SCOTUS to pass on same sex marriage?

posted at 10:01 am on December 1, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

While most of the nation’s attention has remained focused on the fiscal cliff, business as usual continues in the judicial branch. And for those who have been closely following the court battles over same sex marriage, Friday had been anticipated to be a big day. The highest court was supposedly set to announce whether they would be taking on as many as ten cases related to this subject. But, as Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog reports, the day wore on into late afternoon and resulted in precisely… nothing.

The Supreme Court, after taking most of the day to prepare new orders, took no action Friday on the ten same-sex marriage pleas now on the docket. It did agree to rule on whether taking a human gene out of the body for research is a process that can be patented…

The next opportunity for the Court to issue orders will be at 9:30 a.m. Monday. Nothing has ruled out the possibility that some actions on same-sex marriage could be announced at that time, although there is no indication that that will occur. It may be that the Court needs more time to decide what it wants to do next on any of the cases. If the Court has chosen to deny review of all of the cases, even that might not come out on Monday, since the chances are that there would be dissents from some of the denials, and it would take some time to prepare dissenting opinions. But denial of all of the cases is an extremely remote possibility anyway.

It’s important to remember that all of this is simply procedural work at this stage of events. There is no imminent decision forthcoming on the constitutionality of any laws. All the court is really doing at this point is essentially triage. They have been reviewing a large number of cases and determining which ones have sufficient merit and standing for them even to be heard, and then schedule a slot on the docket to hear arguments. Even if some of these cases are accepted, the next open slots to hear them are in March, so we shouldn’t be expecting any sort of ruling until well into the Spring of next year at least.

But will they take on any or all of these cases? I tend to agree with Denniston in thinking that this shouldn’t be taken as a sign that they’ll all be rejected. They probably wouldn’t have lasted this far through the review process if they completely lacked merit, and a notion to not hear them would likely face some stiff resistance from any members who are “spoiling for a fight” on either side of the question. And even the process of rejecting them would be time consuming. Also, the court hasn’t been shy about tackling controversial subjects, as recent history has shown us.

But some of the bigger questions which many of us have may still not be answered, even if the Supremes tackle all of them. Is the Defense of Marriage Act constitutional? In particular, it’s sections 2 and 3 of the law – and this is really the heart of the entire question – which are one of which is up for review. The text is as follows:

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

The primary argument is that the result of these two sections fly in the face of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. And while it’s unpopular to say so in conservative circles, it’s tough to argue that it doesn’t … if we are to accept that a marriage license is part of the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” of the individual states. But that’s where it gets tricky for people on both sides. Is marriage an “official institution” which should fall under the control and regulation of the government at any level? Or is it a strictly personal matter? And does the federal government really have the power to say anything about marriage, or is it something which should be left exclusively to the states as per the 10th amendment?

You may have your own strong feelings about it in either direction based on an emotional response to a hot button topic, but the legal complexities are daunting. These are the questions I’m hoping to hear answers to, and if they decide to make the call it will have implications that resonate for a very long time. And just for the record – in terms of personal preferences – yes.. I support gay marriage, but only as the much inferior, “best we can get” solution.

The government issues “licenses” for all manner of things which they really have no business regulating, and it’s frequently little more than a very thinly disguised excuse to levy another fee. For example, why do we have to purchase a hunting or fishing license? There’s almost a weak excuse for hunting licenses in terms of ensuring young hunters have received firearm safety training. But… fishing? If you are on public lands or waters, what is more fundamental than the right of people to gather their own food? The list of examples is rather lengthy.

Personally, I don’t see the government having any business being involved in the question of marriage, nor having the authority to issue a “license” for anyone to marry. And I believe the word should be excised from tax codes and every other law in the land. Of course, that’s far too much work for the government to do, so we’ll have to muddle on with what this court decides for now.

EDIT: Jazz – Thanks for pointing out that section three is the section up for review, not section 2, though I had wanted to include the text of that section for context. This has been corrected above.


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

…so Robert’s isn’t geh?

KOOLAID2 on December 1, 2012 at 10:08 AM

…oh heck!…I should have done….Bmore…!!!

KOOLAID2 on December 1, 2012 at 10:11 AM

…or run the board 2 or 3 times a minute!

KOOLAID2 on December 1, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Denniston should know that when the Court conferences on Friday, the orders from that conference aren’t usually made public until the following Monday.

While the Constitution does require full faith and credit for another state’s laws, it does not specifically address another state’s constitution, which is why states have been amending their constitutions to define marriage.

Wethal on December 1, 2012 at 10:14 AM

…this could have been a baker’s dozen type of Bisop!

KOOLAID2 on December 1, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Wethal on December 1, 2012 at 10:14 AM

…finally!…someone serious!

KOOLAID2 on December 1, 2012 at 10:17 AM

SCOTUS……………Americas Death Panel.

Thanks Justice Roberts, when my elderly parents are denied medical care and told to “take the pain pill”….I’ll remember you.

In 2023 when a young mother finds out she is going to have twins but the state will only provide services for one maybe that Mom will think of you Justice Roberts.

When people over 45 find out they have already led “complete lives” and can’t get the medical care they need because the state spends 90% of medical dollars on “productive” resources……maybe they’ll think of you Justice Roberts.

When I think of the words Death Panel…….I’ll remember YOU approved them.

Thanks Chief Justice Roberts. Enjoy your evil legacy.

PappyD61 on December 1, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Roberts being a closet progressive has much in common with gays.

astonerii on December 1, 2012 at 10:28 AM

The primary argument is that the result of these two sections fly in the face of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. And while it’s unpopular to say so in conservative circles, it’s tough to argue that it doesn’t …

Maybe I’m missing something, but using your logic, the whole country would have to go along with anything any particular state decided to do. Now that Colorado has legalized marijuana, does that mean all the other states have to stop arresting people for possession and dealing? Can people from Colorado take their pot to another state and be held harmless from the laws of the state they are in?

Night Owl on December 1, 2012 at 10:35 AM

It’s a state issue, move along.

the wolf on December 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM

We will have to wait and see if the court does pass this time. It can not avoid the issue much longer since Maine, Maryland and Washington voters have approved of gay marriage. More states are sure to follow.

SC.Charlie on December 1, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Maybe I’m missing something, but using your logic, the whole country would have to go along with anything any particular state decided to do. Now that Colorado has legalized marijuana, does that mean all the other states have to stop arresting people for possession and dealing? Can people from Colorado take their pot to another state and be held harmless from the laws of the state they are in? – Night Owl on December 1, 2012 at 10:35 AM

A totally different issue.

SC.Charlie on December 1, 2012 at 10:52 AM

I think it was Laura Ingraham on FOX who said that major battles are due to commence before these guys and gals in black robes. Of course, she then argued that the courts should have been discussed during the campaign*.

It is some country when rules come down and all the players in our economy can do is reef the sails and then tack. The more adventuresome ones like Papa Johns, have the courage to discuss their problems and strategy — even if employees are being hurt.

Then we have lib talkers like Stephanie Miller attacking Papa Johns after dropping the fact that she has her own small business so she understands the healthcare issue as an employer.

She then knocked Papa Johns for pleading that they had too many low pay employees to float medical care for them all since they couldn’t afford it.

Well, she observed, that pizza corporation is probably paying Peyton Manning a tidy sum for an ad program they have running while they give pizza away and it is strange that they can’t afford healthcare.

If she ever got involved in a real business and not the la la land of show biz and government protected broadcast licenses, she might realize that you have to have aggressive ad programs, promotions sweepstakes and even risky programs like guaranteed delivery to stay ahead! And I am sure that she employees at least as many less well paid delivery people, cooks, junior managers and accounting help as Papa Johns.

But it sounded good and that is all that matters with some people.

IlikedAUH2O on December 1, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Frankly they proved ineffective in saving our country back in June. No one seems to be interested in doing it. I’m pretty much done with them, too.

BetseyRoss on December 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM

There was a recent Federalist Society convention and many in attendance were very wary of Roberts being a closet Lib. He never embraced the organization, which was a huge red flag.

gumbyandpokey on December 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Personally, I don’t see the government having any business being involved in the question of marriage gun ownership, nor having the authority to issue a “license” for anyone to marry carry a gun. And I believe the word should be excised from tax codes and every other law in the land.

reddevil on December 1, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Jazz, you are incorrect about Section 2 of DOMA being up for review. Section 2 isn’t an issue in any of the same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court (and, actually, I’m unaware of any cases challenging it in any lower courts either).

I note this because scare-mongering about Section 2 is a frequent tactic of social conservatives who want people to think that the DOMA challenges are about forcing states to recognize marriages. In fact, only Section 3 is at issue and Section 3 only controls the federal treatment of marriages.

Gabriel Malor on December 1, 2012 at 11:13 AM

” … a notion to not hear them would likely face some stiff resistance from any members who are “spoiling for a fight” on either side of the question.” – Jazz

As a big, old Irish Republican,in the literal sense meself, allow me to add:

“A fight not joined is a fight not enjoyed”

Are we a Federal Republic, or not? “States’ Rights” are just that. There are a number of States/locations that I refuse to inhabit include:
Pharaoh’s (da Pharry Barry®) Former of Philly-Bag Phat City and State is high on the list. And LOOK – another sex offender gets elected too!
“You Gotta Fight For Your Right to Party”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-QZjLmxOkA

As the pResident of the United States (Pharry Barry®) heads off to yet another mega-million dollar 3-week vacation in Hawaii, the “middle class” to whom he promises Unicorns and Rainbows, are suffering in a major way. Oh, and the American Military too, but he obviously couldn’t care less about them. Their votes, if counted at all, are dismissed as “right-wing radicals”.
Stop this f’in’ train … I want off!
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 1, 2012 at 11:13 AM

I have gotten to the point of automatically saying “What campaign?” when someone brings up the national nonsense that ended November 6th.

Meantime, in print, I add an * to the word campaign*, like Super Bowls in strike seasons, athletic feats while on steroids and places where there is a doubt about the black and white print saying what it should say.

Now I do salute the minions of the Dems and esp. Mr. Messina and the motivating staff of the Obama campaign. Way to go!

Indeed, I mean the mark as a way for me to cope with the hole, I mean whole, character bashing, issue hiding, Dick Morrising treasure exhausting rush of a demonstration of democracy.

The ambiguous use of the star is what I was thinking of when I adopted it. Many have never read the meaning:

From Wikki:

Ambiguity

Since a word marked with an asterisk could mean either “unattested” or “impossible”, it is important in some contexts to distinguish these meanings. In general, authors retain asterisk for “unattested”, and prefix ˣ, **, or a superscript “?” for the latter meaning.

That is how I am feeling about it.

IlikedAUH2O on December 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Gabriel Malor on December 1, 2012 at 11:13 AM

You do realize that you are posting on a site founded by a “Social” (i.e., Reagan) Conservative, right?

kingsjester on December 1, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Call it a civil union for any and all state-sponsored domestic contracts – anything that has a licensing or tax component. (Mrs. Strozek and I could care less – 24 years and going strong.)

Marriage is reserved for ceremonies performed in churches and by faith based based groups.

Equal protection insured for Adam & Steve when they file taxes and for the congregation of the Evangelical Church of the Holy Rollers if Reverend Bob doesn’t want to marry Eve and Jane.

Bruno Strozek on December 1, 2012 at 11:19 AM

astonerii on December 1, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Law schools and graduate management schools by design produce graduates, managerial progressives, to run the administrative state. It is the rare graduate that maintains his/her conservative viewpoint. So the fact that Roberts has proven to be a managerial progressive is no surprise to me.

chemman on December 1, 2012 at 11:21 AM

This year, next year, or the year after that… DOMA, which is repugnant to our Constitution, is going down, and soon after that, gays and lesbians will be able to marry anywhere in this great country of ours.

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 11:22 AM

I’m willing to bend on gay marriage as long as the government gets out of the way of all of my rights they are infringing at the same time, especially my 2nd amendment rights.

cadams on December 1, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 11:22 AM

There is the little matter of the will of the people.

A minority of less than 5% of the population still cannot force their will on the majority of Americans.

kingsjester on December 1, 2012 at 11:24 AM

SCOTUS to pass on same sex marriage?

Justices Kagan and Sotomayor hardest hit.

mrt721 on December 1, 2012 at 11:27 AM

There is the little matter of the will of the people.

A minority of less than 5% of the population still cannot force their will on the majority of Americans.

kingsjester on December 1, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Evidently, though, they have enough family members and friends that support for their marriage rights is close to a majority in many states. The age demographics continue to work in the their favor. In a few years it probably won’t be a political issue any more.

dedalus on December 1, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Equal protection insured for Adam & Steve when they file taxes and for the congregation of the Evangelical Church of the Holy Rollers if Reverend Bob doesn’t want to marry Eve and Jane.

Bruno Strozek on December 1, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Right now it is those that are married that need equal protection. If Adam and Steve or Eve and Jane each file tax returns of 199,999.00, combined income of 399,998.00 they both are taxed at the second highest rates. If My spouse and I file joint or individual returns as married that equal 399,998 in joint income we pay the highest rates on all income above 250,000. So I am not sure that the tax argument is a plus for those on the gay marriage side. The Inheritance issues can be dealt with by living trusts and the medical issues with Medical Powers of Attorney. So what really is gained by gay people marrying?

chemman on December 1, 2012 at 11:30 AM

This year, next year, or the year after that… DOMA, which is repugnant to our Constitution, is going down, and soon after that, gays and lesbians will be able to marry anywhere in this great country of ours.

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 11:22 AM

What do you have against transgender and bisexual people? Bigot.

Night Owl on December 1, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 11:22 AM

There is the little matter of the will of the people.

A minority of less than 5% of the population still cannot force their will on the majority of Americans.

kingsjester on December 1, 2012 at 11:24 AM

The will of the people was expressed by supermajority in the ratification of the 14th Amendment, which provides: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Not to mention the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments, Article IV Section 1 (Full Faith and Credit), and the 9th Amendment.

The very purpose of the Constitution is to limit temporary majorities from imposing tyranny on minorities, in contradiction of certain limitations and protections. If you don’t like equal protection, substantive due process, full faith and credit, or expansive rights, amend the Constitution (good luck with that).

And with respect to that 5% you reference; just because the percentage of gays and lesbians is small doesn’t mean there aren’t many more people who support their right to equality. Most national polls put us at over 50% and growing, and we’re starting to turn the tide in state elections.

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 11:35 AM

What do you have against transgender and bisexual people? Bigot.

Night Owl on December 1, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Absolutely nothing. When marriage equality is the law of the land, everyone will be able to marry the person of his or her choice. This includes transgender and bisexual people. Bigot.

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Bruno Strozek on December 1, 2012 at 11:19 AM

That would be the start of a solution.
They don’t want a solution imo.

Mimzey on December 1, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Polygamy, polyandry and pederasty, ho!

If “they love one another” is the only rule, there are no rules.

profitsbeard on December 1, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Absolutely nothing. When marriage equality is the law of the land, everyone will be able to marry the person of his or her choice. This includes transgender and bisexual people. Bigot.

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 11:37 AM

You know why you are stupid? You think having the right to marry is going to make you happy.

Night Owl on December 1, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Marriage is not a human right. Free association of people is. Gays are not being withheld this right.
If marriage was a human right, you would not have to get a license.

Mimzey on December 1, 2012 at 11:42 AM

The very purpose of the Constitution is to limit temporary majorities from imposing tyranny on minorities, in contradiction of certain limitations and protections. If you don’t like equal protection, substantive due process, full faith and credit, or expansive rights, amend the Constitution (good luck with that).

And with respect to that 5% you reference; just because the percentage of gays and lesbians is small doesn’t mean there aren’t many more people who support their right to equality. Most national polls put us at over 50% and growing, and we’re starting to turn the tide in state elections.

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 11:35 AM

How are you growing in population? You’re not reproducing. Please, cite the biological factors for me that cause homosexuality.

And, I’m not even going to ask you about your internet name. I don’t want to know.

kingsjester on December 1, 2012 at 11:44 AM

You know why you are stupid? You think having the right to marry is going to make you happy.

Night Owl on December 1, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Haha, better to just resolve myself to a life of unhappy crankiness like the typical Hot Air commenter or Fox News viewer then?

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 11:45 AM

chemman on December 1, 2012 at 11:21 AM

WTF was that all about?
You are of course uninfluenced by medical substances I presume?
Sorry, just trying to understand what the hell you were writing about.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 1, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 11:45 AM

“Gay Marriages” are only lasting a couple of years, on average. That’s not “a lifetime of happiness”.

kingsjester on December 1, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Absolutely nothing. When marriage equality is the law of the land, everyone will be able to marry the person of his or her choice. This includes transgender and bisexual people. Bigot.

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 11:37 AM

So, Mississippi, which bans first cousin marriages, will have to recognise first-cousin marriages performed in California, where such unions are legal, eh?

Resist We Much on December 1, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 11:22 AM

ROTFLMMFAO
Are you AllahP’s “significant other”?
An “Alpha Male”, eh?
*chortle*
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 1, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Haha, better to just resolve myself to a life of unhappy crankiness like the typical Hot Air commenter or Fox News viewer then?

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Oh, I feel certain that if your dream about gay marriage comes true, being a liberal you will find some other outrageous injustice to whine about.

Night Owl on December 1, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Marriage is not a human right. Free association of people is. Gays are not being withheld this right.
If marriage was a human right, you would not have to get a license.

Mimzey on December 1, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Marriage may not be a right, but equal protection under the US constitution most certainly is. If opposite-sex married couples are afforded special rights and benefits under state law, and at the same time prohibiting same-sex couples that same opportunity based on sexual orientation, then there is no equal protection.

JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 11:53 AM

JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 11:53 AM

You’ve been asked before: What “equal protection” do you not have right now, except for the use of the word “marriage”, which you desperately seek, as a conveyance of normalcy for your lifestyle?

kingsjester on December 1, 2012 at 11:55 AM

How are you growing in population? You’re not reproducing.

kingsjester on December 1, 2012 at 11:44 AM

They are increasing because the federal government, and certain state governments, are using tax monies to indoctrinate children into the homosexual lifestyle in public schools.

Rebar on December 1, 2012 at 11:56 AM

So what really is gained by gay people marrying?

chemman on December 1, 2012 at 11:30 AM

So what really is gained by people marrying, period?

Certainly white folks with lower middle and lower economic status have figured “not much” and don’t think a whole lot is.

If you haven’t already, read Charles Murray’s Coming Apart. It will shiver your timbers a lot more than the gay 1-2% of the population getting some kind of legal recognition from the state.

Bruno Strozek on December 1, 2012 at 11:57 AM

So, Mississippi, which bans first cousin marriages, will have to recognise first-cousin marriages performed in California, where such unions are legal, eh?

Resist We Much on December 1, 2012 at 11:49 AM

States already recognize first-cousin marriages performed in other states, as they are obliged to do under the Federal Constitution. The only reason that same-sex marriages aren’t recognized in other states is because of the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act, which grants an exemption. You’re not one of those librul types that hates the Constitution, are you?

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 11:58 AM

This year, next year, or the year after that… DOMA, which is repugnant to our Constitution, is going down, and soon after that, gays and lesbians will be able to marry anywhere in this great country of ours.

Alpha_SheMale

I’m going to let you in on a little secret, SheMale_Alpha….they can get married in any state in the country now.

You pretending to care about the constitution was a good one though. Thanks for the chuckle.

everyone will be able to marry the person of his or her choice. This includes transgender and bisexual people. Bigot.

Alpha_Male

So brothers and sisters will be allowed to marry then? How about fathers and daughters? How about Johnny and Fido? If you reject any of these relationships, or any others for that matter, you’re a bigot. Oh, and you mean personS, right? Or are you bigoted against having multiple spouses too?

xblade on December 1, 2012 at 11:59 AM

First cousin marriage prohibited

Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming.

Cousin marriage legal

Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina*, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia

Allowed under certain circumstances

Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Utah, Wisconsin

First cousin marriage is allowed in these states under the following circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician’s certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Resist We Much on December 1, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Oh, I feel certain that if your dream about gay marriage comes true, being a liberal you will find some other outrageous injustice to whine about.

Night Owl on December 1, 2012 at 11:51 AM

If their dream comes true, that will only be the beginning, not the end. The end is to sue people of Faith who dare to oppose the homosexual agenda in any way up to and including “thoughtcrime” – just like in England and Canada.

Rebar on December 1, 2012 at 12:00 PM

You’re not one of those librul types that hates the Constitution, are you?

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Weak. Have you cited those biological factors, yet?

And, I ask you: What “equal protection” do you not have right now, except for the use of the word “marriage”, which you desperately seek, as a conveyance of normalcy for your lifestyle?

kingsjester on December 1, 2012 at 12:01 PM

You’re not one of those librul types that hates the Constitution, are you?

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 11:58 AM

I’m actually am a lawyer, a libertarian, high maintenance in the highest maintence-wise cities on the earth and you are much closer to being a redneck than I.

Oh, and FYI: I support SSM.

SHOCKA!

Resist We Much on December 1, 2012 at 12:04 PM

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 11:35 AM

How does this discriminate against gays?
A straight woman cannot marry another straight woman. Same with males.
Same with polygamy and incest.
The laws are applied equally whether that supports the gay marriage agenda or not.

Mimzey on December 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM

You’ve been asked before: What “equal protection” do you not have right now, except for the use of the word “marriage”, which you desperately seek, as a conveyance of normalcy for your lifestyle?

kingsjester on December 1, 2012 at 11:55 AM

And I’ve answered that…equal protection requires equal access to the same state and federal rights and benefits for same-sex couples.

JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM

JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Most companies I know of, already provide that…and a will written by the deceased, already provides for those left behind.

kingsjester on December 1, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Resist We Much on December 1, 2012 at 12:00 PM

There’s a difference between authorizing cousin marriages w/in your own state and recognizing cousin marriages performed elsewhere. Apparently, the FF&C clause as applied to marriages in other states has never been tested, but a natural reading of the text and an understanding of its purpose suggests that states would be required to recognize all marriages performed in other states, even if a person could not be married within the state under such circumstances.

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 12:11 PM

If opposite-sex married couples are afforded special rights and benefits under state law, and at the same time prohibiting same-sex couples that same opportunity based on sexual orientation, then there is no equal protection.

JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Then that is the area to work to change.
I suggest starting with some type of legal standing. Maybe a designation like “civil unions”. Then it may be a much easier row to hoe to simply change..not really change..add that designation to tax and benefit policy.

Wouldn’t that be a tactic with much more likelihood of success?

Mimzey on December 1, 2012 at 12:14 PM

If their dream comes true, that will only be the beginning, not the end. The end is to sue people of Faith who dare to oppose the homosexual agenda in any way up to and including “thoughtcrime” – just like in England and Canada.

Rebar on December 1, 2012 at 12:00 PM

I realized that during the whole “Chick-Fil-A” thing.

Night Owl on December 1, 2012 at 12:20 PM

There is no imminent decision forthcoming on the constitutionality of any laws.

There is currently a restraining order pending the appeal of the Federal court ruling that stepped onto the California State Constitution. IF the supreme court decides to NOT review this case, then they are in fact ruling that it is unconstitutional.

The fascinating part of this case, is that there is NO COMPLAINT of UNEQUAL treatment under the California Constitution. What the lawyers have argued, and the idiots on the ninth circuit agreed with, is that no state has the right to define what a word means within their state.

Freddy on December 1, 2012 at 12:22 PM

…but a natural reading of the text and an understanding of its purpose suggests that states would be required to recognize all marriages performed in other states, even if a person could not be married within the state under such circumstances.

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Liberal weasel words

Night Owl on December 1, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Liberal weasel words

Night Owl on December 1, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Hahaha, will you be here all week?

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 12:25 PM

You haven’t answered me, yet.

Have you cited those biological factors, yet?

And, I ask you: What “equal protection” do you not have right now, except for the use of the word “marriage”, which you desperately seek, as a conveyance of normalcy for your lifestyle?

Okay. I’ll be brave. What does an Alpha Male mean in the “Gay Lifestyle”. Is that like the term I heard used by the Gay guys I worked with in the 80s: a “chickenhawk”? I now what that words means. And, it’s not very nice.

kingsjester on December 1, 2012 at 12:30 PM

So what really is gained by gay people marrying?

chemman on December 1, 2012 at 11:30 AM

They want the status that is associated with the word marriage. I’d like the right to call my car a Mercedes and enjoy all the benefits that go with such a vehicle, but it isn’t one.

monalisa on December 1, 2012 at 12:34 PM

monalisa on December 1, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Exactly.

kingsjester on December 1, 2012 at 12:36 PM

States already recognize first-cousin marriages performed in other states, as they are obliged to do under the Federal Constitution

First cousin marriages of residents conducted out-of-state not recognised in the following states and are considered VOID:

Alabama: Code of Ala. § 13A-13-3
Alaska: Alaska Stat. § 25.05.021 (2010)
Arkansas: A.R.S. § 25-101 (2010), A.R.S. § 25-112 (2010)
California: A.C.A. § 9-11-107 (2010) A.C.A. § 9-11-106 (2010)
Colorado: C.R.S. 14-2-110 (2010)
Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-21 (2010)
District of Columbia: D.C. Code § 46-401.01 (2010)
Florida: Fla. Stat. § 741.21 (2010)
Georgia: O.C.G.A. § 19-3-3 (2010)
Hawaii: HRS § 572-1 (2010)
Indiana: Ind. Code Ann. § 31-11-1-2 (2010)
Kansas: K.S.A. § 23-102 (2009)
Kentucky: KRS § 402.010 (2010), KRS § 402.040 (2010)
Louisiana: La. C.C. Art. 90 (2010)
Maryland: FAMILY Code Ann. § 2-202.CRIMINAL Code Ann. § 3-323
Massachusetts: ALM GL ch. 207, § 1 (2010), ALM GL ch. 207, § 2
Michigan:
Nebraska: R.R.S. Neb. § 42-103 (2010), R.R.S. Neb. § 42-117 (2010)
New York: NY CLS Dom Rel § 5 (2010), NY CLS Penal § 255.25 (2010)
New Jersey: N.J. Stat. § 37:1-1 (2010), N.J. Stat. § 2C:14-2 (2010)
New Mexico: N.M. Stat. Ann. § 40-1-7 (2010), N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-10-3 (2010)
Ohio: ORC Ann. 3101.01 (2010), ORC Ann. 3105.31 (2010)
Oregon: See Leefield v. Leefield, (1917) 85 Or 287, 166 P 953.
ORS § 106.020 (2009), ORS § 163.525 (2009).

Oklahoma: 43 Okl. St. § 2 (2010), 21 Okl. St. § 885 (2010)
Rhode Island: R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-1-1 (2010), R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-1-2 (2010)
South Carolina: S.C. Code Ann. § 20-1-10 (2009), S.C. Code Ann. § 16-15-20 (2009)

South Dakota: S.D. Codified Laws § 25-1-6 (2010), S.D. Codified Laws § 22-22A-2 (2010), S.D. Codified Laws § 25-1-38 (2010)

Tennessee: Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-101 (2010), Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-302 (2010)

Texas: Tex. Fam. Code § 2.004 (2010), Texas Family Code, Title 1, Chapter 6, Subtitle B, Tex. Fam. Code § 6.201 (2010), Tex. Penal Code § 25.02 (2010)

Vermont: 15 V.S.A. § 1a (2010), 13 V.S.A. § 205 (2010)

Virginia: Va. Code Ann. § 20-38.1 (2010), Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-366 (2010)

Wyoming: Wyo. Stat. § 20-1-111 (2010), Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-101 (2010), Wyo. Stat. § 6-4-402 (2010)

Resist We Much on December 1, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Hahaha, will you be here all week?

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Try the veal, and don’t forget to tip your waitress.

Night Owl on December 1, 2012 at 12:45 PM

I don’t understand, from chicken…err…Alpha Male’s viewpoint, what the purpose of comparing homosexual marriage to marry one’s cousin gains for his cause?

kingsjester on December 1, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Resist We Much on December 1, 2012 at 12:43 PM

but, but, but:

…but a natural reading of the text and an understanding of its purpose suggests that states would be required to recognize all marriages performed in other states, even if a person could not be married within the state under such circumstances.

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Facts are just so unnatural.

Night Owl on December 1, 2012 at 12:50 PM

There’s a difference between authorizing cousin marriages w/in your own state and recognizing cousin marriages performed elsewhere. Apparently, the FF&C clause as applied to marriages in other states has never been tested, but a natural reading of the text and an understanding of its purpose suggests that states would be required to recognize all marriages performed in other states, even if a person could not be married within the state under such circumstances.

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Well, it has long been the law that some states do not recognise cousin marriages performed in other states. If may be against the public policy of State A to recognise the marriage of a cousin marriage – or for that marriage a father-daughter marriage – performed in State B.

There have been challenges and usually the states have won. They survive strict scrutiny because of the state’s right to prevent genetic defects.

Resist We Much on December 1, 2012 at 12:52 PM

I don’t understand, from chicken…err…Alpha Male’s viewpoint, what the purpose of comparing homosexual marriage to marry one’s cousin gains for his cause?

kingsjester on December 1, 2012 at 12:49 PM

I think he’s trying to say that states that don’t allow first cousins to marry must still recognize marriages originated in states that do. Resist We Much has decimated that argument, so he will now pivot to unequal protection under the law, or discrimination, or people who don’t let me have my way are meanies.

Night Owl on December 1, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Resist We Much on December 1, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Awesome slapdown.

Rebar on December 1, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 11:35 AM

It’s not about equality, it’s about the definition of marriage.

Equality is a straw man.

Akzed on December 1, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Most companies I know of, already provide that…and a will written by the deceased, already provides for those left behind.

kingsjester on December 1, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Just two years ago, around 30% of employers in the US offered same-sex couples..today that number is around 50%. And it’s been a long, uphill battle to get to that.

As for wills, that’s only one matter of out many things that can be denied same-sex couples with “civil unions”. Those other things include federal benefits…such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, lower tax rates, veterans benefits, insurance breaks…etc etc.

Then that is the area to work to change.
I suggest starting with some type of legal standing. Maybe a designation like “civil unions”. Then it may be a much easier row to hoe to simply change..not really change..add that designation to tax and benefit policy.

Wouldn’t that be a tactic with much more likelihood of success?

Mimzey on December 1, 2012 at 12:14 PM

To expand a little on my reply to kingjester above, same-sex civil unions today forward would need to be treated the same under state and federal law as their opposite-sex counterparts.

For this to be truly equal, you can’t offer straight couples “marriage” and gay couples “civil unions”. All that constitutes is “separate but equal”. If all secular state marriages become civil unions, and marriage is the domain of religion, then sure…that’s fine by me, anyway.

JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 1:04 PM

For this to be truly equal, you can’t offer straight couples “marriage” and gay couples “civil unions”. All that constitutes is “separate but equal”. If all secular state marriages become civil unions, and marriage is the domain of religion, then sure…that’s fine by me, anyway. JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s why confused sex perverts can’t get married. What you clowns really are after is changing the definition of marriage. Why don’t you admit it?

Akzed on December 1, 2012 at 1:09 PM

For this to be truly equal, you can’t offer straight couples “marriage” and gay couples “civil unions”. All that constitutes is “separate but equal”. If all secular state marriages become civil unions, and marriage is the domain of religion, then sure…that’s fine by me, anyway.

JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Why not? Having two designations doesn’t seem like a difficult addition to tax and benefit laws.

The other way just seems like it would have the potential for grey areas.
Secular marriages could be called whatever the people want to call them…civil unions for same sex with the same “advantages” of marriage. This would limit the opening for activists to keep actifiyin’ and demanding churches perform their ceremony.

Mimzey on December 1, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Marriage is a State’s Rights issue, Fed have no constitutional jurisdiction.

Well, except for how it impacts the IRS… :(

Lawrence on December 1, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s why confused sex perverts can’t get married. What you clowns really are after is changing the definition of marriage. Why don’t you admit it?

Akzed on December 1, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Exactly at what point in the history of civilization does your definition of marriage come from? And what region(s) of the world fit into your definition of marriage? Is the wife her husaband’s property? Does the wife have to be a virgin?

I mean, marriage has been redefined numerous times in the past, and in as many different ways as there are different religious faiths and different world cultures.

Does your definition of marriage include no-fault divorce? Spousal abuse? Pre-nups? Celebutards marrying and divorcing quicker than I change my socks?

So please…give me a place and time frame which you base the definition of marriage on.

JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Secular marriages could be called whatever the people want to call them…civil unions for same sex with the same “advantages” of marriage. This would limit the opening for activists to keep actifiyin’ and demanding churches perform their ceremony.

Mimzey on December 1, 2012 at 1:11 PM

But what exactly is the reason that straight couples married by the state can choose either name for their union, but same-sex couples married by the state can only have one? If marriage is left to religious faith, then it shouldn’t have a place in secular marriage contracts.

Gay married couples can’t say that they’re married?

I’m not trying to be snarky with you…maybe I’m not geting my point across well. :/

JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 1:36 PM

JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Please cite the specific instances where marriage has been redifined, and if it has ever been redefined to mean two homosexuals of the same gender receiving official approval from their rulers to lie together as man and wife.

Also, while you’re at it, identify the biological factors which cause homosexuality.

And, please, cite your sources.

Thank you.

kingsjester on December 1, 2012 at 1:37 PM

…so Robert’s isn’t geh?

KOOLAID2 on December 1, 2012 at 10:08 AM

No, but he is foolish, lame and should be tarred and feathered (all for his Obamacare ruling).

Theophile on December 1, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s why confused sex perverts can’t get married. What you clowns really are after is changing the definition of marriage. Why don’t you admit it?

Akzed on December 1, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Exactly at what point in the history of civilization does your definition of marriage come from? And what region(s) of the world fit into your definition of marriage? Is the wife her husaband’s property? Does the wife have to be a virgin?

I mean, marriage has been redefined numerous times in the past, and in as many different ways as there are different religious faiths and different world cultures.

Does your definition of marriage include no-fault divorce? Spousal abuse? Pre-nups? Celebutards marrying and divorcing quicker than I change my socks?

So please…give me a place and time frame which you base the definition of marriage on.

JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Hogwash, all of the above. Marriage has never required a woman — or a man — to be a virgin. That’s a matter of morality.

You’re just throwing up a sputtering blizzard of irrelevance to pretend that marriage has been “redefined,” all so you can claim it that redefining it to mean two men is no big deal.

At no point in all your spurious irrelevant counterexamples did marriage involve anything other than people of the opposite sex. And you know it.

tom on December 1, 2012 at 1:46 PM

The reason Alpha_Male and JetBoy want gay-sex marriage is simple; they are antireligious bigots who are attempting to smokescreen their attacks on churches and religious thoughts.

You need merely look at this.

And this.

And especially this.

The last is the most obvious. The gay-sex marriage supporters such as the lying bigot Chai Feldblum believe that gay sex and gay sex marriage trump the First Amendment.

This is how desperate JetBoy and Alpha_Male are. They are trying to destroy an established constitutional right with a made-up one.

northdallasthirty on December 1, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Exactly at what point in the history of civilization does your definition of marriage come from? JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Every time and place that is has been an institution involving male and female.

Even in this country, when two dudes bolwing one another was not considered even by the insane as a basis for marriage, polygamy was so repugnant that Mormons had to renounce it as part of their religion for Utah to be admitted into the union.

Akzed on December 1, 2012 at 1:53 PM

If opposite-sex married couples are afforded special rights and benefits under state law, and at the same time prohibiting same-sex couples that same opportunity based on sexual orientation, then there is no equal protection.

JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Not really.

You see, JetBoy, opposite-sex couples having sex with each other creates totally different issues than same-sex couples.

Opposite-sex couples create children, which have no legal identity and no means of supporting themselves; society grants the benefits of marriage to encourage and support the parents of those children to raise them, because children are recognized as a universal good to society.

You and your sex partners will never produce children, yet you demand the same subsidies that those who can receive.

Why should society subsidize two adults? You can work for yourself. The fact that you and your sex partners want to mooch off society using benefits that were never intended for you. That is all you are — a poor, pathetic, whiny mooch.

And before you start screaming about infertile and elderly couples, those people are biologically incapable, against their own will, of producing children.

When you state that being gay represents biological damage and that you are disabled, then you can make the argument. But since we know that gay-sex liberals like yourself, aka your hero Jim McGreevey, are more than capable of having sex with and marrying members of the opposite gender, then your choice not to do so becomes obvious.

northdallasthirty on December 1, 2012 at 1:56 PM

The funny part is that I don’t think the gay-sex liberals like AQlpha_Male and JetBoy have actually ever READ the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

First part, easily undone: liberal states currently do not recognize concealed-carry permits from other states, which qualify nicely as acts and records. Indeed, when I moved from Texas to California, California refused to recognize my driver’s license as valid for issuance of a similar California license.

Therefore, gay-sex marriage supporters cannot argue that states have to recognize everything that another state does, and their Obama Party is shown to be hypocritical in claiming so.

The states are encouraged to, and may choose to recognize each others’ marriage laws, but they are not required to do so. Period.

And the second part:

And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

In short, Congress has the power to make law determining what shall and shall not be required to be recognized by the states as marriage, and certainly has power to determine what the Federal government will determine is marriage; if it did not, then Utah would have been able to force the rest of the states to recognize polygamy AND get Federal benefits for polygamous unions.

Gays like JetBoy and Alpha_Male are merely throwing emotional temper tantrums. Once you realize they have no legal grounds for their fits, and on top of that are throwing them primarily because they are antireligious bigots, then their lies become much easier to expose.

Show your supposedly gay-sex-marriage supporting friends the words of the bigot Chai Feldblum, in which the bigot lesbian makes it clear that gays and lesbians OPPOSE religious freedom.

northdallasthirty on December 1, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Haha, better to just resolve myself to a life of unhappy crankiness like the typical Hot Air commenter or Fox News viewer then?

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 11:45 AM

You’re weak.

CW on December 1, 2012 at 3:25 PM

I mean, marriage has been redefined numerous times in the past, and in as many different ways as there are different religious faiths and different world cultures.

Does your definition of marriage include no-fault divorce? Spousal abuse? Pre-nups? Celebutards marrying and divorcing quicker than I change my socks?

So please…give me a place and time frame which you base the definition of marriage on.

JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 1:30 PM

With all that straw don’t light a match.

CW on December 1, 2012 at 3:26 PM

The funny part is that I don’t think the gay-sex liberals like AQlpha_Male and JetBoy have actually ever READ the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

I don’t think you’ve read many of my comments on just about every topic here at HA for the past 5 or 6 years.

If you had, you’d know that I’m no liberal.

Never ceases to amaze me how the only people who so much as mention “gay sex” aren’t gay…

JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Never ceases to amaze me how the only people who so much as mention “gay sex” aren’t gay…

JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Actually, if you’d ever read any of mine, you would know that I am gay.

And in your case, it’s perfectly appropriate. You and your fellow bigots think that what you want to have sex with should trump every law, every moral, every religious belief, and the Constitution itself.

Since you believe that gay sex trumps everything else, you’re not a conservative. You’re a gay-sex liberal who wants all of the advantages of conservativism — freedom, small government, opportunity — with the ability to play the trump card and ignore all of those because of your privileged position.

That’s why I laugh whenever you bleat about “equality”. The last thing you want is “equality”. What you want is special treatment, in which you and your sex partner du jour get the same subsidies and benefits as a family raising their three kids. You want all the benefits and none of the responsibilities or impact.

You would have much more support if you recognized the importance of marriage and childrearing to society. But you don’t. You only care about getting your welfare check so that you and your sex partners can loot and mooch — and then using the power of government to ban all criticism of your behavior.

northdallasthirty on December 1, 2012 at 3:36 PM

So what really is gained by people marrying, period?

Certainly white folks with lower middle and lower economic status have figured “not much” and don’t think a whole lot is.

If you haven’t already, read Charles Murray’s Coming Apart. It will shiver your timbers a lot more than the gay 1-2% of the population getting some kind of legal recognition from the state.

Bruno Strozek on December 1, 2012 at 11:57 AM

And down goes any credibility you have on this topic. Better luck next time.

astonerii on December 1, 2012 at 3:44 PM

astonerii on December 1, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Go back and read the whole thread, Pal.

Bruno Strozek on December 1, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Resist We Much on December 1, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Just because statutes are on the books doesn’t mean that they are enforced or invulnerable to constitutional attack. Has the U.S. Supreme Court ever said that a state is free not to recognize a first-cousin marriage performed in another state? From some very brief research, it doesn’t look that way to me, although I’d love to see it if you’ve got it.

Alpha_Male on December 1, 2012 at 4:10 PM

The sexually dysfunctional are sure getting their money’s worth lately. Their candidate gets re-elected, a few states pass same sex marriage bills, the DOMA is basically neutralized, the Supreme’s are getting ready to cave as well, acceptance of their sexual behavior is growing in the young, etc.

God has a sense of irony, it seems. Validation of their perversion simply hardens them into it and their fates are sealed.

Cleombrotus on December 1, 2012 at 4:27 PM

And in your case, it’s perfectly appropriate. You and your fellow bigots think that what you want to have sex with should trump every law, every moral, every religious belief, and the Constitution itself.

Again with “sex”…the topic is gay marriage, not sex. Doesn’t matter if you’re straight or gay…you don’t get married if you’re looking for sex. Come on.

Since you believe that gay sex trumps everything else, you’re not a conservative.

And AGAIN with gay “sex”. Something is happening between your ears that turns “marriage” into “sex”.

You’re a gay-sex liberal who wants all of the advantages of conservativism — freedom, small government, opportunity — with the ability to play the trump card and ignore all of those because of your privileged position

There’s the “sex” hat trick…Once again, if you’ve read any of my comments on a variety of topics, you’d look pretty stoopit calling me a liberal.

That’s why I laugh whenever you bleat about “equality”. The last thing you want is “equality”. What you want is special treatment, in which you and your sex partner du jour get the same subsidies and benefits as a family raising their three kids. You want all the benefits and none of the responsibilities or impact.

Umm….what?? Yeah, you really don’t know a whole heck of a lot about me at all. Not at all.

You would have much more support if you recognized the importance of marriage and childrearing to society. But you don’t. You only care about getting your welfare check so that you and your sex partners can loot and mooch — and then using the power of government to ban all criticism of your behavior.

northdallasthirty on December 1, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Where did I say anything about child-rearing? Perhaps I didn’t get the memo stating only hetero couples can raise children…or the way you talk, hetero couples MUST raise children…at least if they want to contribute to society, no?

Welfare check? *facepalm*

Loot and mooch? ROFL!!!

Oh, man…if you’re not a stand-up comic, you missed your calling LOL!

JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Again with “sex”…the topic is gay marriage, not sex. Doesn’t matter if you’re straight or gay…you don’t get married if you’re looking for sex. Come on.

Oh, I’m sorry. What did you claim discrimination on the basis of?

Marriage may not be a right, but equal protection under the US constitution most certainly is. If opposite-sex married couples are afforded special rights and benefits under state law, and at the same time prohibiting same-sex couples that same opportunity based on sexual orientation, then there is no equal protection.

JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 11:53 AM

And what is sexual orientation?

Oh, right; with what you want to have sex.

Your claim is that people won’t let you marry that with which you want to have sex.

And your screaming and ranting is that people must be allowed to marry whatever they want to have sex with or it’s a violation of “equal protection”.

You played the “sexual orientation” card; you brought sex into it.

So you’re a gay-sex liberal who is demanding that you be allowed to marry whatever with which you want to have sex.

And then this:

Where did I say anything about child-rearing? Perhaps I didn’t get the memo stating only hetero couples can raise children…or the way you talk, hetero couples MUST raise children…at least if they want to contribute to society, no?

JetBoy on December 1, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Actually, I anticipated this lie on your part, because you really aren’t very intelligent; you just repeat the talking points that your gay-sex liberal masters feed you because your sexual orientation trumps any sort of logic or rationality on your part.

Now answer, please.

You see, JetBoy, opposite-sex couples having sex with each other creates totally different issues than same-sex couples.

Opposite-sex couples create children, which have no legal identity and no means of supporting themselves; society grants the benefits of marriage to encourage and support the parents of those children to raise them, because children are recognized as a universal good to society.

You and your sex partners will never produce children, yet you demand the same subsidies that those who can receive.

Why should society subsidize two adults? You can work for yourself. The fact that you and your sex partners want to mooch off society using benefits that were never intended for you. That is all you are — a poor, pathetic, whiny mooch.

And before you start screaming about infertile and elderly couples, those people are biologically incapable, against their own will, of producing children.

When you state that being gay represents biological damage and that you are disabled, then you can make the argument. But since we know that gay-sex liberals like yourself, aka your hero Jim McGreevey, are more than capable of having sex with and marrying members of the opposite gender, then your choice not to do so becomes obvious.

northdallasthirty on December 1, 2012 at 1:56 PM

northdallasthirty on December 1, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Again with “sex”…the topic is gay marriage, not sex.

Take away the sexual aspect and the issue disappears. You’re being disengenuous, to say the least.

Never could understand relegating to the sexually dysfunctional the authority to define an institution that, at its core, is predicated upon a sexual bond.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how that makes sense. In a sane world, that is.

Cleombrotus on December 1, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Exactly, Cleombrotus.

JetBoy is whining and demanding that he should be allowed to marry men because he wants to have sex with men.

He could be married to a woman anytime. But he doesn’t want that because he doesn’t like having sex with women. Rather than recognize that HE is different, he screams and cries that not allowing him to marry whatever he finds sexually attractive is “discrimination”.

northdallasthirty on December 1, 2012 at 6:53 PM

JetBoy is whining and demanding that he should be allowed to marry men because he wants to have sex with men.

No. It’s not about having sex with men. They already HAVE that and they also have societal acceptance of it. There is not, and has not been for some time now, institutionalized resistance or censure of their behaviors, other than from the Church, AND from the obvious reminder, constantly, that they are different, by the institution of marriage.

BOTH must be undermined in order, in their minds, for them to have inner peace. One wonders what they will demand when they have these things and still suffer dis-ease.

Cleombrotus on December 1, 2012 at 8:34 PM

And I believe the word should be excised from tax codes and every other law in the land.

…how on earth is a state supposed to have divorce laws without the word “marriage”? Some other word would just have to replace it.

alwaysfiredup on December 1, 2012 at 10:09 PM

If one state can prohibit the FULL meaning of the right to KEEP and BEAR arms to the letter of the law, then the states can prohibit homosexuals from marrying one another, or three, or four of one-another.

Until this country stops trying to regulate everything, this nonsense will continue. I don’t believe in a state license for marriage any more than I do for carrying my gun. However, if NY can ban my gun, then TEXAS can ban their homosexual marriages.

If you want to live where gays frolic in the park, go live in Rhode Island. If you want to live where gun’s are banned, go to Chicago. If you want to live where guns are legal and homosexuals can’t get married, move to Texas. It’s quite simple. Pick your poison as I always say and the feds AND SCOTUS should mind their own federal-business.

TX-96 on December 2, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Comment pages: 1 2