Supreme Court to decide this week whether to rule on gay marriage

posted at 7:46 pm on November 26, 2012 by Allahpundit

Belated good news for those of you who were disappointed in gay marriage’s victories at the polls on election day: Those victories may have inadvertently saved the prohibitions on gay marriage in other states.

For awhile, at least.

Usually, the justices are inclined to vote to hear a case if they disagree with the lower court ruling. The most conservative justices — Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — almost certainly think the 9th Circuit’s ruling was dubious. Scalia, for example, says the “equal protection” clause, added to the Constitution after the Civil War, aimed to stop racial discrimination and nothing more. He often insists the justices are not authorized to give a contemporary interpretation to phrases such as “equal protection.”

If Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joins the other three, the conservatives would have the needed four votes to hear the Proposition 8 case.

They may hesitate. To form a majority, they would need Kennedy, the author of the court’s two strongest gay rights rulings. His 2003 opinion struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law and said the state could not “demean” gays by treating them as second-class citizens. Five months later, the Massachusetts high court, citing Kennedy’s opinion, became the first to rule that gays and lesbians had a right to marry.

There are actually a bunch of cases they could vote to take up, from Prop 8 to various DOMA challenges. Kennedy has written not one but two landmark opinions on gay rights so it’s highly likely that he’ll vote with the Court’s liberals to form a majority if/when those issues finally land before them. In other words, how the Court will eventually rule is less of a mystery than whether they’ll choose to intervene in this subject at all; Friday’s vote on whether to grant cert and accept the cases is therefore momentous.

But wait. If you only need four votes to grant cert and if Kennedy’s opinion that the Equal Protection Clause protects gay marriage is all but assured, then why don’t the four liberals on the Court force the issue by voting to take the Prop 8 case? Answer: For the moment, it’s bad strategy. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, February 2012:

At the time of Roe v. Wade, abortion was legal on request in four states, allowed under limited circumstances in about 16 others, and outlawed under nearly all circumstances in the other states, including Texas – where the Roe case originated.

Alluding to the persisting bitter debate over abortion, Ginsburg said the justices of that era could have delayed hearing any case like Roe while the state-by-state process evolved. Alternatively, she said, they could have struck down just the Texas law, which allowed abortions only to save a mother’s life, without declaring a right to privacy that legalized the procedure nationwide.

“The court made a decision that made every abortion law in the country invalid, even the most liberal,” Ginsburg said. “We’ll never know whether I’m right or wrong … things might have turned out differently if the court had been more restrained.”

“It’s not that the judgment was wrong,” she said of Roe, “but it moved too far too fast.” Same logic here: If there’s momentum for your side of the issue at the polls, why risk igniting a backlash by taking it out of voters’ hands? The best thing gay-rights advocates can do to build popular acceptance of SSM is let it accrue democratic legitimacy. Some, in fact, have been warning Ted Olson and David Boies to knock it off with the court challenges for years in the interest of not judicially short-circuiting the process of public acceptance. If Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington had voted differently three weeks ago, those same advocates might have given up hope of winning at the polls and resigned themselves to court battles. Now, though, they know they can win — in some states. And the gay-rights supporters on the Court know it too. So maybe on Friday the conservative wing votes not to take the Prop 8 case because they suspect Kennedy will vote against them and maybe the liberal wing votes not to take the case because, following Ginsburg’s logic, they don’t want to taint SSM as something that was imposed by judicial fiat.

Two potential problems, though. First, the Ninth Circuit, which includes Idaho and Montana, has already ruled against Prop 8 and in favor of gay marriage, which means we’re already seeing federal appellate courts hand down pro-SSM rulings to districts that presumably trend anti. It’s true that the Ninth Circuit’s decision was written narrowly, restricted to California presumably in hopes that that would leave the Supreme Court more inclined not to overturn it, but a federal district court in the Circuit’s redder states might end up applying the case as precedent anyway. And even if they don’t, some other appellate circuit is bound to force SCOTUS’s hand eventually by issuing a more sweeping ruling on the subject. The Supremes can only hold back on this for so long before clarity from the top will be required. Second, at what point will “enough” democratic legitimacy accrue to SSM via victories at the polls before gay-rights advocates start pushing again for a constitutional ruling that will legalize it everywhere? Imagine if we end up with an even split among states, 25 apiece, with half banning gay marriage and half legalizing. A triumph of federalism! — except that, at that point, Olson and Boies or whoever’s leading the charge will go back to the Court and claim that gay marriage is now widely accepted enough as a basic right that the 25 holdout states should be compelled under the Equal Protection Clause to legalize it too. In other words, the “democratic” strategy is really just a way of building up the legal case long-term for judicially imposed SSM. In that case, maybe SSM opponents should hope that the Court takes it up now. If Kennedy does as expected and sides with the liberals, traditionalists will at least have a new milestone of judicial usurpation to point to as a rallying point for political mobilization. Good lord, the politics of this are convoluted.

Exit question: Say, is that Morgan Freeman?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3

101

Bmore on November 27, 2012 at 1:10 PM

I’m sure some crazy gay rights group will want to sue to force churches to “marry” them, but any sane judge should then tell them to pound sand, the government doesn’t involve itself in “marriage” nor have any influence over church practices as guided by the First Amendment, only civil unions which any two adults are free to acquire. gravityman on November 27, 2012 at 1:03 PM

You have a lot of faith in judges for some reason.

Akzed on November 27, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Why can’t the government just issue civil union licenses and put an end to this. Then we can let churches and only churches marry. – nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 12:15 PM

You do realize that there are gay churches. If they marry a homosexual couple is that marriage to be recognized as a marriage?

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Why can’t the government just issue civil union licenses and put an end to this. Then we can let churches and only churches marry.

And FYI, equating 2 gay people loving each other to someone marrying an animal does absolutely nothing to help the conservative cause in the eyes of potential voters. It’s the equivalent of a kiss-in where gay couples make out in front of 5 year olds in a restaurant and expect to gain new supporters.

nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Seriously?

Money and power.

Women are what drive men to marry, at any rate.

But when a girl plays marriage, they don’t pretend to line up at the DMV. It’s a steeple and a wedding dress.

The power would go back to the churches, and then the large denominations won’t recognize ghey mirage, so it would remain a subculture event.

As for the money, a license would be more profitable for cities and states.

Except, you couldn’t stop any couple from getting a license as a way to qualify for tax breaks.

The IRS has thought that through, and the only answer would be to make the marriage certificate a prerequisite for a license.

Except, then, you’ve put subjugated more power from the state to the church.

So it really is about Congress and whoever is POTUS. They want the Supremes to nationalize because it keeps the power and the money on the guvment’s side.

Ghey Mirage is an easy argument to win. We just have people not willing to make the right case.

It’s not a morality issue. It’s freedom of religion. That’s why, IMO, the Supremes decided to hear out Liberty vs Obamacare. That ruling is going to impact ghey mirage, which makes me think Roberts has gamed this out.

Know how Roberts rules, beatsme. The guy did pro-bono gay rights works years ago.

But, I think he’s going to vote for Liberty over Obamacare as a way to remove the prop 8 card from ghey mirage.

The fighting ground in Libery/Obamacare is more analogous and relevant to SSM than Roe. Federal law trying to usurp the first amendment.

Gay advocates argue otherwise, saying they’re not looking for religious orgs to recognize ghey mirage, but that’s a load of shite when you read prop 8. The entire argument is predicated on the idea that anything less than “marriage” is second-class citizenry.

That eventually leads to churches being classified as practicing bigotry and hate speech and threats over tax exemptions, which again, is the heart of the Liberty/Obamacare fight.

If the churches gave up tax exemptions, most of this goes away as they would not be under the influence of tax policy games.

budfox on November 27, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Are churches forced by any federal law to perform marriages between Jews and Christians …….. or African Americans and whites? Do they loose their tax exemption if they discriminate?

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Are churches forced by any federal law to perform marriages between Jews and Christians …….. or African Americans and whites? Do they loose their tax exemption if they discriminate?

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Prior to about the 1970s, try going into a church in the South as an inter-racial couple and asking to get married. You would not have gotten very far with that, and probably would have been told blacks and whites marrying was an abomination and would be the end of civilization as we know it. Sound familiar?

gravityman on November 27, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Are churches forced by any federal law to perform marriages between Jews and Christians …….. or African Americans and whites? Do they loose their tax exemption if they discriminate? – SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 1:26 PM

The answer is no.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 1:36 PM

You have a lot of faith in judges for some reason.

Akzed on November 27, 2012 at 1:14 PM

No, not really… especially after Roberts’ ObamaCare decision.

I said they “should” do that and it would be the proper legal thing to do if that were the law of the land. I didn’t say they would. But how is that different from any other decision we leave to judges? There are always decisions by judges that one said or the other disagrees with… otherwise we wouldnt need to opposing sides in legal cases and would have no need for judges in the first place.

gravityman on November 27, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Prior to about the 1970s, try going into a church in the South as an inter-racial couple and asking to get married. You would not have gotten very far with that, and probably would have been told blacks and whites marrying was an abomination and would be the end of civilization as we know it. Sound familiar? – gravityman on November 27, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Churches are still allowed to say who they will and will not marry. There has been no government intervention.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Are churches forced by any federal law to perform marriages between Jews and Christians …….. or African Americans and whites? Do they loose their tax exemption if they discriminate? – SC.
Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 1:26 PM

This also goes to the freedom of churches to rent out their facilities to whom they wish. Once gay marriage becomes the law of the land, count on lawsuits against anyone, be it churches, photographers, wedding planners, florists, etc who decide they don’t want to deal with gay marriage.

STL_Vet on November 27, 2012 at 2:07 PM

…photographers, wedding planners, florists, etc who decide they don’t want to deal with gay marriage.

STL_Vet on November 27, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Do those entities not have the right now to refuse anyone’s business… or conversely, are they required now to take any and all straight marriage business inquiries that show up on their door?

gravityman on November 27, 2012 at 2:15 PM

This also goes to the freedom of churches to rent out their facilities to whom they wish. Once gay marriage becomes the law of the land, count on lawsuits against anyone, be it churches, photographers, wedding planners, florists, etc who decide they don’t want to deal with gay marriage. – STL_Vet on November 27, 2012 at 2:07 PM

There could be conflict there if churches rent to all comers with the exception of gays. They would simply have to change their rental policies to members of the church only. There are already laws in certain jurisdictions that don’t allow people to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation while conducting business.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Churches are still allowed to say who they will and will not marry. There has been no government intervention.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 1:51 PM

If the 0bama regime has it’s way, military chaplains will be forced to perform homosexual “marriages”.

Rebar on November 27, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Do you really think that gay couples are going to hire unfriendly people to be part of their marriage?

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Do you really think that gay couples are going to hire unfriendly people to be part of their marriage?

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Ask Elaine Huguenin.

Rebar on November 27, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Do those entities not have the right now to refuse anyone’s business… or conversely, are they required now to take any and all straight marriage business inquiries that show up on their door?

gravityman on November 27, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Do you really think that gay couples are going to hire unfriendly people to be part of their marriage?

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Elane Photography would like a word with the two of you.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 2:28 PM

man, Rebar, scooped me by three minutes :p

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Elane Photography would like a word with the two of you.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 2:28 PM

And I believe that law suit should have been thrown out on it’s ear.

gravityman on November 27, 2012 at 2:29 PM

And I believe that law suit should have been thrown out on it’s ear.

gravityman on November 27, 2012 at 2:29 PM

But it wasn’t. That is the point. So, now, in order to protect this woman’s (and everyone else’s) 1st Amendment rights, we have to stop the advance and make the opposition retreat a bit.

Overreaching is a b1tch.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM

In the case of Elane Photography my sympathy lies with her, not the gay couple who filed the suit. The lesbian couple should have sought out a photographer who was gay friendly. New Mexico law needs to be changed.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 2:39 PM

In the case of Elane Photography my sympathy lies with her, not the gay couple who filed the suit. The lesbian couple should have sought out a photographer who was gay friendly. New Mexico law needs to be changed.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Yeah, one of the gay people in this lawsuit was an EEO Compliance Specialist at the University of New Mexico.

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Willock_Vanessa_1269662501.aspx

The chances that this person just happened to request that a Christian photographer photograph her “wedding” and then file a lawsuit when the photographer politely declined are pretty much 0.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM

If the 0bama regime has it’s way, military chaplains will be forced to perform homosexual “marriages”. – Rebar on November 27, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Personally, I believe that such a law would be unconstitutional. Currently, is a Catholic chaplain forced to marry a couple who does not meet the Catholic Church’s criteria ………….. NO!

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 2:50 PM

But it wasn’t. That is the point. So, now, in order to protect this woman’s (and everyone else’s) 1st Amendment rights, we have to stop the advance and make the opposition retreat a bit.

Overreaching is a b1tch.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Sorry. I don’t believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I believe it’s overreach to say that because one idiot with an agenda won a lawsuit they never should have won, that we must then not let anyone do anything of the sort. Why punish everyone for the idiocy of a few?

I’m sure there are lawsuits that happen every day with which you or I would disagree with the decision, but that doesnt (a) make the decision right or (b) mean we should throw out everyone’s opportunity to engage in wahtever related activity just because a few would take advantage of it.

gravityman on November 27, 2012 at 2:54 PM

But it wasn’t. That is the point. So, now, in order to protect this woman’s (and everyone else’s) 1st Amendment rights, we have to stop the advance and make the opposition retreat a bit.

Overreaching is a b1tch.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM

To follow up on my prior point with an example…

Judges make awards for or against insurance companies resulting from auto-accidents that you or I would probably think are just insane decisions which in no way reflect proper justice… Should we all be refused the right to drive a car because of a few poor judges’ decisions on auto accident related cases?

gravityman on November 27, 2012 at 2:57 PM

The chances that this person just happened to request that a Christian photographer photograph her “wedding” and then file a lawsuit when the photographer politely declined are pretty much 0. – cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM

As I have stated my sympathies lie with the photographer in this case. Change the law in New Mexico.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 2:59 PM

gravityman on November 27, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Except is isn’t just one idiot. Catholic Charities in Mass. had to go out of business after 100 because they referred gay couples out to other agencies. EVEN AFTER THEY REFUSED PUBLIC FUNDING BTW. Illinois catholic charities had to follow suit as well. A church in New Jersey was forced to rent their pavilion. Parents in Massachusetts on order of judge cannot opt out of their children learning of homosexual relationships and having the school tell them that it is normal.

These lawsuits are happening all over the place. Open your eyes people. These lawsuits are happening and successful BEFORE gay marriage becomes the law of the land. Can you imagine the fascist lawsuits that will happen AFTER it becomes law of the land?

And BTW, the homosexuals are just fine with the rights above being taken away– Even some at hot air.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 3:02 PM

As I have stated my sympathies lie with the photographer in this case. Change the law in New Mexico.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Take your own advice and sway public opinion to gay marriage and change the law. Stop going to judges to force it on people.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Judges make awards for or against insurance companies resulting from auto-accidents that you or I would probably think are just insane decisions which in no way reflect proper justice… Should we all be refused the right to drive a car because of a few poor judges’ decisions on auto accident related cases?

gravityman on November 27, 2012 at 2:57 PM

The right to drive a car is not guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 3:04 PM

The right to drive a car is not guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Of course it is.. It is right up there with EVERYONE having the right to marry and the states cannot regulate it and the right to suck a live baby out of your womb..

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Take your own advice and sway public opinion to gay marriage and change the law. Stop going to judges to force it on people. – melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Public opinion has already been swayed enough to make gay marriage legal in the states of Maine, Maryland and Washington. I imagine that more states will follow.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Public opinion has already been swayed enough to make gay marriage legal in the states of Maine, Maryland and Washington. I imagine that more states will follow.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 3:13 PM

So tell me why “your people” want to force it through the judiciary then..

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 3:14 PM

So tell me why “your people” want to force it through the judiciary then..

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Better in the long run for gays to avoid the judiciary. The demographics are working heavily in their favor.

dedalus on November 27, 2012 at 3:19 PM

And lest people think that YOUR kids and parental rights aren’t the target– here is this little gem:

http://www.queerty.com/can-we-please-just-start-admitting-that-we-do-actually-want-to-indoctrinate-kids-20110512/

It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.” But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.
The battle over Tennessee’s “Don’t Say Gay Bill” has made this most apparent. Why would anybody get all up in arms about punishing teachers who mention queers in the classroom unless we wanted teachers to do just that? In response against the bill, FCKH8 hired some little girls to drop F-bombs in their online PSAs and gave out hundreds of “Don’t B H8N on the Homos” t-shirts, wristbands, pins and stickers to school children in front of TV cameras. Recruiting children? You bet we are.

Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?

It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.” But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.

The battle over Tennessee’s “Don’t Say Gay Bill” has made this most apparent. Why would anybody get all up in arms about punishing teachers who mention queers in the classroom unless we wanted teachers to do just that? In response against the bill, FCKH8 hired some little girls to drop F-bombs in their online PSAs and gave out hundreds of “Don’t B H8N on the Homos” t-shirts, wristbands, pins and stickers to school children in front of TV cameras. Recruiting children? You bet we are.

Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?

I for one certainly want tons of school children to learn that it’s OK to be gay, that people of the same sex should be allowed to legally marry each other, and that anyone can kiss a person of the same sex without feeling like a freak. And I would very much like for many of these young boys to grow up and start f– men. I want lots of young ladies to develop into young women who voraciously munch box. I want this just as badly as many parents want their own kids to grow up and rub urinary tracts together to trade proteins and forcefully excrete a baby.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Ok, so to sum things up, the government shouldn’t give out civil unions to 2 consenting adults and leave marriage to churches because the sky would fall and gay couples would begin suing private companies, individuals, churches, etc saying that should be forced to take their business…

Right…chicken little much. One court case does not sway my opinion that civil unions are the way to go.

nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 3:22 PM

So tell me why “your people” want to force it through the judiciary then .. melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Some do, some don’t. Did you read the article at the opening of this thread? As for children being taught in public schools about human sexuality, are teachers supposed to skip over the fact that a certain segment of the human population is homosexual? My guess is that every child who watches TV knows that homosexuals exist and that there is an ongoing heated political argument over gay rights. Children do get the right to vote at the age of 18.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Ok, so to sum things up, the government shouldn’t give out civil unions to 2 consenting adults and leave marriage to churches because the sky would fall and gay couples would begin suing private companies, individuals, churches, etc saying that should be forced to take their business…

Right…chicken little much. One court case does not sway my opinion that civil unions are the way to go.

nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Why only 2? Why couldn’t one person have a civil union contract with one person, then have a different civil union contract with a different person (at the same time)? What would be wrong with that?

If you think it is only one court case, well, you are an idiot.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Some do, some don’t. Did you read the article at the opening of this thread? As for children being taught in public schools about human sexuality, are teachers supposed to skip over the fact that a certain segment of the human population is homosexual? My guess is that every child who watches TV knows that homosexuals exist and that there is an ongoing heated political argument over gay rights. Children do get the right to vote at the age of 18.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM

See what did I tell you..They are completely okay with taking away your parental rights if it suits their agenda.

AND NO charlie the school should not teach alternate sexuality anymore than the school should teach about people who like to be whipped-. And I can guarantee you those people make up a lot more than the homosexual base. Sexuality should be taught in biological context.

Question for you: how would YOU like if your child went to school and learned that gay people are freaks of nature, deviant, pedophiles and then some judge told you couldn’t opt out? I can guarantee you wouldn’t like it because YOU DON’t want your children taught that.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 3:33 PM

I for one certainly want tons of school children to learn that it’s OK to be gay, that people of the same sex should be allowed to legally marry each other, and that anyone can kiss a person of the same sex without feeling like a freak. And I would very much like for many of these young boys to grow up and start f– men. I want lots of young ladies to develop into young women who voraciously munch box. I want this just as badly as many parents want their own kids to grow up and rub urinary tracts together to trade proteins and forcefully excrete a baby. – melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Ouch.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Question for you: how would YOU like if your child went to school and learned that gay people are freaks of nature, deviant, pedophiles and then some judge told you couldn’t opt out? I can guarantee you wouldn’t like it because YOU DON’t want your children taught that. – melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 3:33 PM

I would want them to be told the truth, not lies.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 3:42 PM

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 3:38 PM

And before you take my post the wrong way, let me explain something. I do not think that you are a freak of nature, deviant or a pedophile. I used those examples as something you would find horrible to have your children learn about.

And yes children will learn that there is gay people. My son had a classmate come out in 5th grade. BTW, we live in Tennessee, so the school does not teach homosexuality. My son came to me as to how he should handle this boy and the fact that he was being teased. My son has been bullied so I told him that he should stand up for anyone being bullied. And I have family member who is gay and we all love very much as I stated on the boards.

There has to be a line as to what schools can and can’t teach. And for a judge to tell parents that they are unable to opt out of some social teaching that has no relevance to learning scares me to no end. And it should scare you, because it might be that the school is teaching YOUR agenda today- but tomorrow is teaching something that can be used against you-capice?

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Ok, so to sum things up, the government shouldn’t give out civil unions to 2 consenting adults and leave marriage to churches because the sky would fall and gay couples would begin suing private companies, individuals, churches, etc saying that should be forced to take their business…

Right…chicken little much. One court case does not sway my opinion that civil unions are the way to go.

nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Also, who is “the government”? I think if you talk about state governments vs the federal government, you will get many different answers. The real question before us is if one state can force another state to recognize their laws and have the federal government enforce it for the first state.

Regardless of state vs local vs federal, the final question should be “will this infringe on someone’s 1st Amendment rights?” Not a “church’s rights” or a “business’s rights”, but a person’s right to the free exercise of their religion, in all contexts. On Monday afternoon, on Thursday evening, AND in the pew on Sunday.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 3:44 PM

I would want them to be told the truth, not lies.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 3:42 PM

LOL- So the truth as you know it. You realize that truth is a subjective thing in this day in age. Some people believe that homosexuality is a sin and that is their truth and you don’t-so that is your truth. SOme people believe that homosexuals are deviants, some don’t.

It is for that very reason that teachers have no place teaching our children what parents should. You want to indoctrinate or “teach” the children, sway the parents first. Do not supersede parental rights to do it. All you are doing is getting YOUR rights while taking away others.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 3:45 PM

LOL- So the truth as you know it. You realize that truth is a subjective thing in this day in age. Some people believe that homosexuality is a sin and that is their truth and you don’t-so that is your truth. SOme people believe that homosexuals are deviants, some don’t.

It is for that very reason that teachers have no place teaching our children what parents should. You want to indoctrinate or “teach” the children, sway the parents first. Do not supersede parental rights to do it. All you are doing is getting YOUR rights while taking away others. – melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 3:45 PM

You are free to indoctrinate your children any damn thing that you so wish. It is done all the time. It will still not stop one of your children from perhaps declaring that he or she is homosexual. Ask Alan Keyes about his daughter. Or Dick Cheney about his daughter.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 3:55 PM

You are free to indoctrinate your children any damn thing that you so wish. It is done all the time. It will still not stop one of your children from perhaps declaring that he or she is homosexual. Ask Alan Keyes about his daughter. Or Dick Cheney about his daughter.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Really I am even if say a judge tells me I can’t opt out..?

And as I have stated REPEATEDLY, but let me repeat it again for you. I don’t care if one of my children tells me he is gay. I will love them unconditionally like I did when the doctor told me my first born might have cerebral palsy. When you have to potentially accept something like that -being gay doesn’t even show on your radar as a mommy. Will I be disappointed-sure. Everyone has a vision of how they want their children to grow up and it usually looks like the life they have. I would be equally disappointed if my son decided he wanted to be a Catholic priest(no wife, no kids). Kids will always make their own life choices and disappoint their parents- that’s life.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Melle, I want homosexual children to grow up to be well-adjusted, happy, productive adults. I don’t want them bullied in school or elsewhere.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Why only 2? Why couldn’t one person have a civil union contract with one person, then have a different civil union contract with a different person (at the same time)? What would be wrong with that?

If you think it is only one court case, well, you are an idiot.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Thanks for the idiot comment…really drives a solid discussion.

Why 2, well because the Federal government can say that for tax purposes it has defined a household to consist of 2 adults. You know, how it’s been defined as 2 opposite sex married adults for decades. Don’t see how that’s hard to understand.

As far as one court case…multiple people referenced one case in which a private citizen was sued for failing to provide their services for a gay wedding. To me, it’s an extreme case that is not likely to become the norm in society, hence my comment that one case is not going to sway my opinion.

nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Melle, I want homosexual children to grow up to be well-adjusted, happy, productive adults. I don’t want them bullied in school or elsewhere.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Implied in your statement is that you don’t give a damn if melle1228 wants to raise her (?) children differently. By court order, her children MUST sit through indoctrination, and she can’t do anything about it. You are ok with this? You are ok with someone losing their Constitutionally guaranteed right to their free expression of religion so someone isn’t bullied?

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Melle, I want homosexual children to grow up to be well-adjusted, happy, productive adults. I don’t want them bullied in school or elsewhere.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 4:04 PM

See we can agree on something then.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Thanks for the idiot comment…really drives a solid discussion.

As far as one court case…multiple people referenced one case in which a private citizen was sued for failing to provide their services for a gay wedding. To me, it’s an extreme case that is not likely to become the norm in society, hence my comment that one case is not going to sway my opinion.

nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

On this page were multiple examples in one post:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/26/supreme-court-to-decide-this-week-whether-to-rule-on-gay-marriage/comment-page-2/#comment-6533987

Either you can’t read or you are willfully obtuse.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Implied in your statement is that you don’t give a damn if melle1228 wants to raise her (?) children differently. By court order, her children MUST sit through indoctrination, and she can’t do anything about it. You are ok with this? You are ok with someone losing their Constitutionally guaranteed right to their free expression of religion so someone isn’t bullied?

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Yeah it floors me that the same people who would be screaming “seperation of church and state” if a school was teaching about creation or God despite a parent’s wishes are the same people who are quite okay with children being taught things that fit their agenda.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Why 2, well because the Federal government can say that for tax purposes it has defined a household to consist of 2 adults. You know, how it’s been defined as 2 opposite sex married adults for decades. Don’t see how that’s hard to understand.

nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Here, try this on for size:
Why a man and a woman, well because the Federal government can say that for tax purposes it has defined a household to consist of a man and a woman. You know, how it’s been defined forever. Don’t see how that’s hard to understand.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:12 PM

On this page were multiple examples in one post:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/26/supreme-court-to-decide-this-week-whether-to-rule-on-gay-marriage/comment-page-2/#comment-6533987

Either you can’t read or you are willfully obtuse.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Those examples did not deal with a individual being forced to work for another like the photographer example. And adoption is different than marriage.

I made the point that if civil unions become the norm that people would not start to be sued to “marry” gays, or participate in gay marriages by being legally forced to provide their services (i.e. photogs, djs, caterers).

Again, fantastic job on the insults. Can’t wait to hear what I am next.

nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Here, try this on for size:
Why a man and a woman, well because the Federal government can say that for tax purposes it has defined a household to consist of a man and a woman. You know, how it’s been defined forever. Don’t see how that’s hard to understand.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Used to just be white man and white woman as well…people were screaming about how the world would explode if we recognized mixed couples in love.

nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 4:23 PM

On this page were multiple examples in one post:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/26/supreme-court-to-decide-this-week-whether-to-rule-on-gay-marriage/comment-page-2/#comment-6533987

Either you can’t read or you are willfully obtuse.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM

You’re obfuscating. Your problem isn’t with gay marriage, it’s with anti-discrimination laws. If you oppose anti-discrimination laws then say so and take it to your elected officials.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 4:27 PM

nextgen_repub, how about a bakery called “Just Cookies” (that makes only cookies, mind you) having to defend itself and face eviction because it wouldn’t bake Rainbow Cupcakes for a coming out parade?

http://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/13536889

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Used to just be white man and white woman as well…people were screaming about how the world would explode if we recognized mixed couples in love.

nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 4:23 PM

You are the one who used historical definitions to explain to me why only 2. Please be consistent.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Implied in your statement is that you don’t give a damn if melle1228 wants to raise her (?) children differently. By court order, her children MUST sit through indoctrination, and she can’t do anything about it. You are ok with this? You are ok with someone losing their Constitutionally guaranteed right to their free expression of religion so someone isn’t bullied? – cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

By court order her children must sit through a course in human sexuality that states the facts about human sexuality. Melle is free to instruct her children that she doesn’t agree with what experts on the subject have to say about human sexuality when the views of experts disagree with hers. In the end her children will have to decide who is right.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 4:30 PM

nextgen_repub, how about a bakery called “Just Cookies” (that makes only cookies, mind you) having to defend itself and face eviction because it wouldn’t bake Rainbow Cupcakes for a coming out parade?

http://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/13536889

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Again you’re missing the issue. Just say you oppose anti-discrimination laws because that’s what you’re complaining about.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Those examples did not deal with a individual being forced to work for another like the photographer example

Ahh so now you are changing the bar.. A vermont Inn keeper and of course the baker cpt mentioned. THen there is the fertility doctor in California–All INDIVIDUALS who have been sued by the gay mafia. And there was two more bakers.. One in Iowa who lesbians are still mulling over whether to sue or not. And one in Colorado where they are thinking about taking not only civil action, but criminal action because they say they violated the law for refusing service..

Yeah but it isn’t happening a lot.. Oye!

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 4:39 PM

If Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joins the other three, the conservatives would have the needed four votes to hear the Proposition 8 case.

If past is prologue Roberts will come up with the most contorted judicial reasoning in history to support a specious, contra-intellectual conclusion.

I expect nothing from this SCOTUS and even less from the Chief Justice.

Marcus Traianus on November 27, 2012 at 4:40 PM

By court order her children must sit through a course in human sexuality that states the facts about human sexuality. Melle is free to instruct her children that she doesn’t agree with what experts on the subject have to say about human sexuality when the views of experts disagree with hers. In the end her children will have to decide who is right.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 4:30 PM

How does teaching one sexuality is “normal” teach facts? Normal is an OPINION. Again Charlie you represent 3% of the population- BDSMers represent a larger part of the population- should schools be expected to teach that? And no legally I do not have to have my children sit through sexuality classes. In fact my state doesn’t even teach sex ed.. Just the way I like it.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 4:42 PM

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 4:39 PM

So you also oppose anti-discrimination laws?

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Again you’re missing the issue. Just say you oppose anti-discrimination laws because that’s what you’re complaining about.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Yeah and what is the chance of that happening now that hate crimes are legal?

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Again you’re missing the issue. Just say you oppose anti-discrimination laws because that’s what you’re complaining about.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I am defending my right to freely exercise my religion. You are correct that those pushing gay marriage want to trample my right to exercise my religion freely. I don’t understand why you think my argument is invalid.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:43 PM

So you also oppose anti-discrimination laws?

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Yes, but your utopia will never happen as political powers are too ingrained to have victim groups on their payroll. As I have said before, guarantee me that people won’t get sued and I will vote for gay marriage- Until that time, I will oppose it.

I have seen to much of the writing on the wall with civil and criminal cases, and I have watched other countries prosecute Preachers all in the name of tolerance and diversity. I have watched parental rights be trampled on “in the interest of the state.”

Your Utopia is as unlikely to happen as Charlie and Zach’s belief that giving a gay couple a license will make people magically accept a abnormal sexuality.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM

I am defending my right to freely exercise my religion. You are correct that those pushing gay marriage want to trample my right to exercise my religion freely. I don’t understand why you think my argument is invalid.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Everything you cite about whatever business owner or adoption agency or whomever came under fire did so because they ran into anti-discrimination laws; citing the examples you cite and talking about gay marriage is red herring argument.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 4:47 PM

By court order her children must sit through a course in human sexuality that states the facts about human sexuality. Melle is free to instruct her children that she doesn’t agree with what experts on the subject have to say about human sexuality when the views of experts disagree with hers. In the end her children will have to decide who is right.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 4:30 PM

It wasn’t a sex ed class. The teacher read the 2rd grade class a book called King and King:

The book referred to by the panel, “King and King”, depicts a “prince” who isn’t interested in a princess, but instead is “in love” with the princess’ brother. Their “love” is portrayed in a sympathetic manner, and the two “marry” each other. They are shown kissing on the lips at the end of the book, which was read to second graders in 2006 in Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Massachusetts.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/feb/08020404

2ng graders are what, 7?

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Everything you cite about whatever business owner or adoption agency or whomever came under fire did so because they ran into anti-discrimination laws; citing the examples you cite and talking about gay marriage is red herring argument.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 4:47 PM

So oh wise one, how would you get rid of anti-discrimination laws when minorities like the ghey like the fact that they get preferential treatment under these laws?

And even if they solved this with no anti-discrimination law which is as unlikely to happen as repealing the Civil Rights act– you still have to find a way to protect people against the tyranny of these special interest groups especially since their end game is to jack parental and religious rights..

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 4:52 PM

You are the one who used historical definitions to explain to me why only 2. Please be consistent.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:30 PM

It still would be 2…

nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Yes, but your utopia will never happen as political powers are too ingrained to have victim groups on their payroll. As I have said before, guarantee me that people won’t get sued and I will vote for gay marriage- Until that time, I will oppose it.

I have seen to much of the writing on the wall with civil and criminal cases, and I have watched other countries prosecute Preachers all in the name of tolerance and diversity. I have watched parental rights be trampled on “in the interest of the state.”

Your Utopia is as unlikely to happen as Charlie and Zach’s belief that giving a gay couple a license will make people magically accept a abnormal sexuality.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM

I find it a little funny that at 4:42 you were talking about normal being an opinion but here now you’re talking about abnormal sexuality. If normal is an opinion then abnormal is as well.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Everything you cite about whatever business owner or adoption agency or whomever came under fire did so because they ran into anti-discrimination laws; citing the examples you cite and talking about gay marriage is red herring argument.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 4:47 PM

What’s your end game here? Why don’t you just out with it and call me a bigot already?

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

It still would be 2…

nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 4:52 PM

That makes you a bigot, polyophobe, and intolerant.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

It still would be 2…

nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 4:52 PM

You want to through historical definitions out the door. Without using historical definitions, why the number 2?

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:54 PM

*throw

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:54 PM

I find it a little funny that at 4:42 you were talking about normal being an opinion but here now you’re talking about abnormal sexuality. If normal is an opinion then abnormal is as well.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

I find sex that is for procreation purpose and which the majority of human practice because they are predisposed to it to be the norm. 3% of the population who are born that way, got their wires crossed or had enviromental pressure are not the norm. And that is MY OPINION OF NORM which was what my whole frickin post stated. And as I have stated previously sexuality should be taught biologically only..

Answer the other question contrarian– BDSMer make up a larger population then ghey.. Why isn’t the school required to teach that?

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 4:56 PM

What’s your end game here? Why don’t you just out with it and call me a bigot already?

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

No he thinks that we should completely ignore being sued by the ghey mafia because it is the anti-discrimination laws that should make us made. Except that he misses the point-that it is the ghey mafia who actually push those anti-discrimination laws.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 4:57 PM

So oh wise one, how would you get rid of anti-discrimination laws when minorities like the ghey like the fact that they get preferential treatment under these laws?

And even if they solved this with no anti-discrimination law which is as unlikely to happen as repealing the Civil Rights act– you still have to find a way to protect people against the tyranny of these special interest groups especially since their end game is to jack parental and religious rights..

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 4:52 PM

I’m aware of the fact that the anti-discrimination laws that are on the books aren’t likely to go anywhere, but that doesn’t change the fact that that is the root of your objection and the arguments presented against gay marriage have all been red herrings.

We do have a First Amendment in this country and if Scalia, Breyer, Thomas and Ginsberg all found that it protected the speech and religion of the Westboro Baptist Church then I’m inclined to believe the Catholic Church or any other will find some measure of protection there as well. The First Amendment has never been a totally protective shield either; if I founded The First Church of the Alchemist and said I interpreted scripture to say we’re obligated to beat random black people on the third Wednesday of every month I would still expect to be in jail before long.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 5:01 PM

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 5:01 PM

You mean Breyer who is off the court and Scalia who is probably leaving in a couple of years? You put too much faith in a bunch of robed men and women who make up rights all the time. This is the same court that has said that institutionalized racism in the form of affirmative action is okay.

So summary of what you are saying, is we sheep should just go with the flow despite evidence to the contrary in this and other countries and just TRUST the judiciary to protect us.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Ahh so now you are changing the bar..

No I always talked about individuals being sued to be forced into working for a gay marriage (i.e. the photog example). Now examples of bakers in government owned property violating “discrimination laws” are being thrown out. That has nothing to do with my original post of the govt issuing civil unions and letting churces handle marriages.

“Ghey mafia”, “you are an idiot”, putting words in others mouths that they’re calling you a bigot. Geez…grow up.

nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 5:05 PM

You mean Breyer who is off the court

It was Souter who retired. I get those two mixed up since they are both liberals.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM

What’s your end game here? Why don’t you just out with it and call me a bigot already?

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

My end game is to find the legal and logical justification for your views. Many of the examples cited have been things that stemmed from anti-discrimination laws but they’re being used as reasoning to oppose gay marriage. That is a fallacious argument. In pointing out the fallacy I’m hoping you bring a new and more valid argument to the table; we’re in the arena of ideas and I want to find out what yours are and the logic behind them, such as it is. I’m easily persuaded by strong and well-supported evidence so I’m just looking for some.

Why would I call you a bigot?

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Ghey mafia”, “you are an idiot”, putting words in others mouths that they’re calling you a bigot. Geez…grow up.

nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 5:05 PM

What would you call people who say they want to indoctrinate your children and take away your parental rights?

And I didn’t put any words in your mouth sweeite. I called you a bigot and intolerant because you seem to think the equality is only good for heterosexuals and homosexuals. That is YOUR PREJUDICE and morals that you are putting on the legislature.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Many of the examples cited have been things that stemmed from anti-discrimination laws but they’re being used as reasoning to oppose gay marriage.

So don’t fight gay marriage.. let it be passed and when you get sued under anti-discrimination laws and can’t change them(by your own admittance) SCOTUS will protect you.. Bwwwwahhha

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 5:13 PM

True Conservatives want Big Government out of everybody’s private lives so they think Government banning Gay Marriage is ridiculous.

Southern Evangelical Wackjobs, claim to be Conservative but want Big Brother to ban things they find to be “icky.”

TEPJoePa on November 26, 2012 at 9:04 PM

So you’re for smaller government if you want the government to do what it has never done before.

Man, I need a phrasebook for some of you people.

Wait, where’s my copy of Orwell’s 1984?

tom on November 27, 2012 at 5:14 PM

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Evidence from other countries that don’t have a First Amendment is unpersuasive, what happens in this coutnry is and in this country is. We have a recent nearly-unanimous SCOTUS case that protects the speech and religious freedom of a group that, best as I can tell, doesn’t care much for gay people. If that case had gone the other way you should maybe be worried but it wasn’t even close.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 5:17 PM

TEPJoePa on November 26, 2012 at 9:04 PM

You don’t get out from Mom’s basement much, do you?

kingsjester on November 27, 2012 at 5:17 PM

So don’t fight gay marriage.. let it be passed and when you get sued under anti-discrimination laws and can’t change them(by your own admittance) SCOTUS will protect you.. Bwwwwahhha

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Or just don’t discriminate.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Why can’t the government just issue civil union licenses and put an end to this. Then we can let churches and only churches marry. – nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 12:15 PM

You do realize that there are gay churches. If they marry a homosexual couple is that marriage to be recognized as a marriage?

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Speaking of calling a tail a leg…..

A church saying, “Go, and sin no some more.”

tom on November 27, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Answer the other question contrarian– BDSMer make up a larger population then ghey.. Why isn’t the school required to teach that?

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I’m not sure what business the schools have in teaching sexuality at all, whether it be hetero or homo. I would prefer they didn’t teach it altogether, and leave that to parents where it belongs.

I mean really… how did the human race ever figure out how to have kids prior to schools teaching sexuality? Or even moreso, before there were modern schools at all?

gravityman on November 27, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Or just don’t discriminate.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 5:18 PM

So in other word – freedom of association is not a Constitutional right.. Gotcha..

I’m not sure what business the schools have in teaching sexuality at all, whether it be hetero or homo. I would prefer they didn’t teach it altogether, and leave that to parents where it belongs.

I mean really… how did the human race ever figure out how to have kids prior to schools teaching sexuality? Or even moreso, before there were modern schools at all?

gravityman on November 27, 2012 at 5:30 PM

I agree with you wholeheartedly. One of the reasons we live in Tennessee is that it does not teach sexuality even heterosexuality. The reason it was done is because the state no longer trusts parents to do it. It is part of the daddy state mentality.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 5:37 PM

My end game is to find the legal and logical justification for your views. Many of the examples cited have been things that stemmed from anti-discrimination laws but they’re being used as reasoning to oppose gay marriage. That is a fallacious argument. In pointing out the fallacy I’m hoping you bring a new and more valid argument to the table; we’re in the arena of ideas and I want to find out what yours are and the logic behind them, such as it is. I’m easily persuaded by strong and well-supported evidence so I’m just looking for some.

Why would I call you a bigot?

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Melle already addressed this before you joined the conversation:

These lawsuits are happening all over the place. Open your eyes people. These lawsuits are happening and successful BEFORE gay marriage becomes the law of the land. Can you imagine the fascist lawsuits that will happen AFTER it becomes law of the land?

And BTW, the homosexuals are just fine with the rights above being taken away– Even some at hot air.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 3:02 PM

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 5:47 PM

You do realize that there are gay churches. If they marry a homosexual couple is that marriage to be recognized as a marriage? – SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Speaking of calling a tail a leg…..

A church saying, “Go, and sin no some more.”

tom on November 27, 2012 at 5:18 PM

If you call yourself a Christian you would not be very welcome in many Islamic countries. People have killed millions upon millions because their religious beliefs differed. I believe that female genital mutilation should be a crime. In the Islamic world I guess that I would be called a heretic or worse.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM

I’m not sure what business the schools have in teaching sexuality at all, whether it be hetero or homo. I would prefer they didn’t teach it altogether, and leave that to parents where it belongs.

I mean really… how did the human race ever figure out how to have kids prior to schools teaching sexuality? Or even moreso, before there were modern schools at all? – gravityman on November 27, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Gravityman, I would think that the teaching of human sexuality might have something to do with human biology. I would hope that my tax money would be used to educate children about their own bodies. I guess you are all for dumbing down public education?

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 5:58 PM

nd I would very much like for many of these young boys to grow up and start f– men. I want lots of young ladies to develop into young women who voraciously munch box. I want this just as badly as many parents want their own kids to grow up and rub urinary tracts together to trade proteins and forcefully excrete a baby.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 3:20 PM

You have a real problem.

lostmotherland on November 27, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Gravityman, I would think that the teaching of human sexuality might have something to do with human biology. I would hope that my tax money would be used to educate children about their own bodies. I guess you are all for dumbing down public education?

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Not at all for dumbing down education. But I do think there are some subjects best left to parents to teach their kids as they see fit, primarily the more controversial subjects that bring with them matters of opinion, like sexuality and religion.

Was our education system considered to be “dumbed down” in the 30s, 40s, or 50s when we didn’t teach sexuality in schools and at the same time had the best public education system on the planet in terms of results?

gravityman on November 27, 2012 at 6:07 PM

So in other word – freedom of association is not a Constitutional right.. Gotcha..

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Depends on what you mean by association. In my Constitution there isn’t really a freedom of association, just a freedom to assemble and petition for redress of grievances. How do anti-discrimination laws affect your Constitutionally protected right to assemble?

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Gravityman, I would think that the teaching of human sexuality might have something to do with human biology. I would hope that my tax money would be used to educate children about their own bodies. I guess you are all for dumbing down public education?

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 5:58 PM

My understanding of “sex ed class” is that it is not done in a biology class, but instead in “health” class, and consists mainly of putting condoms on bananas :p

Honestly, though, I would be in favor of teaching the intricacies of the woman’s fertility cycle. Fertile days vs non fertile days, what normal hormonal shifts are and how abnormal ones can impact your cycle and fertility. How hormonal contraceptives can impact your fertility later in life. How mucous, basal body temperature, stress, blockages, STDs and infections can affect your fertility.

A woman’s fertility cycle is so fragile and amazing, yet resilient. I wish high school girls would know more than “take this pill so you can give in to your boyfriend”

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 6:11 PM

You have a real problem.

lostmotherland on November 27, 2012 at 6:07 PM

She was quoting someone else.
http://www.queerty.com/can-we-please-just-start-admitting-that-we-do-actually-want-to-indoctrinate-kids-20110512/

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 6:12 PM

You have a real problem.

lostmotherland on November 27, 2012 at 6:07 PM

And you apparently didn’t notice that that was an article that was featured at queerty.com…and I didn’t write it.

/faceplam

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Gravityman, I would think that the teaching of human sexuality might have something to do with human biology. I would hope that my tax money would be used to educate children about their own bodies. I guess you are all for dumbing down public education?

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Charlie education doesn’t need to be dumbed down anymore than it is by the education system. And parent shouldn’t abdicate anymore responsibility to the schools.

We have had sex ed in classes since the 1970′s. Tell me has the teenage pregnancy, STD rate, or out of wedlock birth increased or decreased since then?

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3