Connecticut Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
posted at 2:05 pm on October 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
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 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 17 Next »
Um, the Pink Pistols have been lobbying for years for the rights of all people, not just gay people, to have guns. Since you have now shown you haven’t a damned clue what you’re talking about for, oh, the 387th time, do you want to try again?
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 2:26 PM
still stuck on stupid I see…you’re boring me sonny boy. your little tangents are idiotic and inane…but you’re good for a few laughs…thats about it.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 2:29 PM
You sure talk about medication and tin foil hats a lot for someone who claims world conspiracy theories. Is it the rich coming for us? Is it the Muslims? The Russians? The Terrorists? No, it must be the gays. That’s why they keep getting killed in most of the world, and plenty of times in this country by crazed madmen just like you. You’re the kind of mentally blasted dipstick who would praise Matthew Shephard’s death.
The ironic thing is, even while you would cheer such a disgusting crime, it’s your cheering that brings on hate crime legislation, and then it’s voices like mine who have to fight to get rid of that legislation. You’re working against your own cause, you worthless puddle of used douche.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 2:30 PM
I was wondering when some wacko was going to bring that up!! like you care about all the christians being killed all over the world…truth is you enjoy it when christians are enslaved and murdered for their faith
you disgusting piece of trash.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 2:32 PM
I’ll take that as a no. Feel free to read up and come back with more conspiracy theories about how the Pink Pistols don’t fit in. Maybe they’re not really gay? Maybe they’re a front group? Maybe I’m making them up altogether? Who knows? Tune in next post for another exciting bit of demented fantasy from right4life!
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Um, yeah, I do. I’ve also done things about it. Like host the movie Fitna when radical Muslims didn’t want the truth about their activities to be broadcast.
What the hell have you done?
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 2:35 PM
yeah the catholic adoption agency in MA was just making it up when they were forced out of the adoption business!!
just like those doctors in CA who were sued to perform procedures that went against their faith…just like the photographer in AZ who was sued by the gays..or the church in NJ because they wouldn’t let gays use their facilities…
yeah its just all part of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY…
duhhhhhhhhh moron.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 2:36 PM
oh yes you are such a hero!! such a legend in your own mind!!
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 2:37 PM
I’m done casting pearls before swine for a while…
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 2:40 PM
I must assume that my reputation has preceded me since I’ve only posted a couple of times on this thread. Nonetheless, there is no way that any of your statements apply to me.
This country was founded primarily on freedom from unrepresented taxation. Translation – taxation by legislative consent, not imposed by royal decree.
I’m not sure how that relates to this thread but I am sure that the freedoms of the First Amendment is not superseded by the Fourteenth.
There is no social benefit to sexual perversion. There is even less social benefit to hypocrisy no matter what its origin. Society (and social standards) exist for the furtherance of the common good, not for making moral imperatives. This is why Lawrence v Taylor was a good decision in line with existing First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment jurisprudence. No more is needed to ensure homosexuals’ freedom from persecution.
Yet it is not enough. Why?
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Speaking of Matthew Shephard’s death: It had nothing to do with his homosexuality and everything to do with him getting involved in a gambling outfit and failing to pay his debts to the boss.
Needless to say though, the Gaystapo found these facts irrelevant, a gay man was killed so it must be a HATE CRIME. The same kind of crime, oddly, that Mark Stein was brought in for. It seems PC brownshirts of all stripes subscribe to the same idea that thoughts and motives themselves are crimes long before they are acted on.
Matthew Sheppard is just a pawn for the Gaystapo to advance hate crimes legislation. Before his death they did not care about him, but once his body was cold he was a political goldmine. The Gaystapo has no scruples. The destruction of a moral society is their one and only aim, and any person who can be used to their ends, living or dead, will be incorporated and then discarded.
Gay marriage, hate crimes, lawsuits against religious organizations. It happens in the same pattern every time. It already happened in Britain and Canada. It is now coming here, one fiat at a time. If you can’t see it coming, you are either clueless or willfully ignorant.
BKennedy on October 12, 2008 at 2:42 PM
You still haven’t answered my question.
What have you done?
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 2:43 PM
And every time you use words like “Gaystapo”, the hate crime legislation proponents gain more ground. If you can’t see that, you are either clueless or willfully ignorant. Stop making it harder for people who are against hate crimes to make their case.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 2:44 PM
*Stop making it harder for people who are against hate crime legislation to make their case.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Right. That’s why the first amendment was about the freedom to express and believe as you wish without fear of persecution. Because it was all about taxes.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 2:47 PM
It’s the First Amendment because it never was a core component of the constitution. I confess I never understood why they didn’t simply incorporate the first ten amendments into the body of the constitution since it was not yet ratified when they added them in.
But history is what it is – they are amendments to the basic document. Afterthoughts, to be blunt. I cannot imagine living without them but they are afterthoughts.
And they have nothing to do with decreed taxes, which is addressed in the Declaration of Independence.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 2:53 PM
You’re thinking of the commenter Anna.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 2:57 PM
I notice that esthier has not confirmed or denied whether I was correct about her mother.
Why is that, I wonder?
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Because your question was insulting and disgusting. Only a blind fundamentalist nutjob would fail to see that.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 3:00 PM
True but I thought it was both of them. Now that you mention it, Anna is one of the “usual suspects” on the other side.
So where is she hiding? And why? Inquiring minds want to know. :)
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Oh maybe, I don’t know.
Well she doesn’t have to volunteer personal information if she doesn’t want to.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Apparently, I stand corrected on the mistaken identity. But how is my question insulting and disgusting? It was the other person who dragged her own mother into a conversation about queer sex. Sort of like Obambi and his typical white grandmother. That’s gratitude in action, huh? First you use ‘em, then you lose ‘em.
Gotta love liberals – betrayal as a art form.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 3:07 PM
You’re a sick, twisted, hatred-filled person.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 3:12 PM
You are wrong. She just recently celebrated her 29th anniversary with my father in September.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 3:17 PM
You’re not making any sense. Plus, you’re starting to sound shrill.
Anna was the one who “outed” her momma in order to try to gain some legitimacy for a point she was making. She failed in that effort but momma was outed. No going back.
I asked a question that has some relevance to this discussion but I got the identity wrong. How is that sick, twisted, or hate-filled? I’m not seeing it in me.
But it sure looks like it is there in you. Maybe you can clarify this situation.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Coming from you, that’s a comfort.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Why would she talk to you? You’ve just insulted her mother when she hasn’t even done a thing to you.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 3:21 PM
I am sorry. Please accept my apologies for my faulty memory.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Yes, I wouldn’t want to sound extreme by calling a bunch of totalitarian sodomite activists by a name suitable to their tactics.
I should instead just do the moderate thing and use the power of judicial fiat and threat of litigation backed by the unlimited resources of the US Government to silence my critics.
Gaystapo stays. It’s quite brilliant and dead on. PinkShirts just doesn’t have the same sting.
BKennedy on October 12, 2008 at 3:25 PM
How so?/ She gave me (and the net world) all of the information that I repeated. It’s an insult if I repeat what she said but it’s not an insult if she does it.
No offense but I just don’t understand how that can be.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 3:25 PM
You don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t even believe she’s an advocate of gay marriage. She’s not even here and yet you feel the need to insult her. That says a lot about you.
Her mother is a lesbian. This was something Anna had nothing to do with. Anna herself is a loving wife and mother who served this country proudly and who must raise their children often by herself because her husband is still serving this country.
Speaking like that to her is an insult to all of us.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Sorta like being whupped with a feather boa.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 3:26 PM
If you don’t understand how the connotation of your words are insulting, then I cannot explain it to you. Only, if you are a decent person in anyway, I pray to God that will you watch your words, especially when speaking of someone who has done nothing to you.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 3:27 PM
This is the second time you claim I’ve insulted Ana but you refuse to specify what is insulting.
Outing momma? Anna did that. Remembering that she did it? Same response.
Or maybe, just maybe, it was my choice of descriptive words. Well, I do not accept that behavioral choices are a political class. Lesbian sex did not produce Anna. So if momma can do either, depending on whim, than neither one is a class.
Or maybe it’s just that only queer sex devotees can decide what is appropriate. They are proud of what they do unless they aren’t proud, and then it’s insulting or hate speech.
Give it up. Not only are homosexual acts not worth defending – they aren’t defended by normal thinking people.
Now if you really want to get down to the nitty gritty, ask yourself how Anna even knows what her momma does in private. My momma lived her whole life and NEVER told me what sex she had or with whom. Surprise – good thing because I didn’t want to hear it anyway.
Defend queer sex if you want but please begin by first deciding whether it is personally insulting to be identified as a queer sex practitioner. If it is, then please shut up. If it’s not, then stop whining.
This is a serious discussion about the future of our society. It is not advanced by displaying hurt feelings and throwing tantrums.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Actually, I first came across the term in a Mike Adams column.
Btw. why is being lesbian (by definition someone who has or would like to have sex with other women) an insult? Usually that gets the standard “not that there’s anything wrong with that” tut-tutting.
Fact is, when you call homosexual tendencies what they are, there is a visceral negative reaction in your gut. Thus why most people need the “NTTAWWT” programming before they can stump for it.
BKennedy on October 12, 2008 at 3:44 PM
That’s not what she was called, and you damn well know it.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 3:47 PM
unlike you, I don’t blow my horn. oh gee you put a movie on a blog that no one ever looks at…big whoop…
tell me what did vaunted PINK PISTOLS do to defend religious freedom in all those cases I mentioned? hmmmm?? what did you do??? hmmmm???
and gay marriage will make hate crime laws look like a walk in the park.
fascist nut case.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Gaystopo…thats a good one!!
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 3:50 PM
OWW – that’s gotta hurt!
We are now getting close to real bone here. Should our society be structured so that one class has higher inherent value than another? Better question – should there be any classes recognized by the government for protection purposes? What standards should be used to establish the classes of society and what standards should be used to pick the protected classes?
Traditionally, it is oppressed classes that get government protection and all of them can be found in the First Amendment. Guess what? Unless queer sex is a religion (pr part of one), it isn’t in the First Amendment and it gets no substantive constitutional protection (its followers do get procedural constitutional protections, however).
In any event, queer sex is bad for society.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Consider education. Same-sex marriage will affect religious educational institutions, he argues, in at least four ways: admissions, employment, housing, and regulation of clubs. One of Stern’s big worries right now is a case in California where a private Christian high school expelled two girls who (the school says) announced they were in a lesbian relationship. Stern is not optimistic. And if the high school loses, he tells me, “then religious schools are out of business.” Or at least the government will force religious schools to tolerate both conduct and proclamations by students they believe to be sinful.
link
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Ahh, so by your twisted redefinition (seems to be the object of your homosexual community these days, huh?) a fundamentalist is a person that disagrees with you?
Son, regardless of who or what you choose to stick your penis into, nothing, NOTHING, gives you the right to force your belief down my throat. I don’t force you to come to my Church, I don’t invite you in my home and force you to hear anything you don’t want to hear, and I most certainly don’t come on to a public website and call you a “faggot”.
Ever since I was a kid, people have tried to force acceptance for a perverse and unnatural act on me and everyone in my generation. Just because I’ve chosen not forsake my beliefs that don’t hurt a single person in this world and become a pawn to MTV, VH1, Bravo, HBO, Showtime, and all of the other straight-hating TV networks doesn’t give you the right to use the word “fundamentalist” to describe me. Furthermore, just because I consider it harmful to subject your urethra to fecal matter, doesn’t make me a “fundamentalist”.
Now, if you can have a conversation with me without resorting to using a cop out word that every homosexual has ever used in the world to describe some one that doesn’t agree with them then so be it. Until that happens, take your heterophobic, homofundamentalism somewhere else.
leetpriest on October 12, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Maybe. So is smoking, drinking, gambling, adultery, being overweight and driving while talking on your cell phone. Is your point that individual freedom should consist of what is in the state’s best interest?
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Fixed.
leetpriest on October 12, 2008 at 4:12 PM
The government always steps in when any of these things becomes a threat to other people.
Examples:
-Public Area Smoking Bans
-DWI and DUI issuance
-Buying up thousands of domain names that could be used for gambling websites (kentucky)
-Laws against driving while talking on a cell phone
Yet nobody seems to want to do anything about a public school teacher telling a child that his or her parents are wrong, and that if you do not approve of the homosexual lifestyle in any way, form, or fashion you’re a:
-Homophobe
-Facist
-Bush-lover (no pun intended)
-Hater
-fundamentalist
-evil
-religious nut
The list goes on, and on, and on, and on.
So the question is, why should I be forced into accepting something?
leetpriest on October 12, 2008 at 4:18 PM
leetpriest corrected it for me. But the point is that none of what you listed is worthy of protection as an oppressed class (except maybe for smoking nowadays). Neither is queer sex.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Yeah. Funny how Marx keeps getting brought up as a pusher of homosexual acceptance, yet the claims are that it should be discouraged for the “common good of society”.
Militant anti-religious nuts and militant religious nuts. Barely distinguishable.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 4:20 PM
fascist fundamentalist homosexuals and fascist nut job hetero supporters…indistinguishable
you fascist piece of trash.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Nanny state fascism. Looks like you have no problem with it. Next it will be fast food, then prohibition again (that should be hilarious), then god knows what. All the while, they’ll tell government to stay out of their lives.
Stinking hypocrisy.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Not all can be found in the Constitution. Since 1787 the definition of “Protected class” has increased to include gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, and disability among other attributes.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 4:23 PM
You’re so cute. Just like Oliver Stone and JFK.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 4:23 PM
bet you say that to all the boys!!
I do like your charlie chaplin moustache….(you know the one Hitler had too! )
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 4:25 PM
So, come on. Bring it all out in the open. Since you’ve admitted to believing that there is a homosexual agenda that is looking to stick all straight people in FEMA death camps, why not tell us what you would do, if you had the power, to avert the “hetero holocaust”?
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Word. It’s the shrill fanaticism of these people (of the entire political spectrum) which makes a majority of people declare themselves “moderate.” Most people in the end don’t care about abortion or gay marriage. As long as the force of legal argument is on my side and all my opposition has is vitriol and bile, I will be confident in victory.
After that victory is secured I will go on and live my life while they stew in their hatred.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 4:31 PM
I would make sure you take your medicine, and had no access to tin-foil!!
post your proof that I said that. you cannot, but you have to lie because you can’t refute what I say, as the above link demonstrates.
all you and your gay allies have is the typical left-wing tactic of demonizing your opponents, by dehumanizing them. calling them hateful..murderers..when it is you who are the ones so full of hate for anyone who dares disagree with you hellish ideology. and it is you who wish to silence all who disagree.
its simple, no protection in law for homosexuality, no gay marriage.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 4:32 PM
but you don’t have the law…all you have is a few judges who twist the law to impose their agenda. you cannot pass a law for gay marriage other than by judicial fiat…but the ends justifies the means for intolerant, hate-filled lying nazis like you.
and you get the suppression of freedom of religion, which is what this country was founded upon…great victory there Adolph!!
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 4:34 PM
You aren’t forced to accept it. In the case of gay marriage you aren’t involved. They can already legally buy the house next door to you and raise kids there. If you think it is better if they just cohabitate I don’t see the practical advantage.
One doesn’t have to accept gays anymore than one has to accept interracial couples, though if you run a commercial business there are anti-discrimination laws that vary by state.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Brave New World, eh? (that’s for everyone else, since I have a feeling you haven’t the triple-digit IQ to understand the reference)
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 4:35 PM
as Orwell said:
One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 4:36 PM
…and so far you’ve called them nazi plotters planning to enslave and imprison the nation.
It’s like fishing in a kiddy pool.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 4:36 PM
This thread originated in an equal protection decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court. While it was based on a state constitution, equal protection is the general “refuge” of the queer sex scoundrels.
What you listed are statutory classes created by Congress. At best they are conditional rights since they can be taken away just like they were created.
Constitutional classes of behavior that are protected are all listed in the First Amendment. This is why Roe v Wade is not technically a right to abortion decision – rather it is a right to privacy decision derived from the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 4:37 PM
So you admit to being ignorant. First honest thing you’ve said.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 4:37 PM
oh I have no doubts you hang around kiddies…you sick piece of trash…
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 4:37 PM
that was the kind of retort I’ve come to expect from you Jethro…
you must be masochistic, you have no idea how much of fool I’ve made out of you…not that its very hard!! *smirk*
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 4:40 PM
You seem to be suggesting that any sort of regard for society as a whole–as something more than a large collection of people with individual rights–is equal to collectivism. That would be a very radical and strange understanding of any society in history albeit a fashionable one nowadays.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 4:45 PM
And the Fourteenth Amendment, which the California and Connecticut opinions cite. I’d make the case that recognizing gay unions is in the best interest of communities and that the legislature or executive is the better place to do that.
If you point is that state Supreme Courts over reach, especially with the Fourteenth Amendment, I’d agree.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Ah, so first I’m part of the intelligentsia, now I’m a hillbilly hick. Which is it?
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Regard for real damage to society includes such concepts as the outlawing of murder or theft. I’m waiting to hear about one person murdered, injured, or in any way harmed by two consenting adults of the same sex getting married. Prohibition was supposed to be for the common good of the society, and there are plenty of examples in favor of its existence, but it still turned out to be a horrible idea.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Stop demonstrating your hate, you miserable Nazi scum! I won the argument and I’m done casting pearls before swine, you kiddy-lover!
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Yes, that’s what I meant by connotation. I assume you don’t need me to define the word for you.
Who said I’m defending it? I said before that I understand those who believe it is sin. I have no problem with people who feel that way. What I abhor are those who would attack people over this issue as you have done.
This is an intellectually vacuous argument. You know your momma had sex with a man. Your existence is proof of that. Unless your mother was promiscuous, then you know with whom she did it. That man would be your father.
You don’t need details to know the obvious.
Anna knows her mother has a girlfriend, just as you know your mother had a boyfriend or a husband or at least a one night stand.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Why are you using this reference? Defenders of traditional marriage are aghast at the prospect of living in the kind of dystopia that Huxley envisioned. The world he described was typified by sexual licentiousness.
It is the ultra-radical redefinition of marriage that would make for a brave, new world.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 4:56 PM
You know, I’m just going to guess here, but since she’s your mother, I’m thinking she might have had sex with some guy.
And it’s safe to assume it wasn’t the only time, either. Willful ignorance of one person’s sexuality doesn’t make knowledge of another’s somehow offensive.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Obviously you didn’t get the reference but in Huxley’s world, people were forced to take their “medicine” which is what right had just said.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Uh, maybe because Huxley talked of a government that forced drugs on the populace? And totalitarian4life had just said he would force pharmaceuticals down my throat if he had the power?
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 4:58 PM
First and last, Madison.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 4:59 PM
I’m still waiting to find out whether I’m part of the intelligentsia or the Beverly Hillbillies. Gosh, it’s so confusing.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 5:00 PM
From a kid who thinks he’s embarrassed you on this thread, confusion is only natural.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 5:01 PM
You sound like a radical libertarian here. I’m opposed to moral libertarianism which always descends into moral anarchy (See Amsterdam). There was a book that came out a few years ago about the American civil war. The author said that moral anarchy was a huge factor in the war, that towns began changing laws arbitrarily on the basis that whatever they agreed upon should become law. So if an entire town decided they did not like a man they would hang him and due to their debasement they would understand this to be lawful. I’ll look for the reference.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 5:08 PM
I remember the soma tablets yes but right4life’s crack about “medicine” passed me by completely. No harm done.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Question for dedalus: Since you believe in marriages between a woman and a woman, how would these marriages be consummated for legal purposes?
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Actually, isn’t this the very definition of Democracy in Action?
It is because the majority wanted to persecute a minority that your apocryphal man was hung. The collapse of law and its protections resulted in his death.
This is analogous to the current situation. An oppressed minority (same-sex couples) relies on the law and not on democracy (mob rule). So it is only natural that they seek to redress their wrongs in court rather than on the street. Without the courts your man was at the mob’s mercy, and so died.
I’m not saying that there is a threat of death to same-sex couples, but that the mob doesn’t like them.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Yes. After all, I’ve called for legalization of all drugs and repeal of all sex laws.
Oh wait, I haven’t. The fact that you’ve seen a request for the actual harm done by gay marriage to be “radical libertarianism” shows that the only extremist is the one I’m talking to.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 5:19 PM
My answer would be for it to be a signature of both parties. The State has no business in the bedroom unless someone’s rights are being violated. Marriage does *not* equal sex in the eyes of the law.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 5:20 PM
I didn’t say that you hold and agree with all radical libertarian positions. You suggested that only those laws that protect people from physical harm were legitimate. It is a radical attitude, aside from whatever position you support.
I don’t consider you, nor I, extremist. The dangers to freedom of religion and freedom of speech have been enumerated on this thread several times. I can’t prove that there would be physical, violent consequences to passing a federal Gay Marriage Act but it could harm liberty.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Okay, fair enough.
I don’t know why people keep saying this. As I’ve already pointed out marriage ceremonies are not typically performed in bedrooms.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Viscount_Bolingbroke,
I don’t agree that same-sex couples are a persecuted minority. What they do not receive, and in my opinion should not, is legitimacy in the eyes of society at large.
Now if you want to go strictly on a “rights” basis then you argue that they are entitled to civil unions–as a purely economic and libertarian arrangement.
However there are two problems with that.
The first is that the argument will be made (you may have made it yourself, someone did) that if you’re going to allow them civil unions why not just allow them to get married. This says to me the it is not a “rights” issue but rather one of legitimacy and normalisation of what myself and others believe to be deviant behaviour.
The second problem is that even if same-sex couples and the larger society put aside their differences and agreed to civil union a judge would declare this slightly unequal status to be discrimination and institute homosexual marriage in its place (as I believe happened in California, or it might have been New York – I forget).
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Theft can be done without physical harm, and I indicated that as well. So you apparently didn’t read very closely. My listing of the two was the indication of basic laws of any society based on actual harm. Actual harm is not limited by physical harm. It does, however, require proof of harm or damages.
And those same arguments have been used to restrict speech and thought through hate crimes legislation. They both stem from paranoid predictions based not on logic or reason, but on attitudes based upon a 2,000 year old book which also has Moses demanding death for people who work on Sundays.
As I’ve said before, I defend religion constantly, being in what could be considered the atheist Mecca. Some of the attitudes in this thread only make it harder for someone who doesn’t even hold your faith to see it as noble.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 5:37 PM
And sexual activities don’t occur during marriages. So what does it matter whom it’s between?
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 5:38 PM
I’d like to point out that although myself and others on this thread are being characterised as militant, religious nuts that is not an accurate description.
Pope Benedict, back when he was a Cardinal, called for the reinstitution of the anti-sodomy laws. As a Catholic it would be well within my religious understanding to second this opinion, which I do not. My point is that defending traditional marriage and believing sodomy to be sinful are not extremist positions, not at all.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 5:38 PM
…during marriage ceremonies.
Although, on reflection of that typo, I’m sure more than a few could agree with the statement.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 5:38 PM
If you’re a meat eater, and someone says you’re a “defenseless animal throat-slitting and slaughter adherent” advocate, that someone is an extremist.
If you’re gay, and someone says you’re a “devoted queer sex adherent”, that someone is an extremist.
Are they both true? Yes. Are they both disrespectful and intended to offend? Yes.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Well I hope we can agree that all hate crimes legislation by its very nature is profoundly unconservative and a hindrance to justice.
I appreciate that. Thank you.
Aside from the use of insults which I have only very minimally engaged in–and apologised for afterwards–the attitudes here are more religious than political and that is bound to be a turn-off for many.
It is possible however to argue against homosexual marriage on purely political terms. To me this issue is merely a symptom of a larger problem, that being that equality has become the ruling principle of society. That is the essence of the liberal order and trying to apply to every area of life and keep everyone happy has led to and will lead to more and more problems. This advanced stage of liberalism will be, like Communism, ultimately self-defeating.
Back to the issue: As has been argued the harm that homosexual marriages will do to society is not immediate and therefore not immediately recognisable. However, the same patterns emerge in several different countries. That is without taking in unforeseen and unintended consequences that may arise yet.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 5:48 PM
That would describe my sister who I half-jokingly refer to as a “vegetarian fascist”. However I don’t agree with you. There are militant vegetarians that would slaughter humans to protect animals.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 5:54 PM
I guess the Declaration of Independence was the essence of the liberal order, then.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Marriage makes many couples happy. It makes other couples unhappy. What you are proposing is the denial of an equal opportunity to enter into marriage, and thereby pursue happiness. This is what America was about: Equal opportunities to better oneself. Whether one takes those opportunities is up to their free will.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 5:59 PM
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Since I’m in favor of extending the right of participating in marriage contracts to everyone regardless of gender (though the # of partners doesn’t matter to me, I have my hands full with just one spouse) the recent court rulings seem fine to me.
It’s up to society to determine what they like and don’t. It doesn’t enter into the law unless you want to overturn the very foundations of that law. In this case, equal protection.
I hate to say I’m “persecuted,” as it has become a word used by some in a passive-aggressive manner. Rather, I would say that I find myself for the first time in a long time up against the law. I want to be able to marry, but the State doesn’t want to let me marry someone who has the same gender as me.
I care about how society (and much more importantly, those who I come into contact with) perceive me and my partner. But I don’t want to use the force of government to compel some sort of behavior on them. All I want is to enter into a legal contract called marriage. Yeah, it has some connotations to it beyond a contract, but that’s not for the Court to decide. Domestic partnerships are not the same, as the rest of law doesn’t treat a DP the same as a marriage.
I want a 1st class marriage, not some 2nd class substitute.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 6:01 PM
As I already said, it’s about respect. The animal rights extremists show none to the meat-eater exercising their rights, and you’re showing none to the gay person exercising theirs. It’s deplorable in both cases.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 6:02 PM
I’m not entirely up on what the projected harm would be. Does it matter? As was said before, Prohibition was supposed to make society better, but it turned out freedom to drink was ultimately inevitable. Sure it brings problems, but all freedom does.
I don’t go in for “good of society” arguments. “Who’s society?” and “Who’s good?”, I say.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 6:06 PM
My but aren’t we touchy.
Homosexual acts are disrespectful to the human body. It doesn’t get any worse than that.
Nobody is denied marriage. What is being denied, and has always been denied in this country, is the ability to change the definition of marriage.
You want to be married? Fit into the definition and you’re good to go. You want to be different? Pay the price of that choice.
But you do not get to pretend you are normal if you are not. Marriage is for normal people to propagate in an orderly fashion – it is not for some to play at what they despise.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Said by every disrespectful and narcissistic person. Get bent.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Homosexual acts are disrespectful to the human body. It doesn’t get any worse than that.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 6:08 PM
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 17 Next »