Quote of the day
posted at 10:30 pm on July 20, 2009 by Allahpundit
“[T]here is no legitimate state policy underlying Proposition 8. The occasional suggestion that marriages between people of different sexes may somehow be threatened by marriages of people of the same sex does not withstand discussion. It is difficult to the point of impossibility to envision two love-struck heterosexuals contemplating marriage to decide against it because gays and lesbians also have the right to marry; it is equally hard to envision a couple whose marriage is troubled basing the decision of whether to divorce on whether their gay neighbors are married or living in a domestic partnership. And even if depriving lesbians of the right to marry each other could force them into marrying someone they do not love but who happens to be of the opposite sex, it is impossible to see how that could be thought to be as likely to lead to a stable, loving relationship as a marriage to the person they do love.
Moreover, there is no longer any credible contention that depriving gays and lesbians of basic rights will cause them to change their sexual orientation. Even if there was, the attempt would be constitutionally defective. But, in fact, the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin or the sexual orientation of their straight brothers and sisters. It is also a condition that, like race, has historically been subject to abusive and often violent discrimination. It is precisely where a minority’s basic human rights are abridged that our Constitution’s promise of due process and equal protection is most vital.”
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 2 3 Next »
While it is not the ideal situation, I’m not suspicious of women the way I am with men. When you have kids, you tend to look at every guy with a little suspicion. What worries me is that social workers might be nervous about claims of discrimination if they work too hard at background checks (thinks airport security – burqas stroll through little old grandma get strip searched).
Laura in Maryland on July 20, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Me neither, but the problem is the “one foot in the door”, saying. Once homosexuality becomes acceptable, it opens the door to a cascade of odd marriages too come. Barriers are there for a reason. To protect marriage from becoming nothing but a way for entitlements.
FontanaConservative on July 20, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Lawyers tend not to care about that.
I’m not. I’m an all or nothing person.
Esthier on July 20, 2009 at 11:14 PM
And now blacks can marry those of the opposite sex
Your thickness is that of a child or an attorney who can bs like crazy
Most blacks puke at your comparison btw
CWforFreedom on July 20, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Ah, you are starting to understand. He wouldn’t so they are trying to force the state to rewrite the Bible to make their lifestyle perfectly natural and acceptable. If you cant get God to submit to your will, rewrite his word and you have forced him to submit to your will.
doriangrey on July 20, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Can’t we all just be happy and gay?
Bishop on July 20, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Elevating the family unit, anchored in traditional marriage, to favored status–for the good of society–is an extraordinarily legitimate reason.
BuckeyeSam on July 20, 2009 at 11:15 PM
That would be a legitimate reason except for two points.
1) Lesbians have the lowest AIDs/STD rate out of any group.
2) Monogamy leads to a decrease in STDs.
SDnocoen on July 20, 2009 at 11:15 PM
I can see drawing the line at “parties” who cannot legally consent to sex or other contracts.
Esthier on July 20, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Lower than non drug using celibates? I somehow doubt that.
doriangrey on July 20, 2009 at 11:17 PM
So allowing guys with alimentary canal fixations to marry will make it less soiled?
peacenprosperity on July 20, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Very well said! Agreed.
HornetSting on July 20, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Marriage doesn’t equal monogamy. If someone is the type to cheat, a piece of paper won’t change that.
Esthier on July 20, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Heh. Allah just dumped a wheelbarrow-full of juicy fillets into shark-infested waters.
As a follow-up to the red meat he fed to the BC-crowd.
You bucking for a raise, AP? ;-)
nukemhill on July 20, 2009 at 11:18 PM
not commenting…must not reply
aaaaauugh!
;)
Laura in Maryland on July 20, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Lower than heteros.
Esthier on July 20, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Skin color is an immutable characteristic. Engaging in homosexual sex is a voluntary choice. Gays are entitled to do so. Governmental policies simply shouldn’t be established to promote it the same manner that policies are established to promote families anchored in traditional marriage.
BuckeyeSam on July 20, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Give me a break!!! Since when did “consent” become the new Jim Crow?!?!?!
STOP WITH YOUR HATEFUL “CONSENT”-DRIVEN BIAS!
TRUEluv=NEVERhaving2askPERMISSION
ERASE THE H8!!!!!!!!!
battleoflepanto1571 on July 20, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Allah can’t afford juicy fillets, it’s weiners. Lots of weiner.
HornetSting on July 20, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Of course we know that they will remain monogamous after marriage /sarc
By your argument we have to have polygamy too….there goes your monogamy bs again. Seems you are out of ammo.
CWforFreedom on July 20, 2009 at 11:21 PM
There’s no need to be rude. I didn’t respond because your point was so blatantly disingenuous. The “pool” you’re talking about is obviously different for homosexuals than it is for heterosexuals. For homosexuals it consists of the same sex, and for heterosexuals it consists of the opposite sex.
Now I’m perfectly fine with a straight guy marrying a dude if he wants to (no special rights remember!), just like those who aren’t attracted to those outside their race are allowed to marry one anyway.
SDnocoen on July 20, 2009 at 11:21 PM
‘Tis a rant filled with strawmen and hyperbole, signifying nothing.
ChePibe on July 20, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Disregarding any anal fixations you mention, I cannot, for the life of me now, see how two people who want to spend their lives together are HURTING marriage.
Straight people abuse each other, kill each other, do drugs, drink too much, and cheat on each other all under the banner of “marriage.”
How is letting two gay people who love each other marry destroying marriage? It may not make things less soiled, but I don’t think it does any more harm than what’s been done already by the very straights that claim exclusive rights to it.
But like I said, I worry about what happens after you let gays marry.
blatantblue on July 20, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Again. Allahpundit’s hot dog.
Loxodonta on July 20, 2009 at 11:22 PM
It is not, as he states, “in fact” a God-given characteristic. No valid scientific or medical study has proven that homosexuality is anything other than a personal lifestyle choice. Making that choice, for whatever reason or influence does not accord that person minority status. I know a lot of people of color who would be offended by this statement.
jehowe2nd on July 20, 2009 at 11:22 PM
That makes spawn of mccain a real H8er. Her mommy is worth millions. I bet she never picks up the check, either.
Blake on July 20, 2009 at 11:23 PM
I’m just glad that this type of article didn’t heap praise on Abe Lincoln, the war for Southern independence, or MLK, integration, forced busing, etc. Maybe the WSJ is improving?
/
The Dean on July 20, 2009 at 11:23 PM
He’s about the weiner, Lox. No bones about it.
HornetSting on July 20, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Back when I used to be able to stomach Oprah, she had the Fab Five on. Oprah asked why gay men were so promiscuous, and Carson replied that MEN tend to have a lot more drive in that department, but women tend to put the kibosh to that type of behavior. Gay men don’t have that impediment to wild, uninhibited activity.
Laura in Maryland on July 20, 2009 at 11:25 PM
There’s my 2 cents :)
FontanaConservative on July 20, 2009 at 11:27 PM
It would probably be better for the country if it didn’t go to SCOTUS, at least for a few years. But if it is headed there we can just cut to the chase and ask Justice Kennedy what he’ll decide–Stevens, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer likely side with Olson & Boies.
dedalus on July 20, 2009 at 11:27 PM
I keeed, I keeed! There will always be room for you in my big tent.
Laura in Maryland on July 20, 2009 at 11:28 PM
big tent
is that some sort of big poofy skirt?
blatantblue on July 20, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Exactly. Gay men are with other men who have more equal footing with their sexual appetites.
Esthier on July 20, 2009 at 11:29 PM
It was worth a lot more, FC. I didn’t think about it that way….but, yes, more entitlements that we just can’t afford right now.
HornetSting on July 20, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Allah,
I am right with you on this one. Certain basic freedoms, like bestowing your worldly possessions or leaving your death benifits, upon whom you choose. There is no possible justification for this.
Though no matter how “femme” or “butch” any homo-sexual may be, they cannot get around the fact that are not the the opposite sex. Therefore I do not see how, 2 women could teach a boy how to be a man, or vice versa. So, I do see potential issues in allowing adoptions, which many would like to do.
This is a sticky wicket no matter how you parse it, whoever finds where the line is ultimately drawn, is hopefully wiser than I.
Archimedes on July 20, 2009 at 11:30 PM
lucky bastids
blatantblue on July 20, 2009 at 11:30 PM
In Bawlemr, we call it a housecoat, hon.
Laura in Maryland on July 20, 2009 at 11:31 PM
You have been a little pill all day, Cutlet. Did someone pee in your fruit loops this morning?
HornetSting on July 20, 2009 at 11:31 PM
When man can naturally make baby on man, or woman can naturally make baby on woman, then I will reconsider their need to marry.
End of discussion.
allrsn on July 20, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Many a comedian has stated that if you want to eliminate gay sex, you need allow gay marriage.
Laura in Maryland on July 20, 2009 at 11:32 PM
That will never happen. Men can’t handle the pain.
HornetSting on July 20, 2009 at 11:33 PM
I most certainly have not!
I don’t know what you mean by little pill but I can deduce that it is not a compliment!
blatantblue on July 20, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Hey, y’know what would get an awesome hit count?
SARA PALIN MARRIES MEGHAN McCAIN, CONVERTS TO ATHEISM.
…just sayin’.
Rhinoboy on July 20, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Is this why I received no response to my genome previous question?
ROCnPhilly on July 20, 2009 at 11:34 PM
All I’m saying is
If you have a big tent, let me in
blatantblue on July 20, 2009 at 11:34 PM
I would never insult you, BB, you know that. YOu have been, well, testy, all day. All is well?
HornetSting on July 20, 2009 at 11:35 PM
genome previousearlier genomeROCnPhilly on July 20, 2009 at 11:35 PM
He just wants under your skirt.
HornetSting on July 20, 2009 at 11:36 PM
I think she’s just worried for you is all.
FontanaConservative on July 20, 2009 at 11:36 PM
To be serious, I prefer the civil union approach. I don’t want homosexuals to be socially stigmatized simply because they are homosexuals or have private homosexual activity. But I do worry about the negative impact gay marriage can have on religious organizations and on adoption.
Loxodonta on July 20, 2009 at 11:36 PM
bs
ever eat a Chipotle burrito too fast?
CWforFreedom on July 20, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Yes, if Palin started playing for the other team and chose Meghan, out of all the other women loving women in the world, it might be proof that there is no G_d.
myrenovations on July 20, 2009 at 11:37 PM
You just need Obama in there. Maybe he could preside over the ceremony
CWforFreedom on July 20, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Well passing kidney stones I’ve read can be just as painful….jus sayin’
FontanaConservative on July 20, 2009 at 11:38 PM
BB is a normal man. He has two.
Loxodonta on July 20, 2009 at 11:39 PM
I see that as less of an issue than all the hormones. Guys just can’t handle that.
Esthier on July 20, 2009 at 11:39 PM
SDneocon, you have just admitted that your attempt to equate gay marriage with the civil rights movement is flawed. Legally, a homosexual is limited to the EXACT SAME MARRIAGE POOL as a heterosexual. Under Jim Crow, blacks and whites were kept in SEPARATE, NON-OVERLAPPING MARRIAGE POOLS.
This is your example. It is not disingenuous to point out that your analogy is fundamentally broken.
Although, I find it interesting that, since I did hint to what the proper equal-rights based argument would be, that you have started integrating it into your responses. So, who is really being disingenuous here?
JSchuler on July 20, 2009 at 11:39 PM
one is titanium
ive developed a slight limp due to the weight discrepancy
blatantblue on July 20, 2009 at 11:39 PM
Comparing sizes makes me wonder.
Esthier on July 20, 2009 at 11:40 PM
No, I’m a woman, I’m smart enough not to! :)
HornetSting on July 20, 2009 at 11:41 PM
shhh
idk if she wants blatantblunt or blatantblue
I’ve passed puke and that was awful
blatantblue on July 20, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Good post.
The reality is Californians legally defined marriage and constitutionally. The gay rights movement is trying to overcome the will of the people . That should bother all.
CWforFreedom on July 20, 2009 at 11:41 PM
God-given? I think not. Race is a genealogy issue and same-gender sex is deviant behavior. Any living creature that lacks the desire to secure the survival of its own species is by definition defective.
Homosexuality is a behavioral choice by those who cannot function normally with the opposite sex for one reason or another and nothing more. Even the APA has given up on the genetic/innate buffoonery. It has changed its newest pamphlet to state that there is no proof whatsoever, that homosexuality is genetic.
The formal disorder of homosexuality should never have been removed from the The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), in 1973.
For the full story:
Google: [PDF] The “Trojan Couch”: How the Mental Health Associations …
While you’re reading the material note the names of those responsible for forcing the American Psychiatric Association to remove Homosexuality as a formal disorder. Frank Kameny is mentioned, and this is what he’s been up to all these years later. As follows:
Google: Americans for Truth » ‘Gay Rights’ Icon Frank Kameny Says …
sinsing on July 20, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Thank you, Lox. All this talk about weiners and being testy fits right in.
HornetSting on July 20, 2009 at 11:42 PM
ps: Sorry. I’ve spent too much time at the Rasmussen: Obama 45, Romney 45; Obama 48, Palin 42 thread.
Loxodonta on July 20, 2009 at 11:42 PM
YOu have been, well, testy, all day.
HornetSting on July 20, 2009 at 11:35 PM
BB is a normal man. He has two.
Loxodonta on July 20, 2009 at 11:39 PM
I see things have gone south since I left the thread earlier.
txag92 on July 20, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Well you got a baby which is large, but smooth coming out through a Large “canal”, While with kidney stones you have something sharp and hard going through a narrow passage way, very slowly ripping it’s way to the exit.
FontanaConservative on July 20, 2009 at 11:43 PM
your death arrives in 5
4
3
2
1
blatantblue on July 20, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Easy peasy…been there, done that. Never popped out a kid, but Eve’s curse alone would finish the old Y chromosome.
I have FM, can’t even take Morphine when it gets going, doesn’t work…so, no, I don’t think men could handle it. I’m not a femi-nazi…just realistic. SO, sorry, no 8 for you!
HornetSting on July 20, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Somehow I think the men v. women discussion on kidney stones v. child birth is going to end up being more contentious than the gay marriage thing.
myrenovations on July 20, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Just leave BB alone. I was told by one of his girlfriends that he’s an upstanding young man and a Big tent Republican.
That was for you.
Loxodonta on July 20, 2009 at 11:45 PM
I should really learn to keep my big trap shut :)
FontanaConservative on July 20, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Watermelon thru a keylime ‘canal’. Talk about ‘dark passage’.
HornetSting on July 20, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Fontana Conservative just sealed his own e-fate with this:
The women of HotAir will devour this young lad!!
Never knew ye!! RIP
blatantblue on July 20, 2009 at 11:46 PM
I’m thinking you’re overstating the largeness of the canal. It’s made to be a snug enough fit for one thing, and it’s just a lot smaller than a baby’s shoulders.
Plus, they cut you in anticipation of the tearing!
I can think of few more frightening prospects.
Esthier on July 20, 2009 at 11:46 PM
“upstanding”
especially in the morning.
blatantblue on July 20, 2009 at 11:46 PM
chuckle
CWforFreedom on July 20, 2009 at 11:46 PM
He hunts cougar, Lox. That’s gotta be painful on his young heart.
HornetSting on July 20, 2009 at 11:47 PM
help???
FontanaConservative on July 20, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Excellent point!
allrsn on July 20, 2009 at 11:48 PM
I’m so sorry I started this, well, I took the bait when someone talked about men having babies……then it just went from there. We need a comic relief.
Keylime pie, anyone? Hee hee.
HornetSting on July 20, 2009 at 11:48 PM
The LGBT community really want’s the WORD marraige so they can be “happy” or “commited” or “equal” or whaterver term they would like to apply to it.
The problem with that is:
They don’t want the other WORDS that come with marraige like…
Child Support
Child Custody
Alimony
Palimony
Visitation
Property division
Divorce
Restraining Order
Paternaty suit
Prenuptual Agreement….. etc!
When I hear the LBGT comunity begging to PAY THE FREIGHT on these WORDS and eager to “embrace” EVERYTHING that comes with THE WORD marraige not just the “right” to have it I’ll support them being able to marry.
Honestly I’m not holding my breath because I’m not really sure how they could put a comercial campaign together that makes weeks in court to get alimony and child support sound like a really great and fantastic thing to deal with…
babydoll4you on July 20, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Can’t help ya!
You are alone to drift in a sea of disgruntled mothers
blatantblue on July 20, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Why mornings? Always seems to be when I’m most exhausted.
Esthier on July 20, 2009 at 11:48 PM
I agree with you. Equal legal treatment and make sure laws are reviewed and updated to protect religious organizations–though the First Amendment is already quite strong.
Most married people currently view their marriage, or potential marriage, as something defined by stricter conditions than what the state requires–religion, family, tradition shape these. If the state issues a civil license it shouldn’t matter too much what the title is.
dedalus on July 20, 2009 at 11:48 PM
He should use Bounty. It’s the quicker picker upper.
Loxodonta on July 20, 2009 at 11:49 PM
No, that thread kept me on here all day long…didn’t get much done.
HornetSting on July 20, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Lets just agree that both are incredibly painful. e-friends again?
FontanaConservative on July 20, 2009 at 11:50 PM
The less resistance, the better.
Loxodonta on July 20, 2009 at 11:50 PM
My collie says:
Don’t worry collie, we wont mention the penguins either, okay?
My collie says:
Collie, are you are saying that AllahPundit should marry his gay roomate?
My collie says:
Sticks and stones, collie.
CyberCipher on July 20, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Never stopped, Fontana. Equally painful.
HornetSting on July 20, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Speaking of all things men… Is there an Our Bodies, Ourselves type book for men like there is for women?
myrenovations on July 20, 2009 at 11:53 PM
This is what we wanted to avoid….first gay marriage, then collie is going to start propositioning my domestic shorthair cat…..see, see what you have done, Kalifornia!
HornetSting on July 20, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Need a refresher coarse, renovation?
HornetSting on July 20, 2009 at 11:55 PM
I took the easy way out of this large whole I dug.
you hear that BB? I survived.
FontanaConservative on July 20, 2009 at 11:55 PM
:)
Esthier on July 20, 2009 at 11:55 PM
*Sigh* First of all I didn’t mention it when I first made my argument because it’s a bit ludicrous to imagine a straight guy marrying another man, but since you seemed to think its so important I threw it in there.
And because you think that the separation of the pools is the key factor here (as opposed to the separate experience homosexuals and heterosexuals have towards that pool) I’ll frame it in another way.
My marriage pool as a gay male currently consists of the entire female population (with the obvious exceptions). A woman’s marriage pool consists of the entire male population. These are COMPLETELY SEPARATE, NON-OVERLAPPING POOLS. I cannot marry anybody her pool. Just as I could not have married anybody in a white person’s pool 50 years ago.
SDnocoen on July 20, 2009 at 11:56 PM
lulling yourself into a false sense of security i see
blatantblue on July 20, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Just curious.
myrenovations on July 20, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »