi-suspect” based on four factors: (1) historic discrimination, (2) whether sexual orientation is related to one’s ability to contribute to society (this is here to give the state extra power to regulate the disabled), (3) immutability of sexual orientation, i.e. is it a choice or is it inborn and thus unchangeable, and (4) whether gays lack political power, which starts on page 28 and is the most interesting section of the four.
All in all, the analysis is similar to the California Supreme Court’s, which also used an equal protection argument to strike down their state’s marriage statute. The fatal blow for gay marriage opponents is the fact that the state already allows civil unions for gay couples; I think laypeople look at that and assume that that means the state, having acted in good faith, will be given the benefit of the doubt when gays inevitably sue for full marriage rights, but as I’ve tried to explain before, it doesn’t work that way. To discriminate by law, you need a good reason. Admitting that gays should be entitled to all the same rights as married couples but not the label of “marriage” itself forces the court to conclude that the distinction is purely semantic, and semantics simply ain’t good enough as a “good reason.” From page 62:
Although we acknowledge that many legislators and many of their constituents hold strong personal convictions with respect to preserving the traditional concept of marriage as a heterosexual institution, such beliefs, no matter how deeply held, do not constitute the exceedingly persuasive justification required to sustain a statute that discriminates on the basis of a quasi-suspect classification. ‘‘That civil marriage has traditionally excluded same-sex couples—i.e., that the ‘historic
and cultural understanding of marriage’ has been between a man and a woman—cannot in itself provide a [sufficient] basis for the challenged exclusion. To say that the discrimination is ‘traditional’ is to say only that the discrimination has existed for a long time. A classification, however, cannot be maintained merely ‘for its own sake’ [Romer v. Evans, supra, 517 U.S. 635]. Instead, the classification ([that is], the exclusion of gay [persons] from civil marriage) must advance a state interest that is separate from the classification itself [see id., 633, 635]. Because the ‘tradition’ of excluding gay [persons] from civil marriage is no different from the classification itself, the exclusion cannot be justified on the basis of ‘history.’ Indeed, the justification of ‘tradition’ does not explain the classification; it merely repeats it. Simply put, a history or tradition of discrimination—no matter how entrenched—does not make the discrimination constitutional . . . .’’ (Citation omitted.) Hernandez v. Robles, supra, 7 N.Y.3d 395 (Kaye, C. J., dissenting)…It is only because the state has not advanced a sufficiently persuasive justification for denying same sex couples the right to marry that the traditional definition of marriage necessarily must be expanded to include such couples. If the defendants were able to demonstrate sufficient cause to deny same sex couples the right to marry, then we would reject the plaintiffs’ claim and honor the state’s desire to preserve the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In the absence of such a showing, however, we cannot refuse to follow settled equal protection jurisprudence merely because doing so will result in a change in the definition of marriage.
Exit question: Time to start talking about Obama’s judicial appointments?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 17 Next »
I do, and it frustrates me as well. However, language is a creature of evolution. It’s inevitable. Culture shapes and molds it, and you have every right to do your part to maintain definitions as you see fit. Your desire to see words stay the same, though, does not override the right of churches to practice their religion as they see fit. If they want to recognize a marriage twixt same-sex couples, that’s their business, not yours. Don’t like it? Don’t join their church. Pretend they’re not really married. Don’t recognize it as an actual religion. You have all the rights in the world to ignore it, and trust me, people like me completely understand. I’m not begrudging anyone their dislike of gay marriage. I’m conflicted on it myself, in terms of actual spirituality. However, I am not conflicted on its’ place in the land of the free.
Tolerance continues to be tolerance. When they start impeding your rights, you be sure and let me know and I’ll be right there next to you. I remain a virulent opponent of hate crimes legislation and other anti-free speech and anti-free thought movements. However, this is not one of those.
MadisonConservative on October 11, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Actually, I never did try this before, so I hope you’re speaking collectively. Otherwise, you’ve got me confused with someone else. Don’t mistake me for some anti-religious zealot.
As it is, I’m not going to get into picking the Bible apart on this thread because it’s a long, involved discussion and there’s already one going on which is far more relevant to the topic. I will only repeat what I have said: If the Bible isn’t up for interpretation, why are there so many different faiths based on it?
MadisonConservative on October 11, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Its not inevitable. The concept of liberating tolerance is a revolutionary idea that was introduced to America in the ’30s by German Marxist intellectuals – the Frankfurt school.
aengus on October 11, 2008 at 11:30 AM
The desert cult that most posters here seem to believe in has the male godhead making a son with no intervening female so deviantl sexual behavior seems to be a religious norm. (Remember that the son existed, according to the myth, for eternity with the father long before the surrogate human mother.)
/sarc
The real solution to end this foolish debate would be to get the state out of the marriage business altogether and leave it to those cults who wish to engage in such things. The only real interest the government should have in such affairs is the protection of the children. Any benefits offered for children would be funneled through the official guardian, usually the father or mother, chosen at birth or the moment of adoption.
Annar on October 11, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Isn’t our western world one developed by followers of the desert cults? Why can’t “they” have their own society based upon their own rules? The solution you offer might be suitable, best and even appropriate. But why not go someplace else where most want want you suggest?
I’m wondering if the days of openly challenging the preferences of the Judeo-Christian ethic have run their course? Perhaps the apogee of their tolerance for other ideas has been reached.
JiangxiDad on October 11, 2008 at 12:32 PM
This time period is going to be remembered as the high tide mark of most liberal/socialist/multicultural movements. I told JohnAGJ that months ago, but he doesn’t believe me. It’s down hill for them after they crest, and I suspect Obama will be the crest.
DFCtomm on October 11, 2008 at 12:40 PM
There are many that have been pointed to. Here are a few:
–What were the last words of Jesus?
–Who first entered the tomb on Easter morning?
–How long after the resurrection did Jesus ascend?
dedalus on October 11, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Thanks, MC. I believe we must be vigilant in defense of our freedoms, and I appreciate your commitment in that regard.
It seems that we view this phenomenon differently, since I think this is a case of manipulating language in a deliberate attempt to manipulate truth, and not so much mere evolution. Did I understand you right? Commenters more sophisticated than I are probably familiar with historical or literary references to changing language to manipulate (rather than merely reflect) the culture. Perhaps Newspeak from Orwell’s 1984 is the reference that I am looking for.
SheofTwoMinds on October 11, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Yes I know what you meant. But you are looking at this thing backwards! Gays already had all the protection of the law that they were seeking. They already had it! And rightly so.
So then, what was this suit about? Forget those folks trying to prove this by the scriptures… That never convinces anyone who doesn’t believe your own interpetations. Look at the reality of what these judges did and what happened in California.
The court knowing that the battle over rights was already won–went a step further and mandated societal, and therefore, religious acceptence of these relationships as equal with the time honored–and not to be pushed aside lightly–institution of marriage.
And this on a currently trendy, but not at all settled, life-style. They went against all common law on the subject. They ignored thousands and thousands of years of history and human nature. No substansive human culture has ever recognized homosexual relationships as equal to the marriage relationship. And in fact all history points to very very few long lasting homosexual relationships at all, especially among men.
The court did this to inflict their personal religous beliefs on society. They want to damage organized religon because they see it as a plague on society. They want to butt into my church doctrine and change it so it suits their single generational beliefs about homosexuality. One generation of humans, that is all that accept this. One generation.
What an abuse of power. What a mettleing in the lives of Americans. This is wrong.
petunia on October 11, 2008 at 1:04 PM
We agree that terms are changing. However, you see it as more deliberate and, it seems to me, almost sinister. I see it as just a component of our culture which changes as the culture changes. I also believe that the majority of gay couples who are interested in marriage have absolutely no interest in any agenda. There is no doubt that there are activists, lobbyists, and politicians who want to profit by legalized gay marriage in one way for another. However, combating their self-interest is secondary to something which I think is beneficial to marriage as an institution.
After all, marriage rates are down. Divorce rates are up. If anything, I see the prospect of two adults wanting to make a spiritual commitment as a good thing, no matter who they are. There was a time not long ago where inter-racial marriage was looked down upon, and I can tell you from personal experience that there are people today who still see that as an affront. If people want to keep the institution going rather, than see it die with the growing number of narcissistic people my age who like being able to walk away whenever a dispute arises because they’re lazy, weak-willed little brats, I applaud them.
However, that’s just my take on it. I see something sinister in the minority of the people we’re discussing, not the majority, and I far more care about the latter than the former. I don’t judge liberals I meet as if they are George Galloway just because he’s the loudest and most hateful example of their number. I treat them as individuals, and in most cases, I find that their beliefs are rooted in basic principles about how they think life would be best lived. I treat homosexuals who want to be married with the same benefit of the doubt, especially if they are serious about the matter. Anyone who wants to buck the culture as it exists and commit to a spiritual commitment which requires sacrifice, compromise, and love is fine by me.
MadisonConservative on October 11, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Some churches practice according to that belief. Saint Paul is perhaps more instructive on the topic in Corinthians: “To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.”
U.S. law differs from Saint Paul by recognizing remarriage after divorce with equal legal standing as other marriages. There is some disagreement, even among Christians, over what is a valid heterosexual marriage.
dedalus on October 11, 2008 at 1:14 PM
That’s a very good question.
The answer is: Just because there are many denominations does not mean that the original Church with the correct interpretations does not exist.
It does exist. It is the Orthodox Church. It is the Church established by the 12 Apostles and the Faith, The Holy Scripture and the correct interpretations have been passed down through a continuous line of Apostolic Succession for nearly 2,00 years. The Orthodox Church wrote the Bible and the correct interpretations are readily available.
The brief version of the history of the Church is as follows: Christ established the Church. For 1,000 years the Church remained united until eventually the king of spain decided to change the Filioque that was established in 325AD(changing the Filoque is a big deal because in spiritual reality..the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father not the Father and the Son) and eventually the Bishop of Rome decided that he should have all of the power and he sent a letter of excommunication to the Patriarch of Constantinople because they refused to acknowledge the Bishop’s unjustifiable power grab.
The Roman Catholic’s changed a vital piece of Christian Theology and willfully split from the Original Church that Christ established.
After hundreds of years the Roman Catholics changed more theology and were acting very cruel to the lay people…thus forcing the Protestants to organize and split from the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunately the Protestants, in a reactionary way, abandoned too much of the Faith and Traditions passed down by the Apostles and decided that sola scriptura was the way in which to do so.
Unfortunately this is why we have the problem in which you are talking about…numerous conflicting personal interpretations of Holy Scripture.
They took the Holy Bible which was compiled by the Orthodox Church…but left the interpretatons, without which a million different and conflicting personal interpretations followed. You obviously cannot have conflicting interpretations of Christian theology…somebody is right and somebody is wrong.
Now this is not to say that Roman Catholics and Protestants are not Christians…obviously they are Christian…but that does not mean that they have all the right interpretations and that does not mean that they do not have more to learn.
When you learn the Holy Scriptures WITH the correct interpretations from the original Apostolic Church…you will be amazed. You will find that it is a less cruel theology and a more mystical one.
I hope that this clears up your questions and doubt and I hope you will decide to study this issue and leave your agnosticism behind.
SaintOlaf on October 11, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Because of no-fault divorce.
Even if homosexual marriage were instituted universally, no-fault divorce would still be available – for heterosexuals and homosexuals.
aengus on October 11, 2008 at 1:18 PM
So the United States is forcing you to think a certain way, is it? Funny, but there seems to be a lot of different people with some very different views and beliefs, and the government can’t do a damn thing to change it. Kinda ruins your argument. If you choose to see gay marriage as real marriage, that’s your right. If you choose otherwise, that’s also your right. You let me know when the government will fine or arrest you for thinking the way you want. We have concrete examples of that in countries right next door. When you provide the date and time of your indictment, I will personally donate to your legal defense fund. Until then, please, quit being a drama queen.
MadisonConservative on October 11, 2008 at 1:20 PM
So you would prefer forcing some straight people to stay in some bad marriages rather than let some gay people create some good marriages?
MadisonConservative on October 11, 2008 at 1:22 PM
There is no contradiction here Madison with other Scripture in the Bible telling us we cannot trust our own hearts. You’re using Psalm 4:4 out of context and making it say something it doesn’t say. The Bible clearly teaches “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9). This same passage ends by saying, “who can know it?” The fact is that one cannot even trust his own conscience. Only God’s Word gives fully reliable counsel. Here’s the whole passage — all of Psalm 4:4:
“Stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still. Selah.” Psalm 4:4
In context, Psalm 4 (not just verse 4) is an evening prayer for the deliverance from distress. Selah. This word, indicates a pause for reflection and it’s mentioned 71 times in the Book of Psalms. We are to search out our hearts and make sure that our desires and aspirations are more and more conformed to Christ’s way, and not our own:
“I call to remembrance my song in the night: I commune with mine own heart: and MY SPIRIT MADE DILIGENT SEARCH.” Psalm 77:6
We are to scrutinize our own hearts using the Holy Spirit. The Lord Jesus very much longs to commune with us, and we do this in prayer. That’s what Psalm 4:4 means. So instead of taking our moral guide of what feels good and seems natural, we need to look to the Word of God because the Bible says the human heart is “deceitfully wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9) and therefore it can’t be trusted. It will deceive us. So what we must do is look to the Word of God. To look to His judgments because the Bible says, “the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.” Psalm 19:9
“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Proverbs 14:12
I hope that this helps you.
apacalyps on October 11, 2008 at 1:25 PM
With all due respect, I was expecting that argument from you. Of course you think your church’s interpretation is the proper one. That goes for every follower of Christianity. That doesn’t prove anything.
I would like to leave my agnosticism behind as well. However, no offense, but someone telling me that their church is the one that got the Bible right is not going to win me over. I appreciate your explanation.
MadisonConservative on October 11, 2008 at 1:25 PM
I’d think people should be able to apply for divorce if they are in an abusive or hopeless situation. One could repeal no fault divorce while still allowing for extenuating circumstances.
In any case if your goal was merely to repair the state of society you’d accept this solution but (I suspect) you’re actually just using this line of reasoning as a handy argument to promote homosexual marriage.
In any case, its not an either/or ultimatum when it comes to nao-fault divorce and homosexual marriage.
aengus on October 11, 2008 at 1:32 PM
From an article linked in the Headlines:
aengus on October 11, 2008 at 1:34 PM
You think Christians should wait until after they’ve been silenced or arrested to oppose these laws but why should they? The government is already interfering in Catholic adoption agencies in Boston. Its already begun.
aengus on October 11, 2008 at 1:36 PM
If you can’t see brain washing especially of children for what it is you are beyond help. You keep saying that you will be the first to help protect religious freedom if you see it challanged. I have presented you with evidence as have others… you continue to see church and religon as the villan instead of the courts.
What religion has the power to teach children that homosexuality is sin if the parents don’t want them to learn that?
But government now has the power to teach children that homosexuality is not sin whether the parents want them to or not. In fact the government now has the power to teach children that what their parents teach them is hate speech.
Government has the power. You are siding with the powerful against the weak.
And yes the California and Conn. court has engaged in thought control. The overstepped.
Answer me. What new rights did gays gain by these two rulings? None. Other than that now it is hate speech to teach religous doctrine. That is a pretty strong right.
petunia on October 11, 2008 at 1:36 PM
God’s Law was made for homosexuals, as well as other lawbreakers:
“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” 1 Timothy 1:8-10
God opposes all fornication and that includes promiscuous heterosexuals as well. The Bible tells us that “No whoremonger…hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God” (Ephesians 5:5). Very important.
apacalyps on October 11, 2008 at 1:38 PM
WATCH THIS ALL OF THIS (especially if you’re gay):
The Way of the Master – How to Witness to Gays – Episode 20
apacalyps on October 11, 2008 at 1:43 PM
In my opinon this experiment with divorce has been disasterous for our society. But I still would not repeal the right to divorce.
And where is there any historical proof that homosexual marriage will be happy and sucessful? When we have 100 years of at least half of homosexual civil unions that last and bring happiness. Then let’s take the next step and call them marriage in law.
There is nothing to base this generation’s jump into remaking society. No history. No law. No example of sucess other than stories made up by promoters of this new doctrine of marriage that is hoisted on us and our children.
petunia on October 11, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Paul is saying that divorce and remarriage is a sin, and that people shouldn’t do this. Whether some marriages conform to church teachings better than others is not the point I am trying to make.
Several commenters here have expressed this more clearly than I have, but my argument is not at all about defining marriage in a way that conforms to various religious teachings. It is that a marriage joins a male and a female. If we join males with no females, females with no males, humans with non-humans, then we should call it something other than marriage because it is not a marriage.
If we wish to define a relationship according to the feelings people have for each other instead (”Love makes a family”), then call it something other than marriage.
I believe it would be more accurate to define marriage as a subset of a more general classification of relationships.
SheofTwoMinds on October 11, 2008 at 1:58 PM
In case any one does not understand this…
The reason why this is such a hot button issue is because GAY MARRIAGE WILL LEAD TO HATE CRIME LAWS AND HATE CRIME LAWS WILL BE IMPOSED ON CHURCHES AND CHRISTIANITY WILL EVENTUALLY BY OUTLAWED AND OR INVOLUNTARILY CHANGED BY THE STATE!!!
SaintOlaf on October 11, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Man, who has free will is the problem, not GOD. Satan’s deceptions play into this as well. Tell me, are there any absolutes in this world?
apacalyps on October 11, 2008 at 2:14 PM
On a banner stretched across the lobby in our local HS are words to this effect:
WATCH WHAT YOU SAY. 10% OF YOUR CLASSMATES MAY BE GAY.
It’s not a literal quote. I saw it last year and forgot the exact words.
This is gov’t interference imo.
JiangxiDad on October 11, 2008 at 2:22 PM
absolutely none…just the opposite in fact…as kurtz says:
link
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 2:23 PM
To all those who argue against gay marriage from religious grounds: See US Constitution Amendment 1 and all subsequent court rulings. Religious arguments for a basis in law are null and void. Thank you, come again.
For those asking why this matters, I reiterate:
Marriage is a legal contract with privileges granted by the State: Tax breaks, inheritance, decision-making for a spouse, child custody, etc. All this and more are why gay couples want the right to marry. It’s why we want the Federal right to marry.
For those who say Domestic Partnerships are just as good as marriage: If they were, why even have them? Why not just let any two adults marry?
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 11, 2008 at 2:26 PM
I don’t care. Should your dislike of one group (Polyamorists/Polygamists) be used to deny the rights of another group (Homosexuals)? Tell me when that makes sense.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 11, 2008 at 2:29 PM
of course you don’t. you just want to see gay sharia imposed upon this country, in the form of hate-crime laws.
why do you HATE christians so? hmmmmm?
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 2:35 PM
you sound like a good atheist, who only thinks your own religion, atheism, should be used for law…we’ve seen how well that works out in the TERROR, the communist revolution, the gulags, etc.
because it destroys marriage, the family unit. it leads to broken homes, broken families, and we all know what happens to the crime rate when that happens.
but none of that matters to scum like you. all you care about is imposing your hate-filled agenda upon the country, and silencing christians, whom you hate with a passion.
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 2:37 PM
I don’t hate Christians, I just hate *you*.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 11, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Something else I wanna add about “the Bible isn’t up for interpretation”. Just wanted to clarify. Yes, it’s true that their are a few Scripture that are hard to understand at first glance, but remember the Bible says, “No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation,” in 2 Peter 1:20. Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. If something is confusing go to where the Bible teaches elsewhere on the same subject. You gotta check all the verses together before you get a doctrine, alright.
apacalyps on October 11, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Now Madonna can marry Sarak Palin!
profitsbeard on October 11, 2008 at 3:17 PM
I also argue against it for health reasons. Promiscuous behavior in the gay community was largely responsible for the spread of HIV in the 80’s and 90’s. Now this same behavior seems to be spreading a killer form of Staph which could be spread into the heterosexual community, and spread by the rampant promiscuity there. So male-male anal sodomy spreads disease as well and this is another reason it b 5e avoided:
Doctors Say Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Give False Impression Gay Sex is Safe
apacalyps on October 11, 2008 at 3:24 PM
If you can’t back up your claims, then I suggest don’t make your weak accusations.
That would be like someone calling you a pedophile, and then saying I don’t want to take the time to explain.
See? You make an statement, then run when challenged…like I said, last time you tried this you were skewered with facts.
right2bright on October 11, 2008 at 3:29 PM
In both California and Connecticutt the laws were already in place granting these all of these rights. And the courts acknowledged that before stating that their purpose was to get rid of the “stigma” against gays. Where does that stigma come from? Yep you’re right–religous teaching. Therefore these rulings were against religon.
NO NEW RIGHTS WERE GIVEN TO ANYBODY!!!
The only purpose of these rulings was to curtail religous teaching on homosexuality. And to make it illegal!
Summary the only reason to call the relationship between homosexuals “marriage” is to damage religon. No rights were afforded by these rulings.
petunia on October 11, 2008 at 4:01 PM
I don’t think their objective is to damage religion, specifically, but they will be more than happy to destroy religion to reach their real goal, which is acceptance. They are so needy for acceptance that they will destroy anything that stands in their way. They cannot stop until we love them, even if that love comes at the end of a
gunhate crime law.DFCtomm on October 11, 2008 at 4:25 PM
who cares? what do you plan to do about all this hate? hmmm???
unlike you gay wackos, I don’t hate anyone. but you wackos say everyone hates you…a clear case of projection!!
get back on your meds, and take off your tin-foil.
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Presented for general amusement:
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 11, 2008 at 4:50 PM
thats the best you can do? *smirk*
can’t come up with your own lines huh?
no surprise there!
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 5:24 PM
I’m sorry friend, I must be confused. Are you admitting to lacking the intelligence to read between the lines, or reading so far into the text that you can’t focus on the point?
Because if you truly feel that way about the Bible, then you’re suffering from one of the two.
leetpriest on October 11, 2008 at 5:44 PM
I’m sorry that you view marriage in that manner. I view it as a sacred union between one man and one woman.
Perhaps if you would learn a little tolerance for my point of view, we wouldn’t have such a problem with this.
For those that say that a crime towards a gay person should be considered a hate crime, why call it a hate crime? Why do we have to label it?
leetpriest on October 11, 2008 at 5:52 PM
Wow. I see that the usual suspects are just having a blast in here. Well done, AP, well done.
None of this has squat to do with the topic at hand but as you wish. You have me confused with someone else because I assure you that at no time have I defended socialism. Nor the liberalism espoused by such nutjobs as Pelosi et al. I’m not sure what you mean by multicultural, but if it has to do with the PC-ism & racialism, I share your sentiment. If this time period turns out to be their high tide mark, that sounds great to me. As for Obama, he is but Carter II.
JohnAGJ on October 11, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Why do we label such crimes likewise when it comes to race, religion, etc.? When I see you folks make a serious effort in seeking to repeal all such classifications, I’ll join you. Until then, I remain suspicious that this is nothing more than you hate dem queers. Trust me, we get it.
JohnAGJ on October 11, 2008 at 5:59 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Yeah, right. Your whole schtick is built on such animus and no, I’m not referring at all to your belief that homosexual relations are sinful.
JohnAGJ on October 11, 2008 at 6:02 PM
That could be an argument in favor of lesbian sex which has the lowest risk factors.
Marriage, whether gay or straight, would tend to reduce promiscuity and STDs.
dedalus on October 11, 2008 at 6:28 PM
That’s another made up statistic the same as with the HIV statistics..
Women get herpes all the time from lesbian sex.
SaintOlaf on October 11, 2008 at 7:09 PM
we get you too, you hate-filled wacko.
all this time and you still couldn’t come up with any good lines, man are you dumb.
did you get the ‘point’ trolling the restrooms last night?
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 7:19 PM
The mechanics of lesbian sex make HIV less likely. I don’t see how it make herpes more likely.
If the increased chance of STD is an argument against male gay sex then the reduced risk in lesbian sex would be an argument in favor of it.
dedalus on October 11, 2008 at 7:20 PM
I didn’t say HIV….I said Herpes.
Lesbians get herpes in large numbers and lesbians in addition, are far more promiscuous than heterosexual women.
SaintOlaf on October 11, 2008 at 7:24 PM
The life expectancy of such homosexual men was age 42 and nine percent lived to be 65. This compares with 75 percent of “straight”, married males who reach age 65. The lesbian life expectancy was age 46 and 24 percent reached the age of 65 compared with 85 percent of married women. Subtract three years of longevity for AIDS sufferers. The male and female life expectancy of AIDS sufferers is 39 and 43 years, respectively. Of homosexual males with AIDS only one percent reached age 65, as compared to 73 percent of married males. Nine percent of AIDS-stricken lesbians reached age 65 as compared to 85 percent of married females.
Homosexual practices have serious side-effects other than an increase in illnesses and early death for the practitioners. First, most homosexuals contract the HIV virus. As early as July of 1987, Navy Surgeon General J.A. Zimble recommended reassigning flight-crew personnel who tested positive for HIV, because of HIV’s apparent deleterious effect on the nervous system. We find interesting evidence in other statistics: death by motor vehicle accident is 18 times as likely for homosexual men as for white males; the death rate of homosexual men in other accidents is 10 times higher than it is for white males. The heart failure rate indicates both stress and the toll of disease on the cardiovascular systems of homosexual: the death rate was 22 times that of white males in the 25-54 age range. The suicide rates, homicide rates and rates of death from other causes were similarly elevated compared to statistics from any comparable group of the general public.
link
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 7:28 PM
God, if only it were true! Actually, if you want to end homosexual sex, the surest way is to encourage monogamous relationships like marriage. It’s a sure way to bring on lesbian bed death.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 11, 2008 at 7:29 PM
So don’t “go gay” and you’ll be fine. In fact, don’t go around gay people at all. If you know someone is gay, leave immediately. Do not, I repeat *not* stick around to throw religious texts or social good arguments at them. You might get AIDS from them.
Living in the same apartment complex with a long-term stable gay couple who have AIDS, I can tell you that it isn’t anything other than a pity that they have it. The drugs to suppress it take quite a toll on the body. It’s really sad, but it’s stupid and cruel to imply or outright declare their having AIDS as some sort of moral failing.
They aren’t getting married anytime soon. Mainly because they went through a lot of trouble to get all the legal workarounds in order to cover death and other decisions.
I personally am in a long-term relationship but I’m not in a rush to get married. Mainly because I still think of myself as a kid. Also if I go to my home state to live, the marriage won’t be recognized. I’m not sure of the consequences of that. It’s why I want a Federal ruling.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 11, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Lesbians may be more promiscuous. I don’t know. I’d be interested in seeing a study that normalized for age, location, income, etc. The “number of sex partners” surveys are always self-reporting and skewed by what some people what to say to pollsters.
If we were debating outlawing lesbian sex the answer would be valuable, but lesbians sex is legal and marriage would tend to reduce promiscuity and STD transmission, not increase it.
dedalus on October 11, 2008 at 7:41 PM
its obvious gay people can’t make logical arguments for gay marriage, or else they wouldn’t have to use the courts to impose their agenda upon us. they refuse to do it the democratic way via democracy.
really? well how did they get aids? how do people usually get STDs??? how do people get hepatitis C??? its usually sex or drugs… amazing. do you think they got AIDS from some guvmint conspiracy??? people in space ships going around giving people AIDS…on the orders of BOOOOOOSHH
you’re a hoot.
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 7:42 PM
talk about OBVIOUS!! wow…after you graduate elementary school, let me know.
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 7:44 PM
you want five black-robed thugs on the supreme court to impose it upon us. because you can’t convince anyone any other way.
you and your ‘friends’ are kids…spoiled little rotten kids who haven’t grown up. stuck in prepubescent stage.
pathetic.
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 7:45 PM
I really don’t know that. When the first bill failed, the people were against it, but by the second one passed, public opinion had changed.
Just like old times, eh?
Of course, when I’m in the mood anyway. As a woman I reserve the right to be fickle in that regard.
That’s true except for social conservatives in regard to social issues.
Though personally, I don’t see this as a win for limiting government interference. Even including gay marriage, the government is still telling us who’s unions will and won’t be recognized.
Until the government treats marriage like any other contract, available to all consenting adults for whatever purpose, it’s still dictating legal relationships.
Esthier on October 11, 2008 at 7:46 PM
If only the sodomite activists behind the forced serial homosexual relationship acceptance movement were tolerant of Christians or religious freedom.
Byt they aren’t. Somehow we’re supposed to “live and let live” when it comes to giving benefits to a disgusting perversion, but we’re supposed to be outraged at religious organizations who don’t buckle to government pressure to officiate acts they deem immoral.
I don’t know how you missed it so many times, but again, here is what immediately follows legalizing gay marriage:
Michelle’s site: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/27/liberals-no-to-transracial-adoptions-yes-to-homosexual-adoptions/
Article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3972376.ece
First its sodomite marriage. Then it is sodomite adoption. But remember, it doesn’t affect ME so I shouldn’t care. The fatc children are being sold down the river to sexual deviancy, well, that’s just an unfortunate unintended consequence. We meant well though. Our intentions were good. Sure, we could see where the results are going, but we aren’t bad people. It’s all Bush’s fault anyway.
BKennedy on October 11, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Absolutely right. That’s why court rulings are exactly the right place for this sort of thing. I want the gov’t *out* of my personal choices. I want more freedom, not less. For a very long time homosexual behavior and homosexuals themselves have been persecuted. That it has been happening a long time doesn’t make such persecution right or valid.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 11, 2008 at 7:55 PM
uh yeah sure…its done wonders for the market!!!
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 7:59 PM
except for christians, or anyone else who dares say or do anything gays disagree with.
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Democracies have a generally poor record of respecting the rights of minorities. If homosexuals were the majority, I wouldn’t have to appeal to law for justice. I could rely on mob justice, i.e. voting. Voting has its place, but when it results in the government making distinctions among its citizens in order to create favored classes then it has gone too far.
I am against affirmative action, hate-crime legislation, *and* any amendments to restrict marriage based on the gender of the partners. All those things discriminate unfairly in the eyes of the law.
If you can’t see the logic in the CA Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, or in the recent Connecticut ruling, then that’s your problem, not mine. Allahpundit thinks the recent ruling is logical, and so do I.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 11, 2008 at 8:00 PM
And you distort the Word for your own purposes. I believe Jesus had a name for people like you, “white-washed tombs.”
I’m sincere here. Feel free to disagree with me. It’ll only make me feel better about myself.
Ever heard of the word “semantics”? Feel free to Google. I’ll never know.
The point I’m making is that the word sodomy came about because of how people interpreted that passage. It’s because people believe that Sodom was punished for homosexuality that sodomy came to be know as anal sex.
The word sodomy came after Sodom was destroyed.
Of course that’s what it means. I’m not denying that.
Which is exactly what I said. Although “destroy” and “overthrow” are two different terms.
This is so cute. You rail against me and call me out as evil, but you obviously haven’t even read the things I posted here.
I’m aware of that. I posted the scripture myself earlier.
You’re missing a few facts.
God had already decided to destroy Sodom before the men tried to rape His angels. No where in the discussions God had with Abraham did God say the specific sin was homosexuality.
The whole city was sinful. This is a city where Lot felt it appropriate to let his two virgin daughters be raped by the entire city; the same daughters who later got him drunk to have sex with him; the same Lot who picked Sodom to settle in because of his greed.
I understand people who consider homosexuality a sin, but I don’t understand people who act as though it’s the only sin in the world. You believe God destroyed Sodom because the men of the city wanted to rape to men but see nothing wrong with a man willing to abandon his own daughters to the mob?
Esthier on October 11, 2008 at 8:02 PM
you really are a stupid piece of trash. tell that to the half a million who died in the civil war. moron.
you’re a nazi, plain and simple. but that sums up the entire gay movement.
sure you are. gays use hate crime legislation to persecute christians, as they have in CA and AZ.
I’m sure Stalin would appreciate the ‘logic’ too.
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 8:03 PM
It will help. It might not be sufficient and might have unintended consequences.
The market was going down big anyway.
dedalus on October 11, 2008 at 8:05 PM
check out Jude…
7just as (W)Sodom and Gomorrah and the (X)cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and (Y)went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an (Z)example in undergoing the (AA)punishment of eternal fire
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 8:06 PM
please, no one knows for sure. this is all a little too contrived for me. an october surprise if you will…
you can read Markman on moneycentral, he thinks its a joke, and so do those he talks to.
the market has figured this plan out, and its obvious that the market thinks its a joke.
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 8:07 PM
The market probably hasn’t figured it out given that Treasury hasn’t fully figured it out. I think this market is better understood with a behavioral finance analysis than from an efficient market analysis.
dedalus on October 11, 2008 at 8:14 PM
the market is all about what is happening next. you really should check out some financial articles.
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Can the bailout work? Fat chance
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Actually, he’s not a Catholic. In fact, he’s insulted Catholics every chance he’s had.
A man who would choose greed when it comes to settling down and would give up his daughters to a violent mob, is not righteous.
What does that have to do with public opinion?
I was talking about God’s justification for destroying it, not Jude’s belief on why it was destroyed.
Esthier on October 11, 2008 at 8:20 PM
so you don’t think Jude is the word of God huh? interesting…guess you get to pick and choose what you want for scripture!! you get a god in your own image!!
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 8:21 PM
I never said that, but don’t let that stop you.
Esthier on October 11, 2008 at 8:28 PM
so your judgement is better than God’s!!
2 Peter
7and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
oh yeah that was *just* Peter talking…wasn’t inspired…move along….Peter was a racistsexistbigotedhomophobe anyway!!
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 8:30 PM
sure you did.
do you read what you type, or do you just paste talking points?
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 8:31 PM
The market did react well on Friday to reports that Paulson would directly inject capital into banks. The Stabilization Bill made that possible.
If Treasury can work with either ICE or CME to move CDS products into an exchange traded environment it will further help.
The problems are manifold and international. There is no silver bullet.
Over time the market will reflect what will happen next. In the short term deleveraging and hedge fund redemptions can put the market into an oversold position.
dedalus on October 11, 2008 at 8:35 PM
“you folks”, what’s that supposed to mean? I find it ironic that you have such a problem with “classifications” when you yourself are creating them in the same breath (or keystroke).
“dem” in this context is african-american or southern slang for “them”. Are you trying to classify ALL southerners as rednecks that “hate queers” now? Gee you’re a class act, friend.
leetpriest on October 11, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Are you always this knee jerk?
I disagree with Peter. Throughout the Bible there is no mention of Lot actually doing anything that would constitute righteousness, but there are several things that would imply the opposite.
Nope, not quite. For the purpose of discussion I’m not assuming Jude is God’s word, and I’m also not assuming it isn’t.
For the record, not all of the New Testament is the word of God. Paul even states as much at times in his letters.
and
Esthier on October 11, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Charming. Get any spittle on your monitor as you typed this?
So, tell us again how much to don’t hate gays (all in the Name of Christ to boot).
Then again, save it. I don’t need to hear more of your lies…
JohnAGJ on October 11, 2008 at 10:24 PM
“You folks” as in religious types who oppose hate crimes legislation only when it includes gays, but are noticeably silent when it comes to other classifications such as race, religion, etc. How did you misunderstand the word “classifications”, when these type of laws do exactly that? They distinguish categories, classifications, or whatever you want to call them, that bring about enhanced punishment for deliberately targetting such folks. I even gave two examples: race and religion.
I myself am ambivalent on the whole matter of hate crimes laws in general, but this position of many social conservatives whom I speak with is rank hypocrisy. I can respect the position of someone who believes there shouldn’t be any such laws for any classes period. That is at least a consistent position and doesn’t smack of hypocrisy. I can also respect those who genuinely seek to use such laws to prevent or punish transgressors who target what is perceived as a targetted group, as long as they aren’t used as weapons against other groups.
Are you seriously trying to pull an Obama and latch onto something trivial to make an absurd charge of racism or something akin to this in the case of southerners in general? Being from the South myself, that would a stretch in the case of the latter at least. Feel free to make your case pal if you like.
JohnAGJ on October 11, 2008 at 10:52 PM
I would ask you if you are always this sanctimonious, but the answer is obvious.
of course you do! who would believe Peter, compared to one of your obvious holiness!!
oh yes you speak from on high, what did Peter know? thank you for your wisdom!
you just said it wasn’t…but whatever you say of course is holy writ!!
and only YOU are wise enough to discern what is an what is not the word of God…you are a legend in your own mind.
and a fool.
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 11:26 PM
its much better than what you ’splash’ on the monitor…ewwwwwww
again ya got nothing, except hatred, lies and BS.
you’re boring me, sonny boy. see if you can find a gay person with an ounce of intelligence…
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 11:30 PM
If you were half as smart as you think you are, you’d realize that men made the exact same decision I did. They met and decided what is and what is not the word of God. These weren’t prophets, these were just men who decided they knew God’s word.
And again, as I said, not all of the New Testament even claims to be the word of God. Paul certainly admitted as much at times.
But obviously you don’t consider the Bible the word of God. If you did, you’d take Jesus’ words seriously when He commanded us not to call each other “racca” or “fool”.
Esthier on October 11, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Male-male anal sodomy is unclean (fesces) and can cause all kinds of infections. Just ONE time of unprotected anal sex cause E. Coli infection. Arguing that we should grant marriage status to homosexuals because it reduces promiscuity.. uh, for one thing dedalus, it doesn’t address the main problem with this particular kind of sexual immorality. And what about the children raised by same-sex parents who may be more sexually promiscuous and more likely to become homosexuals? Millions of new gay teens flooding our schools and society. A whole new generation. You think gay marriage will reduce disease? There are reports of admitting to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime. Some the numbers climb to 200, 300, 500, and over 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Don’t be fooled. Gay marriage WILL NOT reduce promiscuity and STDs at all.
apacalyps on October 11, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Wow. You don’t even subscribe to the “love the sinner” ideology on this issue. You really are a full blown bigot.
Did you forget your own sins? Or do you really believe you’re better than everyone else? “For ALL have sinned” right, ALL, not just the ones who you dislike but even you. You can only be saved through grace, “not of works lest men may boast” and yet you revile God’s creation.
Esthier on October 11, 2008 at 11:34 PM
as I said, I’m not as holy as you are obviously.
get a clue, intelligence has nothing to do with sin or the lack of….pathetic.
you really are a piece of work.
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Your argument falls apart here, since heterosexuals have anal sex as well.
Esthier on October 11, 2008 at 11:42 PM
oh yes, the Lord is powerless! I mean the hubris, the arrogance..who do YOU think you are?
you’re a deceiver and a liar.
you’re right, this is much more accurate about you:
John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 11:42 PM
You’re the one arguing that it does. You’re the one claiming that homosexuals are stupid.
Again, every attack on me from you is a privilege.
Esthier on October 11, 2008 at 11:43 PM
I’ll stick with what the Bible says, and what Christianity has believed for 2000 years …..
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
but its obvious you’re much more comfortable with a god in your own image…
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 11:45 PM
reading is fundamental..I’m claiming this one is…I didn’t claim you couldn’t find one…duhhhhhhhh
‘attack’ oh yes, you’re a martyr too!! how special you are!!
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 11:46 PM
you can feel good about yourself tonight, how persecuted you’ve been, how many brownie points you get from god, for standing up to the forces of intolerance and bigotry!!
you’re a hero of your faith…whatever faith that is…
its an honor to be in the presence of such holiness..
right…
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 11:49 PM
This is ridiculous. You claim that I’m just a person and therefore can’t know God’s word, but yet when a group of men decided they do know God’s word, you say it’s God’s will.
God can’t work through me? Is God not powerful enough to work through me?
Esthier on October 11, 2008 at 11:50 PM
I didn’t know you were an apostle, or prophet!
you obviously don’t need His help….
and what ‘god’ do you serve?
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Esthier you are overreaching here. The men who compiled the Bible were very patient and took a very long time to discern the truth of it. It is not possible to interpret the Bible as approving of sodomy in any way.
aengus on October 11, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 17 Next »