The state of California already provided domestic partnerships to gay and lesbian couples, which is equivalent to a marriage license.

You can’t equate this to racism, because blacks and whites were given different rights and standards. This is why segregation was unconstitutional. It denied equal opportunity and protection.

By using different labels to describe a legal contract for straights and gay/lesbian couples is not unconstitutional.

btw, I don’t mind if we have gay marriage in America. Just as long as the people vote on it, and it doesn’t infringe on religious liberty.

Dear Mr. olsen:

Go to Hell.

It is We The People who are soverign, not them the judges. When four judges rewrite the State Constitution to create a “right”, the people have an absolute right to amend the Constituion to strike down that judicial power grab.

If you really can’t understand that, you are a crappy lawyer, and a contemptible human being.

The current SCOTUS will put this issue to rest once and for all.

They’re a dime a dozen: Ted Olson, Bill Bennett, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Eric Cantor – the list goes on. They would rather please their “cocktail circuit buddies” or turn a quick buck than stand up for conservative values.

This isn’t the individual rights issue Mr. Olson makes it out to be. The elevation of homosexual marriage equates to the tearing down of the first right enumerated in the First Amendment, Freedom of Religion.

Check out U of Mich. professor Laycock’s letter to the Connecticut legislature. He is a same-sex marriage proponent but realizes that simple granting of the right without written religious protections will start a religious war in the US courts.

No such provision exists in the California law which Olson wishes to resurrect. Ted Olson is either lying about this being about “individual rights” or a very poor lawyer unaware of the conflicts. His record supports that he’s a liar.

They’re a dime a dozen: Ted Olson, Bill Bennett, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Eric Cantor – the list goes on. They would rather please their “cocktail circuit buddies” or turn a quick buck than stand up for conservative values.

True Conservative Outsiders need to take control of the GOP. In 2012 we need to run an outsider who truly represents conservative values (and the fact that she’s a beautiful woman who knows how to handle an assault rifle makes Sarah all the more appealing).

Yes, except polygamy might exponentially increase the odds of a kid having his life upended by divorce. It only requires one of his father’s several wives to seek a divorce and the house gets sold.

My points are all from the one male/multiple females perspective. This is the most common arrangement. Others would be legally possible but for the sake of brevity I’ll stick with this one approach.

dedalus on May 27, 2009 at 3:16 PM

First, for each child, it’s not an exponential increase. It would only be a factor of n increase (n+1 being the number of parents). Further, how high is the divorce rate among polygamists? It doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t affect the selective reasoning of the SSM-movement. However, if we are going to worry about how everything is going to affect society and literally make our decisions based on statistics, then we might have to not allow people of certain backgrounds (including homosexuals) to marry.

Upstater85 on May 27, 2009 at 3:24 PM

The chance of divorce increases as some function of the number of relationships (i.e., any irreconcilable difference between husband-wife#1, husband-wife#2, husband-wife#3, wife#1-wife#2, wife#1-wife#3, etc. can prompt the divorce) so increases somewhat faster than just linearly.
The statistical chance that brother-sister couplings will produce birth defects is one compelling interest the state has in outlawing such marriages.
Each type of restriction the state puts on marriage will generate a different compelling interest argument–siblings, multiple partners, inter-racial, gays. Ending one type of restriction doesn’t compel the ending of all restrictions.

dedalus on May 27, 2009 at 5:52 PM

More than linear isn’t exponential, though it is still more than linear. There is no doubt it would be more complicated, but definitely not exponentially more complicated.

Of course incest could have harmful biological results. But then, so could production of those with harmful genetic diseases. Perhaps we should sterilize all people with AIDS (that won’t even prevent the spread, just now doubling of growth). Further, ending one restriction doesn’t automatically lift the other restrictions, but the whole point of many of my arguments is if you are going to use the Olson “This Category Love Each other” argument, then you pretty much have to lift the other restrictions. If for example, there was a compelling argument as to why gay marriage was Constitutional but Polygamy wasn’t, then this wouldn’t open the door to Polygamy. Technically, this is not Olson’s fight. He need not worry about how his flawed logic might open the doors to other forms of marriage; however, it should be taken into consideration.

First of all, you are guaranteed the pursuit of happiness, provided you play by the same laws that everyone else does.

I’m with you on the right to life, and I’m a conservative too. As you will see from comment threads here on Hot Air and elsewhere, a large percentage of conservatives, for one reason or another, favor gay marriage.

You need to be aware that a law is not a law because it got passed. Same for a state constitution. They are subject to being overturned when they run afoul of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and various signed treaties.

If you want to say that two adults seeking a sanctified long-term relationship is not the essence of the pursuit of happiness and that it can be denied simply for infringing on nothing more than the sensibilities of others (a minority of others, I might add), you have a very unrobust concept of pursuing happiness.

Your position seems especially inconsistent in that you are not condemning gay relationships, just the sanctification thereof. If this church or that wants to proscribe gay marriage, fine. If the government wants out of the marriage business, fine. But for the government to say that some long-term reationships may be sanctified and other not is wrong on the face of it, and I hope Olson prevails.

I don’t agree with your equating gay desire with taking it in the butt, but I agree with your overall point that we should better ourselves instead of whining. It serves us ill to argue about who had it worse in the 19th century. And by the way just about everyone alive in 1899 is now dead.

thuja on May 27, 2009

Thx … even though i was purposely being an ass you still handled yourself with dignity and respect to agree to disagree. I must thank you for being a gentleman.

Have a good day bro

First, a legally recognized marriage can do and say nothing of promiscuity.

I did say sanctified long-term relationship. If you have so little faith in marriage, why are you defending it?

So lets not cry about who got abused more , and lets just try and better ourselves … and by that I mean stop being mormon and stop CHOOSING to take it in the butt.

Donut on May 27, 2009 at 5:51 PM

I don’t agree with your equating gay desire with taking it in the butt, but I agree with your overall point that we should better ourselves instead of whining. It serves us ill to argue about who had it worse in the 19th century. And by the way just about everyone alive in 1899 is now dead.

Many of my conservative friends think that “gay marriage” is a contradiction in terms. To them, “marriage” means “a man and a woman.” Some conservatives I know would be willing to extend “civil partnerships” to gay couples; some not. Still……

Gay people have been murdered by the states for their sexuality. They have been castrated. They have been thrown in prison. They have been thrown into asylums.

thuja on May 27, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Yes, but not by the US government.

Esthier on May 27, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Are you making a point about the wisdom of federalism? I’m all for state’s right too. It’s why I’m a gay men born in North Carolina and I like Jesse Helms.
But I really don’t think any victim of bigotry was concerned about the politics of federalism while they were being tortured or killed. I’ll probably have a nightmare tonight about being waterboarded by Keith Olbermann quizzing me about the finer points of my support for states rights.

Because we aren’t talking about giving legal sanction to Folsom itself. We are talking about giving legal sanction to polygamy which involves one man & many women or one women and many man or, perhaps, each man having many wives and each wife having many husbands. It is difficult to discuss every permutation at once, so I’m referring to the type that seems to predominate in history and which would have to be dealt with if polygamy were legalized. If there were a separate initiative to legalize only polyandry, perhaps that would work better.

dedalus on May 27, 2009 at 6:23 PM

Understood, but when people make the same case about homosexuals, it doesn’t work.

If, say, the siblings were separated at birth and then met and fell in love as adults people might find the case compelling.

dedalus on May 27, 2009 at 6:29 PM

Certainly, but when that happens (and it does), the man generally goes to jail.

It’s still just too creepy for sympathy.

You display a great example of schizophrenic argumentation – swing one way then the other, then back again, then out into left field. Good for you.

trailboss on May 27, 2009 at 6:01 PM

o, well I tried to make it so you knew when i was arguing a point and being logical, and when i was giving my own illogical opinion for which I can not really give facts to back up. But I don’t have to back them up because… they are mine :)

Women over 45 are nearly four times more likely to produce a child with a birth defect, but there is no reason to believe we would ever take away her right to procreate.

And the risk you mention is 2.6%. There’s a 97% chance the children will not have a defect.

Esthier on May 27, 2009 at 6:07 PM

If siblings ever sued for the right to marriage, perhaps the courts would consider that line of argument. If, say, the siblings were separated at birth and then met and fell in love as adults people might find the case compelling. However, it would have a different set of criteria than SSM.

Of course it doesn’t, if your only view of polygamy is that of someone like ugh Hefner.

But how is that any different than seeing all gays as Folsom Street gays?

Esthier on May 27, 2009 at 6:07 PM

Because we aren’t talking about giving legal sanction to Folsom itself. We are talking about giving legal sanction to polygamy which involves one man & many women or one women and many man or, perhaps, each man having many wives and each wife having many husbands. It is difficult to discuss every permutation at once, so I’m referring to the type that seems to predominate in history and which would have to be dealt with if polygamy were legalized. If there were a separate initiative to legalize only polyandry, perhaps that would work better.

The States banned Sodomy not because they hate gays, but because it was “unclean”. Sodomy is not just butt sex, its oral. Basically anything other than Vaginal sex = sodomy .

Donut on May 27, 2009 at 5:51 PM

Actually, in some states the law only applied to those who weren’t married or only to anal sex. There was little uniformity there.

It doesn’t take a large leap for someone to look at divorce and say that it achieves a result similar to polygamy.

dedalus on May 27, 2009 at 5:59 PM

Of course it doesn’t, if your only view of polygamy is that of someone like ugh Hefner.

But how is that any different than seeing all gays as Folsom Street gays?

The statistical chance that brother-sister couplings will produce birth defects is one compelling interest the state has in outlawing such marriages.

dedalus on May 27, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Women over 45 are nearly four times more likely to produce a child with a birth defect, but there is no reason to believe we would ever take away her right to procreate.

And the risk you mention is 2.6%. There’s a 97% chance the children will not have a defect.

So lets not cry about who got abused more , and lets just try and better ourselves … and by that I mean stop being mormon and stop CHOOSING to take it in the butt.

Donut on May 27, 2009 at 5:51 PM

You display a great example of schizophrenic argumentation – swing one way then the other, then back again, then out into left field. Good for you.