Connecticut Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
posted at 2:05 pm on October 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
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?
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 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 17 Next »
I react in kind. If you recognize your overreaction, I recognize mine.
MadisonConservative on October 10, 2008 at 9:50 PM
You have statistics? Really?
AubieJon on October 10, 2008 at 9:50 PM
He conducted his own personal survey based on “video evidence” and it had many, data points.
DFCtomm on October 10, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Yes, but I’m not going to link them here, due to rather extreme content. A bit of research will enlighten you, but as you refer to “rimming” as a “destructive homosexual practice”, I assume no links will sway you.
By the way, since you seem to see such an activity as some extreme negative, I assume then that you find oral sex to be just as bad?
MadisonConservative on October 10, 2008 at 9:55 PM
That’s not the research I’m referring to. ;)
MadisonConservative on October 10, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Eh, I’ve been busy with more important things in the real world to post or even blog much lately. Frankly, I’d prefer action through the legislative process rather than through the courts. It’s not that I don’t think the case can be made, but it’s less controversial and better for society as a whole when done through the former instead of the latter. That aside though, I have indeed had enough of the religious nutjobs. I would have preferred to postpone this till after the war but events being what they are now…
JohnAGJ on October 10, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Fair enough. You’re a good guy, good luck to you.
aengus on October 10, 2008 at 10:00 PM
And to you, sir. (If you’re not a sir, then madam)
MadisonConservative on October 10, 2008 at 10:02 PM
To the contrary, I have no problem with oral sex between a man and a woman. My disdain for homosexuality – and note I said homosexuality and not homosexuals – is the hypocrisy and destructive practices involved, especially with males.
It’s pure hypocrisy to claim “gay pride” when there’s nothing gay about it. Homosexuals are simply embarrassed by what they do, and so they felt the need to “sugar coat” the lifestyle by attempting to change its name.
Psychological Reports did a study on homosexuals several years ago and found that the average life expectancy of a male homosexual is 45 years, due to health problems and the violent lifestyle. Ask any physician who routinely treats homosexuals: he will mention things such as prolapsed anus, infections from ingesting fecal material, and the inabaility to control bowel movements. Many homosexuals who have been involved in the lifestyle for a long period have to wear adult diapers because they no longer have any muscle tone in their sphincter muscles.
But hey, you go be proud of your gayness.
AubieJon on October 10, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Dude that is not fair…I haven’t dropped acid in HOURS and infowars is not even on my list of top ten favorite websites.
i/sarc
Ok, so the government is NATIONALIZING the banking industry, the media is owned by the saudi’s(look it up), republican senators are claiming that the bailout money is to buy back the saudi’s bad MBS buys…we are right in the middle of an artifical economic collapse in order to elect a documented saudi manchurian candidate…Barack Hussein Obama…yet I’m a fringe “conspiracy theorist” wacko?
Man, I bet you’ll still be denial when you get off the bus at the FEMA camp..
SaintOlaf on October 10, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Homosexual family is an oxymoron. If Heather has two Mommies, she doesn’t have a Daddy. You can’t have a real family without a Dad. And don’t BS me about orphans or the rare instances of child abuse. Homosexual families are without one parent or the other by design.
Orphans and the abused are victims of circumstances, their parents did not by design and selfishness force them into a perverted, irregular situation. I certainly have compassion for the kids, but not for the narcissists they have for parents, who wanted so badly for their deviancy to be considered normal that they dragged another person into it.
Male-Female relationships are normal. They have complementarity in the natural order. Homosexual relationships? notsomuch.
BKennedy on October 10, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Your argument is fine, as far as it goes. But as I think even you would admit, it’s a religious argument. And as you must know, some of us — including, apparently, some of our judges — aren’t persuaded by religious arguments.
Now I happen to think that you can — or at least you once could — make a secular argument against same-sex marriage. Even today, the number of gay couples who take advantage of marriage in the jurisdictions where it’s available to them is tiny. Imagine, then, if we returned to the status quo ante, when a divorce was nigh impossible to acquire, when alimony was the norm, and when adultery was subject not only to social stigma but criminal sanction. Under those conditions, even fewer gay men would have interest in marriage. Indeed, the rules of marriage once made the notion of gay marriage incomprehensible, even to gays themselves. I tell you this as a gay man.
But beginning in the 1970s, acting through law and custom, heterosexuals recast the institution of marriage. Among other things, they adopted no-fault divorce laws, which implicitly defined marriage as an institution concerned chiefly with the happiness of adults and not the needs of children or society. And once marriage became an institution characterized by an interest in the happiness of adults, you lost any rational objection to the inclusion of gay adults.
If you want to end the drive for gay marriage, here’s my advice: Return to the old rules, take your own marriages seriously, and acknowledge acknowledge marriage as serving a civic purpose larger than the celebration of (often transient) affections. But you won’t do that, will you?
paul006 on October 10, 2008 at 10:16 PM
yeah like ending partial birth abortions…I can see why that would upset you…cutting a hole in a babie’s head and sucking out the brains and all…its all part of your holy sacrament!
uh yeah Reagan was the most popular president since Kennedy…and he was the most closely identified with the christian right….and now that the repubs have gone lib…your direction, they lose power, and popularity…and the man who hates the right…mccain…will go down in flames….
yeah you would know about fascism…given you’re a liberal fascist.
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 10:20 PM
The country has plenty of narcissists–some states have more than others. They are allowed to marry regardless of their ability to produce or care for children. Is it in the state’s interest for Britney Spears to get married a 3rd 4th or 5th time? Probably not, but let her. Who cares.
There is no legal requirement for someone to be “normal” or even married to have children.
dedalus on October 10, 2008 at 10:21 PM
you have a thing about backsides don’t you? you can take a flying leap wacko. I’m not going anywhere.
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 10:22 PM
We have bigger fish to fry than this.
I personally think civil unions would be the way to go, but if the people up there, or any particular state want it, let ‘em. Now how about they say the same about abortion?
Metro on October 10, 2008 at 10:24 PM
sounds like you’re trying to be a ‘manly man’ how cute!! *snicker*
can you get any more idiotic? you surpass your previous foolishness with every post.
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 10:26 PM
looks like the truth hurts. but you’re right I shouldn’t cast pearls before swine.
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 10:28 PM
I personally don’t care. State marriages are legal arrangements, and last I checked God wasn’t all that concerned with man’s legal arrangements.
Well, He is, and He knows everything that’s going on and He will bring judgement on those that change laws to commit abominable acts of immorality.
Zacarias on October 10, 2008 at 10:29 PM
What a laughable tool you are. Find it difficult to move beyond the script? FYI pal, I strongly supported that action by Bush Jr., it was one of the VERY few things he’s done that was good for the country.
Yep, while looking to the stars for guidance. Reagan did indeed hold a religious faith, similiar to Lincoln’s, even tossed some crumbs to your batshit crowd but for all the lib hype he wasn’t one of them.
Wrong, bucko. More like went lib like your Huckster side. Just like the Huckster they rounded up tools like you for votes by praising Jesus on the one hand, while governing like libs on the other.
Typical ploy of real fascists: smear others with the extremism they themselves embrace.
Btw, just for clarification, I have no objections to your holding a Christian faith or even to your beliefs about homosexuality, it’s your fanaticism in bringing them into the public sphere to impose them on others that I find offensive. So take your self-righteous claptrap and stuff it.
JohnAGJ on October 10, 2008 at 10:31 PM
speaking of batshit, its what comes out of your mouth with every post, wacko piece of trash.
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 10:33 PM
*Yawn!* Surely you can do better than this? What’s the matter, run out of talking points? Quick! Call Dobson’s hotline for pointers!!!
JohnAGJ on October 10, 2008 at 10:35 PM
oh yeah saw your blog…your gay rights agenda is leading us down the road of totalitarianism. given the gay sharia you want to impose upon the rest of us.
you can’t win the argument, or advance it in a democratic way, oh no, you have to impose it via the courts. like the liberal nazi you are.
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 10:36 PM
at least I don’t have to bend over for my talking points! *ouch*
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Oh, indeed, I do have a thing for backsides! But that isn’t the question, or at least it’s not in this forum, though I have expounded on it elsewhere. Nor is the question whether you’re going anywhere. You’ve already told us that you’re taking your vote and going home. I just don’t want the door hit as you leave, cause I’m sweet like that!
paul006 on October 10, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Uh-huh. Reading comprehension not your forte? Here, try this. You must be a product of public schooling (I empathize) and are one of the unfortunates who was passed along despite your ignorance.
JohnAGJ on October 10, 2008 at 10:40 PM
yeah I’m sure you say that to all the boys.
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 10:42 PM
I’m having trouble answering your question. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my assertion that no homosexual relationship can truly be a marriage and that society agreeing to call it marriage doesn’t make it one?
I can call my cat a dog, and it’s no skin off anyone’s nose. Heck, my cat doesn’t care. But should I insist that everyone else also call my cat a dog?
Of course, society has set standards so that we don’t marry close relatives, too many spouses, those too young to freely consent, or outside our species (in this last case, again, it would not be a marriage no matter what we called it.)
You make the point that government should be limited. Is it more or less intrusive of government to redefine marriage to be something it’s not? Would it be more or less intrusive of government to require that everyone call my cat a dog?
SheofTwoMinds on October 10, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Ya’ll are still arguing about this?
lorien1973 on October 10, 2008 at 10:42 PM
you can’t dispute anything I’ve said. I’ve posted plenty of supporting material that backs up what I say. you cannot, all you can do is curse, like the foul thing you are.
thats why you have to impose your gay agenda through the courts…you cannot win the argument with truth, logic, or history, because you have none of these on your side.
all you can do is try to impose your hellish agenda upon others in the most totalitarian manner available to you.
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 10:43 PM
*Yawn!* Keep it up, please. All you do is expose the rabidness of your side better than I ever could.
JohnAGJ on October 10, 2008 at 10:45 PM
looks like the truth isn’t the only thing that hurts…
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 10:46 PM
took you that long to think up a retort huh? no surprise *smirk*
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 10:47 PM
if you have noticed johnny boy, I’m several posts ahead of you…can’t keep up huh? no surprise….since you do all your thinking with the wrong head…
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Stuck in your own lil’ world again? Having trouble dealing with the real one? Yeah, I thought so because if you were with the rest of us you’d recognize the BS of your charges. I understand that you are used to flinging the same tired list of charges against anyone who dares to disagree with you (TFB, btw), but you make charges here without any basis of fact. No surprise really, such is par for the course for you nutjobs.
JohnAGJ on October 10, 2008 at 10:49 PM
I’ve already posted some of my sources, you can read Stanley Kurtz….but you’ve posted nothing to back up your BS…typical. ya got nothing, except a sore bottom.
but you’re good for a few laughs…thats about it.
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 10:50 PM
It’s the militant gay agenda that wants to CHANGE the definition of marriage and impose FREE SPEECH RESTRICTIONS and FREEDOM OF RELIGION RESTRICTIONS on people.
How can you support an agenda that wants to strip us of CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and then have the audacity to tell us it’s a good thing?
SaintOlaf on October 10, 2008 at 10:51 PM
have you noticed these clowns can do nothing except call those who dare disagree with them names? they want to silence us, and they will do whatever it takes to accomplish this. their record here and around the world is clear.
I think its because deep down they crave acceptance, and approval, by a higher power…since they cannot get that from God, they go to the next best thing government…and they have to silence us because deep down they know we are right…and their lifestyle is a sin, a lie.
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 10:54 PM
johnny still trying to come up with a retort? run down to the park restroom and see if you can get some ‘pointers’
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 10:54 PM
I have to agree that this is largely what has happened to marriage in the twentieth century. But I strongly disagree with the italized part of your quote.
One rationalization of no fault divorce was that the children would be happier if the parents were happier. And in some cases that was true.
It is also true that a wife’s ability to escape an abusive situtation for herself and her children is a positive effect of no fault divorce on society and children.
If we choose to continue on this destructive path of defining marriage solely for the selfish expression of adult happiness rather than for the safety and emotional well being of children we will fail as a society. And we will not be helping adults find happiness either. This kind of society is empty and meaningless.
That is not societal progress. That is self destruction. I choose otherwise.
Marriage needs to be re-redefined the other direction of this–to be the building block of society. The stable and dependable way to educate our children for the future. Selflessness in marriage needs to become the norm–and leads to personal happiness as well.
Gays shouldn’t be discriminated against either. But two people of the same gender is not a marriage. A marriage brings together two different things. Unless there are two different genders it is something else not marriage. Call it a blended union maybe? It is simply not a marriage.
Civil Unions and other legal remedies supply all the legal rights. Why push society on a path that continues to promote it’s own selfishness and destruction? This doesn’t make sense.
petunia on October 10, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Well,He is, and he knows everything that’s going on, and He will bring judgement on those who change laws to commit abominable acts of immorality.
Zacarias on October 10, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Uh, no. So sorry. It’s called being given up to a reprobate mind. Allowing yourself to be deceived. It’s different from actually being deceived. The Bible tells us God He gives them over to their lusts and they start believing a lie:
“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness… haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things… And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. ” Romans 1:28-34, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
apacalyps on October 10, 2008 at 11:04 PM
A gay marriage should be between a man and a women.
apacalyps on October 10, 2008 at 11:07 PM
That’s exactly what this huge push for gay marriage is all about.
Pass gay marriage nationwide, make any disparaging speech about gays a HATE CRIME and then ban all religions that have “disparaging” opinions of homosexuality.
Not only that but they’re changing these laws in an illegal fashion, usurping the vote of the people.
It’s certainly not about gay people wanting to get married.
The population of gays that want to get “married” is about one hundredth of one percent.
Gays in the vast majority do NOT want to get married.
They in general want to have gay sex with about 10 different people in the bathroom of a gay bar every night. Look up the statistics re. gays sexual behaviour.
Not only that but homosexuality is also responsible for the AIDS epidemic.
Really, gays account for about what…1% – 1.5% of the population total. Why should we change anything, let alone redefine marriage and adoption and free speech standards, on account of their sexual behaviour?
SaintOlaf on October 10, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Onward is our march to paganism. How soon before they start throwing Christians to the lions?
docdave on October 10, 2008 at 11:22 PM
You bet. Those deserted old Amtrak yards look realllly scary on YouTube, don’t they? The ominous music really helps as well, along with the caption that they were chased away by government agents which, curiously, they did not capture on tape. What a fluke.
Again, you’re ranting about the same tripe that Alex Jones does, and your sources consist of two types of information. The first is articles written by people who have usually written conspiracy theory books and often cite their sources as unable to come forward because of the danger. The second is articles in the mainstream press, where what you assert is not actually stated, but you “fill in the blanks” with the first kind of source information.
Hang on. Oh crap. The black helicopters are outside! Illuminati are knocking on my door! REMEMBER ZEITGEIST! GOOGLE IT!
MadisonConservative on October 10, 2008 at 11:30 PM
I’m not gay. Since you assume anyone who speaks in favor of gay marriage must then be gay, it’s pointless to pursue further conversation. I regret that I bothered after the phrase “destructive homosexual practices”.
MadisonConservative on October 10, 2008 at 11:32 PM
You discern correctly. But here at HotAir, I feel free to let my hair down and speak in an un-lawyerly manner.
Yes, this is a great concern of mine, even without considering the impact on the argument against gay “marriage.” In general, we have come to regard marriage, sex, and childbearing as little more than avenues to self-fulfillment, and when we encounter discomforts and inconveniences, we think this justifies abandoning our commitments. (Of course, I am not saying that marriage, sex, and childbearing are unfulfilling; just that fulfillment is a byproduct and not the goal.)
I assume you address this to society in general and not specifically to me, because I do take the institution of marriage and my own marriage seriously, and I believe it serves a larger purpose than my own gratification. I encourage family members and friends to do the same.
SheofTwoMinds on October 10, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Well, it did once, and it still does, mostly. (Again, the number of gay couples who marry, when marriage is available to them, is strikingly small.)
But to say that marriage brings together two different things is to beg these questions: For how long? And to what end?
Implicitly, no-fault divorce laws tell us that a man and his wife need remain married only for so long as they are happy with one another. (The example you give of spousal abuse is not instructive; abuse gives rise to fault, and to cause for divorce.)
So if, as a matter of law, the principal requirement for marriage is happiness with your spouse, tell me: What’s uniquely heterosexual about that?
I readily concede that heterosexual pairings can do for children and society things that homosexual pairings cannot. But the needs of children and society are no longer the operative considerations of our law. Of married couples, our law now asks this question: Are you happy? That question can be put to, and answered by, gays and straights alike. Which is why we now see a legal assault on the traditional definition of marriage as a deprivation of equal protection.
paul006 on October 10, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Yes, I did mean you as a general you, and not as a personal one.
Thank you for the reply.
paul006 on October 10, 2008 at 11:40 PM
This is not a legal definition issue Paul.
It is a freedom of speech issue, a special rights issue and a freedom of religion issue.
SaintOlaf on October 10, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Petunia, I appreciate your sentiment.
I believe divorce was granted for abuse situations. No-fault divorce allowed for divorce even if there was no abuse.
SheofTwoMinds on October 10, 2008 at 11:45 PM
And don’t forget it’s a “Defeat the NEW WORLD ORDER!!!” issue.
By the way, did you see Endgame? Very entertaining.
MadisonConservative on October 10, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Well, that might be true in the political arena. But it is a legal issue when you get into a court of law. And we saw today, the courts are where gays and lesbians are now pressing their case.
paul006 on October 10, 2008 at 11:58 PM
wow, you all care WAY too much about who puts what into whom. Love is love…that seems pretty simple to me…all the rest is logistics.
beefytee on October 11, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Off-topic, but Paul, I love this statement you made.
SheofTwoMinds on October 11, 2008 at 12:13 AM
You know the irony of all of this?
Conservatives, true conservatives, are supposed to be about the removal of government interference in people’s lives.
MadisonConservative on October 11, 2008 at 12:14 AM
The government isn’t intruding on one marriage by recognizing another. One might object to an old man with a very young wife, but the December-May may couple doesn’t diminish anyone else’s marriage. If you choose not to acknowledge another marriage, you can label it a sham or arrangement and consider it inferior.
A gay couple can live together and buy the house next door. Somehow it is better if they are unmarried?
dedalus on October 11, 2008 at 12:15 AM
So the government should not interfere by forcing people to regard nonmarriages as marriages.
SheofTwoMinds on October 11, 2008 at 12:19 AM
It’s not a case of disapproval. It is a case of legally defining a relationship as a marriage when it is not.
If a homosexual person legally commits to an eligible spouse of the opposite sex, it’s legally a marriage. (I have friends who have done this. They love their wives and kids, and just accept that they have a tendency to an impulse that they choose not to indulge. Similarly, I choose not to indulge in any impulses to cheat on my husband.)
If a homosexual person formalizes a relationship with someone of the same sex, it is not a marriage.
It impacts other people when they are required to participate in the delusion that this second type of relationship is a marriage.
SheofTwoMinds on October 11, 2008 at 12:43 AM
You have no right against regarding anything as anything. If I regard murder as perfectly fine if I don’t like the victim, that’s too damn bad, ain’t it? I can think it all I like, but the law is otherwise. As many here have demonstrated, even if gay marriage was legalized in every state, they themselves would not recognize them. It doesn’t really matter, because their lack of recognition doesn’t hinder the gay couple, and the gay couple’s marriage doesn’t hinder the guy who won’t recognize it. All that will occur is that both sides may or may not be offended.
And as has been long known by any good American, not being offended is not a right. I’m offended by dickheads at this site daring to presume that someone is unfit to be part of a church or faith. I’m offended by douchebags who attack others simply for the sake of holding a different view of god than they do. You know what, though? This is America. You have the right to be offended, and you have no right to shut those up who do. That’s called fascism, and it’s not just the anti-gay marriage folks. For every fundamentalist bible-thumping jerkoff, there’s a militant gay activist who refers to straight people as “breeders” and gleefully attacks any religion that doesn’t accept and cheer their sexual preference. Asshats on both sides of the fence, and you mirror each others’ ignorance. Get over yourselves.
MadisonConservative on October 11, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Good ol’ Esthier. You identify yourself as a Christian and yet, you take positions completely opposite to what the Bible teaches and what a Christian would believe. You are one of the biggest phonies here. It was just waiting for you to start challenging the real Bible-believing Christians who love the LORD… lol … you always do. So you say sodomy only means anal sex because of the way we interpret the Bible, huh? It all depends on interpretation??
apacalyps on October 11, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Um, yeah it is. It’s a book that about 5000 different religious sects are based off of. Unless they all agree, it most certainly up to interpretation. You’re free to believe that the others are wrong, but you are probably all wrong.
MadisonConservative on October 11, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Some religions don’t recognize a 2nd marriage after divorce. For those believers they must “participate in the delusion” when the state recognizes 2nd marriages. Even if they were offended, the right of the other couple to lead their family life would take precedence.
dedalus on October 11, 2008 at 12:54 AM
Okay Madison. If that makes you feel better, you go right ahead and believe that. Be my guest. I’ll stick with the Bible which says, “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool.” Proverbs 28:26
apacalyps on October 11, 2008 at 1:01 AM
No it is not, in those 48 mentions, as I pointed out, 1. Virtually all are in regards to location.
2. You’re interpretation that it is overt sexuality is a fallacy, because it is used in regards to a specific sex act (and that act isn’t temple prostitution).
As much as you deny it, translators since Pre-Christianity saw it the same way. There is no point in trying to convince you, becuase no matter how many people who are experts in the linguistic, you’ll still deny the reality.
No matter how much it is shown that both Christianity and Judaism declared sodomizing/anal sex destructive and immoral, you’ll claim the opposite.
Tim Burton on October 11, 2008 at 1:08 AM
Ah, so we should not trusteth in it, but we should commune with it? Psalms 4:4
Justify your bilge all you like. The Bible is a vague book filled with cryptic messages and commands, along with a good deal of contradictions. Granted, this is partly due to the fact that the Old Testament and the New Testament clash like Hatfields and McCoys, but the fact remains that it is a book that not only is up for interpretation, but interpretation is damn well required if you want to follow the damn thing. That follows for pretty much any holy book, “The God Delusion” included.
MadisonConservative on October 11, 2008 at 1:10 AM
Next- Heather has three mommies…..
Little Boomer on October 11, 2008 at 1:11 AM
Hmmmm. As my husband’s second (and last) wife, I will have to let you know if I encounter anyone who prefers not to recognize our marriage because of their religion.
Second marriages may be where the “disapproval” angle comes in. I still contend that a man and a woman are required to form a marriage, and a homosexual relationship leaves one of those out. Therefore, it cannot be a marriage.
SheofTwoMinds on October 11, 2008 at 1:17 AM
Exactly! Tell those stupid judges to mind their own business and stop making laws that punish religon! Butt out of our lives, you have all the rights you need. You just want to force us to give you sanction and make you feel good. Butt out of our lives!
petunia on October 11, 2008 at 1:20 AM
Stop making laws about religion, period.
CherokeeJack on October 11, 2008 at 1:25 AM
Wow. Just wow.
I was more thinking along the lines of “if a church wants to let a gay couple marry, the government shouldn’t stop them”. You know, since what that church does, and what that couple likes to do in the bedroom, is none of the government’s, or your, goddamned business.
MadisonConservative on October 11, 2008 at 1:26 AM
Any item in particular?
I am quite familiar with the Bible, and find the message throughout to be remarkably consistent. The Old and New Testaments complement each other in a particularly beautiful way.
SheofTwoMinds on October 11, 2008 at 1:27 AM
When you encounter that person or persons, be sure and tell us how your marriage interfered with their rights.
Get the picture yet?
MadisonConservative on October 11, 2008 at 1:28 AM
Christ said: “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” (Luke 16:18) Some Christians believe and abide by that teaching, but live in the United States where the law allows a broader definition of marriage. The state and individual religions may have different definitions of a valid marriage.
dedalus on October 11, 2008 at 1:29 AM
Apparently not, since my argument has been that regardless of who does or doesn’t feel that their rights are being violated, it is false and unwise to call a same-sex relationship a marriage. Call it something else if you must, but it is an affront to truth to call it a marriage.
SheofTwoMinds on October 11, 2008 at 1:50 AM
In other words, it offends you. Too bad. You don’t have the right not to be offended. If such a right existed, we’d be utterly and completely screwed. Anyone who watches Fitna on a website has the right to be offended, and no right to make the person take it down.
MadisonConservative on October 11, 2008 at 2:04 AM
And I’m off for the night.
MadisonConservative on October 11, 2008 at 2:04 AM
I’m not exactly a fan or SaintOlaf, or of Catholicism in general.
But I believe Catholicism still regards homosexuality as a sin, and therefore would require it being repented of and confessed before being allowed Eucharist.
So your outrage is basically against SaintOlaf for being Catholic. Is he supposed to back away from his beliefs in order to accommodate your opinion concerning homosexuality?
(Obviously, he could at least have been a lot more tactful…)
This is part of the problem with the gay marriage agenda being pushed through by courts which have no business even offering an opinion on the subject. The Constitution does not empower them to spontaneously decide 220 years after the Constitution is drawn up, that marriage violates the Constitution unless men can marry other men.
Eventually, these attempts to enforce an interpretation of anti-discrimination laws will run head-on into our religious freedom. I fully expect the government at that point to attempt to outlaw any statement or practice of Christianity that calls homosexuality a sin or an abomination. It will be called hate speech. Churches which do not accept members who are practicing homosexuals will be subjected to criminal enforcement or lawsuits. Sunday schools or church schools will be required to accept students from homosexual families, and will not be allowed to call it sinful.
You may be fine with that. There will be plenty who call themselves Christians who will just modify their “convictions” to rationalize that there’s nothing wrong with it after all.
But there will be those who have always been good and law-abiding citizens, but will refuse to change their beliefs to accommodate the government. I wonder how many people on this forum will just mutter to themselves that it’s just a bunch of fundie nuts, and they need to follow the laws like everyone else.
It’s a very serious issue. Frankly, the loss of freedom is a lot more serious than possibly having to go through a recession for a few quarters.
And it’s also an infuriating example of judicial activism. The courts are trying to turn themselves into a sort of priesthood. They don’t have to change the Constitution to get what they want. They just have to declare the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean.
You might as well not have a Constitution at all if it can be redefined as convenient.
theregoestheneighborhood on October 11, 2008 at 2:12 AM
This was one of the passages on my mind when I was composing my reply. Definitely not an ideal situation, and sin is part of the equation.
So, do you understand the passage to say that marriages between formerly-divorced people are not marriages?
SheofTwoMinds on October 11, 2008 at 2:17 AM
Bit of a non sequitur, there, since I’m pretty sure that Sodom was guilty of more than one sin. In the incident of Lot alone, they were guilty of 1) attempted rape 2) violent assault against Lot, who they were ready to drag out of the house and kill, and, of course, 3) rage against Lot for disapproving of their actions (“This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break
the door.”)
I suppose you could argue their homosexuality was not sinful, because they were guilty of so much else. But you’ll have to basically ignore everything else in the Bible to do it, including parts of the New Testament.
So if your argument is in any way based on the Bible, you might read 1 Cor 6:9-11 and reconsider:
(Emphasis added) Note that homosexuality is not the only sin listed, but it is in the list.
theregoestheneighborhood on October 11, 2008 at 2:33 AM
Not a fair translation of my comment. I am not appealing to any right to not be offended.
It’s the whole idea of redefining things and having the meanings of words get hijacked. Remember when “tolerant” meant being decent to others when you disagreed? Now it means you’re not allowed to disagree with others. “Choice,” in certain contexts, involves depriving another human being of the opportunity to ever make a choice. There are many more examples I could come up with if my brain were more nimble. But I hope you get the gist.
SheofTwoMinds on October 11, 2008 at 2:38 AM
Ha! Thought of another one: “The Fairness Doctrine” that isn’t fair.
Well, goodnight, all. Have a great weekend!
SheofTwoMinds on October 11, 2008 at 2:50 AM
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. – Romans 13:1-4
Therefore, if the authority expects you to follow their ordinance regarding marriage, and you disobey, you are disobeying the ordinance of God to be subject to the governing authorities. Since paying a licence fee (or marriage tax) and doing a little paperwork does not violate the Word of God and cause you to sin, their is no religious reason for you to rebel against governing authorities.
It’s pretty basic, and that’s how several of us knew you weren’t big on “Bible-reading.”
TMK on October 11, 2008 at 2:52 AM
Nice summary of how Lot’s family was destroyed. Lot moved to Sodom basically to make a fortune, because the land was so fertile and well watered. He accepted their well-known depravity, even though it bothered him.
Lot was a righteous man. As we would say today, a good man. Give him credit: he lived in Sodom, but he never joined in and became like the rest. His daughters were virgins. I would imagine that was a very rare thing in Sodom, though probably not unheard of. The wickedness of the people around him, as the Bible says, “vexed his righteous soul from day to day.”
But he stayed. And he wound up offering his daughters to an unruly mob of men to protect his visitors. And of course, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, everything Lot had was gone, Lot begged to be allowed to go into a little city in refuge, and was allowed to do it. But instead, apparently still terrified, he went with his daughters to live in caves. And those daughters he had kept protected for so long decided the only way they would ever have children was by their father, so they got him drunk and had sex with him.
All of this to say, Sodom was a very wicked place. Homosexuality was not all of it, but it was unquestionably part of it. And even a good man living there was completely corrupted and ruined by it.
I’m afraid all this is getting off-topic. But the story of Lot is tragic, even though it was almost all his own fault.
theregoestheneighborhood on October 11, 2008 at 3:24 AM
Crazy? No. But very much unChristian.
I think it’s fairly obvious from reading what Jesus said that Jesus was treating Moses as a prophet.
Sure, there are those who claim that they only accept the words Jesus said. They’re liars.
Too harsh? Well, Jesus clearly described Moses as a prophet, so if you claim you only accept the words of Jesus, then you don’t really accept the words of Jesus, who testified that Moses and Isaiah, among others, were prophets. You can’t accept Jesus as a prophet and deny Moses as a prophet.
Or, in the words of Jesus, “why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not those things I say?”
Incidentally, this is true of Muslims as well, who claim to believe that Jesus was a prophet, and Moses was a prophet, and Isaiah was a prophet. But they hear and believe exactly nothing that any of these prophets say, which exposes that they don’t really consider them as prophets at all.
Now, they have a reason for it. Since the Bible contradicts the Koran in multiple places, they reject the Bible as somehow corrupted. Even so, they are still in the position of claiming to accept Jesus, Moses, Isaiah, et al as prophets, all while denying every prophecy recorded from them.
…….
theregoestheneighborhood on October 11, 2008 at 3:47 AM
Fun times.
We’re facing the specter of four years of radical leftists controlling this country….and this debate is the thread that goes to 9 pages on HotAir.
Like abortion, I guess this argument is timeless.
Hawkins1701 on October 11, 2008 at 4:02 AM
A few lawyers. Or just 5 justices.
theregoestheneighborhood on October 11, 2008 at 4:11 AM
Great, a state made a decision. Now leave them alone but don’t bitch that other states have to recognize the marital status.
If gays want to make this a national thing then fight it out in each state or pass a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (remember this little process the founders left us to make change instead frikken judges?)
mylegsareswollen on October 11, 2008 at 5:21 AM
I hope everyone noticed how much disruption and consternation is caused by less than 2% of the population.
I also hope everybody noticed that the portion of the 2% segment of the population that participates in these threads chooses to do so, when there are hundreds of other places they could be on the net with like-minded people.
Yet they choose to come here and harass normal people while pretending to be like us, with their minor little behavioral defect.
How many of us normal people go to homosexual advocacy websites and pretend to be like them? How many of us normal people go there to harass the sexual deviants and demand that they adjust themselves to our standards?
[crickets chirping]
This proves that petunia, sheoftwominds, right4life, saintolaf, aengus, hening, apacalyps, Tim Burton, and all similar commenters are correct to defend this place/thread from the disruption caused by the sexual deviants.
Lawrence v Texas allows them to do what they want with each other but that is not enough. To those of us who understand the defective nature of their minds, it is no surprise that the Lawrence decision is simply a stepping stone, rather than a refuge. Every argument made in that decision turns out to be a lie. It was never about being left alone and private – if it was, we normal people would not have to be constantly harassed to give up more to these perverts.
As it was stated earlier, identical genders cannot marry because marriage is about different genders joining together. We should not be surprised that they lie about that because everything they do is a lie.
A lie that they just won’t keep to themselves.
platypus on October 11, 2008 at 5:47 AM
Actually, they’re both, relatively speaking, brand new. Never heard a peep about either 40 years ago.
JiangxiDad on October 11, 2008 at 8:09 AM
One of the great things about this site for me has been to expose the various threads/strains of “conservatism.” (The commenter Flenser always did that very well imo.)
Your comment above sounds more libertarian. Conservatives seem to want/demand the gov’t to do some very specific things. Nevertheless, most of the time, we co-exist nicely under the same tent. There are some specific issues like this where our differences become apparent. I’d guess that others, like me, didn’t fully understand those differences before, and may not have even known how to characterize themselves most properly. I find I’m conservative on some things, and libertarian on others.
JiangxiDad on October 11, 2008 at 8:17 AM
right4life knows exactly what I am talking about. Little Christians like him will insult other Christians for not “seeeing” their way. But when he is insulted, in much the same way, he becomes faux arrogant. Even reverting to the “you sure are obsessed with me”, if you are a poster for any length of time, that is the equivalent of the “race card”. That way he doesn’t have to answer the charges. He is obsessed with the gay lifestyle, over the past months nothing turns him on more.
Thanks for jumping in, keep track of right4life, and you will see his “fetish”. Obviously it got your attention…did you feel the tingle?
right2bright on October 11, 2008 at 8:23 AM
Count to 10, just make note of posts like this…you will see what I mean.
right2bright on October 11, 2008 at 8:26 AM
I doubt you would find any substance of real fact or as you say “good deal of contradictions”. We have been down this path before, and you have always lost this battle. You may find one or two areas of disagreement due to language interpretation. Greek to Hebrew to Aramic to modern English doesn’t always get exactly right. But when taken back to the original text, I don’t think there have been any proven errors. If there were, they would be printed and re-printed by every secular news media in the world.
But please prove me wrong…give us your “list” of a “good deal of contradictions”…I can hardly wait.
But then you tried this before and got shot, gutted, and hung on the wall. If I remember correctly, you slinked away after being stuffed with facts…
right2bright on October 11, 2008 at 8:34 AM
uh moron, he’s asking why you are such a nut case, and why you would write some long diatribe about me…I’m curious myself.
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 8:55 AM
very good point.
right4life on October 11, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Here’s my take on it as a Christian. Read it 4 or 5 times before you decide to comment.
Romans 1:26 & 27
1 Corinthians 6:9
These 3 verses clearly outline God’s take on it. I’m not here to judge or condemn, as it isn’t my place to do so. I’m not perfect, but I am repentant.
Society may change, and some things may become acceptable to the secular, anti-Christian, ant-God, anti-Jew, anti-moral, liberal society in America; because more people are doing it, just like the case with homosexuality. God doesn’t change. Those verses have been there for a long time. Am I really to believe that God just up and changed his perspective on it without documenting it on a single grey-area topic?
I think it’s rather intolerant of the homosexual community to force acceptance on the rest of the world.
leetpriest on October 11, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Not at all. My outrage was that one man who is clearly not a man of the cloth tells another man that he should not be able to partake in a religion of his choosing. That’s up to the priest of the church, not him.
MadisonConservative on October 11, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 17 Next »