Breaking: Supreme Court to hear challenges to Proposition 8, DOMA

posted at 4:29 pm on December 7, 2012 by Allahpundit

I’m surprised. I said a few weeks ago that I thought neither wing of the Court had an incentive to grant cert on gay-marriage cases right now. The conservative wing should be worried that Kennedy, who’s written two landmark opinions supporting gay rights, will vote with the liberals. The liberal wing should be worried that a Court ruling imposing gay marriage nationwide will generate a ferocious backlash just at the moment that SSM supporters are starting to win state referendums.

It only takes four votes to grant cert. Which side decided to roll the dice?

The new California [Proposition 8] case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, was filed in 2009 by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, two lawyers who were on opposite sides in the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, which settled the 2000 presidential election. The suit argued that California’s voters had violated the federal Constitution the previous year when they overrode a decision of the state’s Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriages…

Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt, writing for the [Ninth Circuit] majority [that struck down Proposition 8], relied heavily on a 1996 majority opinion from Justice Kennedy in Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that had banned the passage of laws protecting gay men and lesbians. The voter initiative in California, known as Proposition 8, had done something similar, Judge Reinhardt wrote…

“For now,” he said, “it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state Constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class.”

The Supreme Court has several options in reviewing the decision. It could reverse it, leaving California’s ban on same-sex marriage in place unless voters there choose to revisit the question. It could affirm on the narrower theory, which would allow same-sex marriage in California but not require it elsewhere. Or it could address the broader question of whether the Constitution requires states to allow such marriages.

My hunch is that it was the conservatives who voted to take both cases, not the liberals. The liberals have no real incentive to touch this right now. They were just granted four more years to hope for a conservative vacancy on the Court, at which point gay marriage by judicial fiat will be a fait accompli. The more states enact gay marriage in the meantime, the stronger their political position will be when that moment finally arrives. And Kennedy, while likely to vote with them, is always a wild card. Why take a chance on him now and risk an unfavorable precedent when they can simply punt? They’ve got time; they can wait. For the conservatives, the logic runs the opposite way. As skittish as they are about Kennedy, they’re better off forcing this issue and gambling on him than waiting for a fifth liberal justice to be appointed by Obama. Ruling against gay marriage now won’t stop a liberal Court from overruling the decision later, but it will help delegitimize the future ruling by underscoring how nakedly ideological the Court’s changing thinking is. The conservatives may also figure that accepting this now along with DOMA may incline Kennedy to issue a split decision. Striking down either DOMA or Prop 8 would be huge, but striking down both on the same day would be epochal, maybe too much so to make a moderate like him comfortable. It could box him in on federalism too. If he’s inclined to strike down DOMA in the name of letting states set the rules on family law, then why can’t Californians set their own rules with Prop 8?

The only reason I can think of why the liberals might want to hear this case is because they think it’s important to have justices from both wings of the Court in the majority for a ruling as controversial as finding an equal protection right to gay marriage. But like I say, even with Kennedy’s record on gay rights, that’s a serious gamble. And how would having a bipartisan Court majority help sell this decision to the public if the only bipartisan element is Kennedy? A majority with Scalia, Alito, or Thomas in it would be dramatic. A majority with four liberals plus the guy who’s voted with liberals repeatedly on gay rights would be meh.

Update: Split decision on DOMA?

Court watchers I’ve corresponded with believe that the likeliest outcome, given the justices’ individual histories on similar questions, would be a decision that strikes down the federal recognition prong of DOMA while also ruling there is no constitutional right to get married. This result would mean that married gay couples would be eligible for federal benefits but that gays could only get married in states where such unions were legal.


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 4 5 6 8

Fine, 301.

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 2:00 AM

The government bears no responsibility to redefine marriage to please all supplicants.

Marriage has already been redefined. Unless you are a fan of the biblical version?

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

I look forward to the supreme court endorsing biblical marriage. Should be interesting!

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:01 AM

I have no idea what “True Marriage Equality” means, because no one has ever heard the term outside of the right wing bubble you inhabit.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:04 AM

yeah because gay people getting married is such an inconvenience to everyone, right?

and you people wonder why no one votes for you anymore.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Actually, it will cause an inconvenience to my state, which has amended it’s constitution to bar it. We have no laws to handle it. We have no laws to handle divorce cases. We have no plans to update any government forms that currently require husband/wife mom/dad, etc. information. We have no laws in place that say “by so and so time, if you provide insurance to your married workers’ spouses, you have to include gay ‘married’ spouses as well. Oh, your religious beliefs don’t believe two gay people can be married? Too f’ing bad. Pay for their health insurance anyway.” Open enrollment is over for the year. Do gays now get a special enrollment time? We have no laws in place regarding common law marriage. Does the amount of time they have been living together “count” towards clm, or does that date start from the day of the court decision?

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 2:05 AM

Oh, cptacek, I had no idea! Changing a form must be so hard for you! Having state legislators spend a few hours voting on laws is so rough!

We should totally tell two people who want to spend their lives together that they can’t because it’s not worth our time. I mean, what else can we do? Our hands are tied – the forms can’t be changed! They’ve already been printed! That’s just unreasonable!

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:08 AM

Right wing bubble?

see: http://unskewedpolls.com/

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:09 AM

Three times the shallow depth of thought previously consider record setting.

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 2:10 AM

The forms are already printed guys! What do they expect us to do, add a checkbox, just so they can get married? Selfish bastards.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:12 AM

Dang iPad thingy. consider=considered

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 2:12 AM

Oh, cptacek, I had no idea! Changing a form must be so hard for you! Having state legislators spend a few hours voting on laws is so rough!

We should totally tell two people who want to spend their lives together that they can’t because it’s not worth our time. I mean, what else can we do? Our hands are tied – the forms can’t be changed! They’ve already been printed! That’s just unreasonable!

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:08 AM

Oh, by barring gay “marriage” we are telling two people they can’t spend their lives together? That’s just silly.

Did you miss the Constitutional Amendment part? The Employment law part? The “I’m going to run roughshod over your 1st Amendment right to practice your religion” part?

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 2:14 AM

Oh, by barring gay “marriage” we are telling two people they can’t spend their lives together? That’s just silly.

Did you miss the Constitutional Amendment part? The Employment law part? The “I’m going to run roughshod over your 1st Amendment right to practice your religion” part?

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 2:14 AM

Run roughshod?

Okay, you need to understand the first amendment.

It gives you the right to practice your religion. It does not give you the right to dictate that other people should ALSO practice your religion by government mandate.

Yeah, Christianity frowns upon gay people. Guess what? Not everyone is a Christian, and it’s not the government’s job to enforce the rules of your freaking church.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:16 AM

I’m amazed that people can recognize and understand why religion in politics is a bad idea in say, egypt.. but they think religion in politics in the united states is a GREAT idea.

It’s like.. why even think too hard.. my church will tell me what to think.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:19 AM

You said it wouldn’t be a convenience. I am showing you that it will be a convenience. You arguing with me about it is proving my point.

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 2:20 AM

Weak.

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 2:20 AM

You said it wouldn’t be a convenience. I am showing you that it will be a convenience. You arguing with me about it is proving my point.

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 2:20 AM

But what you said applies to making any change in any law.

By your logic we should never make changes in current law because it would require the lawmakers to do their jobs.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:21 AM

Here. Let’ say I own a business. I have two employees. I provide health insurance for them. One is married, and I provide health insurance for his wife, too. One is gay, and the law changes and wants me to cover his partner.

I am Catholic.

How can I practice my religion and not be sued?

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 2:22 AM

Not everyone is a Christian, and it’s not the government’s job to enforce the rules of your freaking church.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:16 AM

You really are obtuse. Blink has been calling for Government to be totally removed (total marriage equality) from the Marriage argument for 2 pages and you have dissed him extensively.

chemman on December 8, 2012 at 2:23 AM

And what is your objection to True Marriage Equality? Why can’t you support it?

I can’t support something you won’t explain to me.

If I had to guess, I’m willing to bet you think gay people getting married is like dogs getting married, or something. Which speaks more about you and the kind of person you are, than about any actual issue at hand.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:23 AM

But what you said applies to making any change in any law.

By your logic we should never make changes in current law because it would require the lawmakers to do their jobs.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:21 AM

Yes. We already did consider this and changed our Constitution to bar it. You are trying to force us to go against that.

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 2:23 AM

Total = true

chemman on December 8, 2012 at 2:24 AM

Here. Let’ say I own a business. I have two employees. I provide health insurance for them. One is married, and I provide health insurance for his wife, too. One is gay, and the law changes and wants me to cover his partner.

I am Catholic.

How can I practice my religion and not be sued?

I’m catholic too.

The bible doesn’t say anything about forbidding providing insurance for an employee who’s gay. It forbids gay acts.

Unless you think providing someone with healthcare is equivalent to sodomy, I think you’re okay.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Three times as obtuse as an average commenter.

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 2:27 AM

Yes. We already did consider this and changed our Constitution to bar it. You are trying to force us to go against that.

The US Constitution supersedes state constitutions, buddy.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:28 AM

I’m catholic too.

The bible doesn’t say anything about forbidding providing insurance for an employee who’s gay. It forbids gay acts.

Unless you think providing someone with healthcare is equivalent to sodomy, I think you’re okay.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Dude. In my hypothetical, I am not denying the insurance to the gay employee. I do not want to recognize the sham marriage and provide it to his partner. By providing those benefits, I am endorsing the sham, and my Catholic faith won’t allow me to do that.

I think I won’t take advice on what is ok in the eyes of the Church from someone pushing gay marriage, thank you very much.

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 2:30 AM

You said it wouldn’t be a convenience. I am showing you that it will be a convenience. You arguing with me about it is proving my point.

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 2:20 AM

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 2:31 AM

I’m basing that on the idea that just because your interpretation of Christianity doesn’t approve of homosexuality that you can’t tell other Christians or other people of faith or lack thereof that they must adhere to YOUR opinion as well.

Genuine on December 7, 2012 at 10:49 PM

To go back to the first comment: a tail is not a leg. Pretending two guys can be married does not make them married. Not even when it’s the all-powerful government doing the pretending.

Your comment illustrates what happens when we assume words only mean whatever we want them to mean. You want to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, when that has never been the meaning of the word. And if the word marriage has no intrinsic meaning, then naturally, you would glibly assume that Christianity has no intrinsic meaning either.

Which leads to the absurdity of saying, “your interpretation of Christianity doesn’t approve of homosexuality.” While there may be splinter groups and cults that call themselves Christian while claiming that homosexuality is not sinful, that proves nothing. There are cults that declare that Jesus never really died on a cross and rose from the dead, which is about as basic to the Christian faith as any doctrine could be.

So let’s at least be honest and admit that the Christian faith has always recognized homosexual behavior to be sinful. It is taught in the Scriptures, it was taught in the early church, it was taught by the apostles and their descendants. There is no “interpretation of Christianity” that “approve[s] of homosexuality.” At the most, you’ll find those who distinguish between mere homosexual tendencies and actual homosexual behavior.

But just in case you’re really stuck on the notion that homosexuality is optional in Christianity, 1 Cor 6:9-10 specifically says, “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God.” So obviously Christianity can not approve what God has condemned.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 8, 2012 at 2:32 AM

I think I won’t take advice on what is ok in the eyes of the Church from someone pushing gay marriage, thank you very much.

Yeah, I only went to catholic school for 13 years and was an altar boy for like 5-6, what the hell do I know?

A teacher at our school was found to be gay. She was dismissed.

The entire school walked out in protest. The entire catholic school.

The bible tells you gay acts are wrong. It never says you need to treat gay people like sub-humans.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:34 AM

There Goes The Neighborhood, few questions.

Do you have an opinion on what the bible says about paying 50 sheckles of silver for a virgin I just found and took as my own?

Do you think it’s reasonable to apply ancient scripture to modern day society?

If you do, would you go to a dentist taught ancient middle eastern dentistry?

Would you fly on a plane designed by ancient illiterate carpenters?

So why would you deny people their rights based on ancient religious teachings?

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:41 AM

Yeah, I only went to catholic school for 13 years and was an altar boy for like 5-6, what the hell do I know?

You are honestly sitting there trying to tell me that the Catholic Church thinks it is ok for two men to “marry”?

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 2:42 AM

A teacher at our school was found to be gay. She was dismissed.

The entire school walked out in protest. The entire catholic school.

Oh my gosh. Let me get to my fainting couch before something bad happens.

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 2:43 AM

No I’m telling you the catholic church doesn’t care if you have gay friends.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:43 AM

No I’m telling you the catholic church doesn’t care if you have gay friends.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:43 AM

lol, I have gay friends. I played women’s college basketball. My coach was gay, my teammates were gay, I was accused of being gay.

Doesn’t mean if they invited me to their “wedding” I would go to it.

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 2:45 AM

The government bears no responsibility to redefine marriage to please all supplicants.

Marriage has already been redefined. Unless you are a fan of the biblical version?

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

I look forward to the supreme court endorsing biblical marriage. Should be interesting!

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:01 AM

That doesn’t define marriage. It makes clear to a man who forces a virgin to have sex with him that, by making her undesirable as a wife to other men, he has therefore accepted the responsibility of being her husband himself, with no possibility of divorce, and with a substantial financial penalty.

By “sentencing” him to marry her, this law implicitly confirms that it does not define marriage at all, but requires a man to offer marriage to the wronged woman under the current definition of marriage.

So basically, you’re making a stupid rhetorical point. Worse, you completely miss the obvious fact that this verse just confirms that no matter how you start, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. After all, it clearly says, “If a man find a damsel.”

Next time you want to mock me, try not to botch the job quite so horribly. It’s embarrassing.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 8, 2012 at 2:47 AM

You failed to address the point. Where in the bible does it say you cannot provide a gay couple with health insurance?

The bible gives YOU moral guidelines. Acknowledging gay people exist and occasionally get hitched does not mean that you, yourself, are tainted by their “sin”.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:48 AM

By “sentencing” him to marry her, this law implicitly confirms that it does not define marriage at all, but requires a man to offer marriage to the wronged woman under the current definition of marriage.

Wrong. There was no hint of an “offer” in that text. If you rape a virgin, you pay a fine and she’s forced to become your wife.

Biblical marriage, people.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:50 AM

Worse, you completely miss the obvious fact that this verse just confirms that no matter how you start, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. After all, it clearly says, “If a man find a damsel.”

Oh, I wasn’t disputing that. The bible says lots of things. It also says gay people should be stoned, which I assume you agree with, because the bible is the infallible Word of God!

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:52 AM

And cptacek, would you provide insurance to married couples who had jewish weddings? What if they weren’t married by a church at all – they went to court? I mean, they didn’t follow your religion, why are they entitled to insurance but gay people aren’t?

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:54 AM

You failed to address the point. Where in the bible does it say you cannot provide a gay couple with health insurance?

John 11:35

The bible gives YOU moral guidelines. Acknowledging gay people exist and occasionally get hitched does not mean that you, yourself, are tainted by their “sin”.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:48 AM
You don’t get to define what my religion means to me, and what actions I take that I consider sinful.

A priest friend of my sister would not go to her wedding, and she married a guy. But it was in a Methodist church. He couldn’t endorse it, because of the message it would send for him to be there.

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 2:56 AM

Lets recap

good reasons to deny gay people the right go get married

-Forms are already printed, bro (reprint them?)
-State constitutions can’t be changed (um, supremacy clause?)
-god says so (so I imagine you’ll start stoning them, too)
-1st amendment rights! (“how can I be a good christian with all these gays getting married?”…is the stupidest thing ever said)
-True Marriage Equality (is a nonsense term blink found in a FW:FW:FW:FW:FW: email.)

triple on December 8, 2012 at 3:00 AM

You don’t get to define what my religion means to me, and what actions I take that I consider sinful.

Your religion can mean whatever the hell it wants. Your religion is also against condoms, btw. Good luck with that.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 3:02 AM

Lets recap

good reasons to deny gay people the right go get married

-Forms are already printed, bro (reprint them?)
-State constitutions can’t be changed (um, supremacy clause?)
-god says so (so I imagine you’ll start stoning them, too)
-1st amendment rights! (“how can I be a good christian with all these gays getting married?”…is the stupidest thing ever said)
-True Marriage Equality (is a nonsense term blink found in a FW:FW:FW:FW:FW: email.)

triple on December 8, 2012 at 3:00 AM

-It isn’t and never will be marriage.

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 3:04 AM

-It isn’t and never will be marriage.

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 3:04 AM

..said you guys back when blacks and whites were mixing.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 3:05 AM

Your religion can mean whatever the hell it wants. Your religion is also against condoms, btw. Good luck with that.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 3:02 AM

I am having fantastic luck with that. I am in a monogamous marriage and am welcoming any children that we may be blessed with.

Also, you said you were Catholic, so your religion is against condoms too. Unless that was a lie.

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 3:05 AM

..said you guys back when blacks and whites were mixing.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 3:05 AM

Blacks and whites aren’t mixing anymore? When did that happen?

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 3:07 AM

I am in a monogamous marriage

Good for you. It’s too bad you’re too high and mighty to realize other people besides you might want to get married to the people they love, too.

But hey, you’ve never sinned right? Eff everyone else.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 3:10 AM

“living my Catholic beliefs” = “high and mighty”?

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 3:11 AM

But hey, you’ve never sinned right? Eff everyone else.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 3:10 AM

Wrong. I’m going to the Communal Confession on Monday afternoon. Want to come along?

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 3:12 AM

There Goes The Neighborhood, few questions.

Do you have an opinion on what the bible says about paying 50 sheckles of silver for a virgin I just found and took as my own?

Do you think it’s reasonable to apply ancient scripture to modern day society?

If you do, would you go to a dentist taught ancient middle eastern dentistry?

Would you fly on a plane designed by ancient illiterate carpenters?

So why would you deny people their rights based on ancient religious teachings?

triple on December 8, 2012 at 2:41 AM

Still trying to score points, I see.

Okay.

Do you have an opinion on what the bible says about paying 50 sheckles of silver for a virgin I just found and took as my own?

An Old Testament law intended for the tribal society of Israel with a weak central government that attempted to provide vulnerable women as much protection as possible. Here’s a case where the rape has already happened, and the rape victim would have a hard time finding a husband due to the usual value placed on having a virginal wife, and so the rapist is required to pay a fee to the father and provide for the woman all his days, and in a case like this, he could NEVER divorce her.

Now, I’ll grant my thoughts on penalties for rape tend more to the death penalty. But as facile as that answer would be, it does little or nothing for the woman, who might well be unmarried for the rest of her life. So God is not only more merciful than I am, but smarter also.

But at least have the decency to admit that this is not a prescription for how marriage should happen according to the Bible. It’s clearly a law designed for “the hardness of your hearts,” as Jesus once put it

Do you think it’s reasonable to apply ancient scripture to modern day society?

Rightly understood, yes. Your last example would be completely inapt, since you seem to treat it as description of how God wants marriages to happen rather than a restriction on the occasional tendency of men to rape unprotected women with no thought of consequences.

On the other hand, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all the heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, and thy neighbor as thyself” is pretty easily understood.

If you do, would you go to a dentist taught ancient middle eastern dentistry?

I guess I missed where the Bible teaches ancient middle eastern dentistry. Which makes this question just a mindless attempt to mock.

Would you fly on a plane designed by ancient illiterate carpenters?

Ditto.

So why would you deny people their rights based on ancient religious teachings?

That’s a lot of labor to put words in my mouth that don’t belong.

First of all, I’m not denying anyone their rights. That’s your argument, and it’s based on an assumption that people are being denied their rights. IOW, it’s a circular argument.

Second, my argument against same-sex marriage isn’t based on the Bible. It’s based on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, and always has been. Now, the Bible strongly supports that position, so I can understand your confusion. But marriage is a fundamental social institution among pagan religions as well. The attempt to constrain it to nothing more than a religious argument is fallacious. Marriage is a human institution. Governments do not defined marriage. If anything, marriage and the family is the basis for government. Government has no right to reach back and twist the meaning of the very institution that first expanded to become government.

For all this talk about the supposed absurdity of defining marriage by the Bible, the real fact of the matter is that Christianity never redefined marriage in the first place. Christianity was an evangelical religion, and as it was preached across the world and people were converted, the new converts were not told, “Sorry, your marriage is no longer good. Now you must be remarried by our preacher, or you are living in sin.”

On the contrary, if you were converted and were already married, your marriage was immediately recognized as valid.

The Christian faith has much to say about marriage, but what is says is about your responsibility to your husband, or to your wife. Jesus did not bring a new doctrine of marriage, nor did any of His apostles.

So for all the talk about marriage being a religious institution, it is not the church that arrogates to itself the power to redefine marriage, but the government.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 8, 2012 at 3:14 AM

It’s based on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, and always has been

Are you sure it’s between a man and a woman?

Are you sure it’s not between a man and women, plural?

1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

That’s NT, dude.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 3:21 AM

triple on December 8, 2012 at 3:21 AM

You think this verse means he is getting married to all 10 virgins at the same time?

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 3:25 AM

Jesus taught the Parable of the Ten Virgins which is about a bridegroom and ten virgins.[Matt 25:1–13] This has been interpreted by some Christian sects as a plural marriage. Indeed, copyists of the New Testament manuscripts added “and bride” to a number of manuscripts at the end of Matthew 25:1, presumably because they were disturbed by the implications.[9] However, knowing that women in Antiquity often carried out public functions as a group, it is possible that the virgins are the bridesmaids.[citation needed] Even so, no single bride is mentioned in the story and the group of ten virgins are acting in reference to a single groom and not to a single bride.

That said.. you’re implying Christianity invented the concept of marriage, to which I say.. hahahahahahahahaha.

Abraham? Dude had 3 wives. There are like 30 polygamists in the bible alone. Polygamy was an accepted practice – and do you know who “redefined” marriage as one man one woman? Rome. It wasn’t jesus. It was good old atheist rome.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 3:29 AM

That said.. you’re implying Christianity invented the concept of marriage, to which I say.. hahahahahahahahaha.
triple on December 8, 2012 at 3:29 AM

Second, my argument against same-sex marriage isn’t based on the Bible. It’s based on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, and always has been. Now, the Bible strongly supports that position, so I can understand your confusion.
There Goes The Neighborhood on December 8, 2012 at 3:14 AM

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 3:34 AM

It wasn’t jesus. It was good old atheist rome.

triple on December 8, 2012 at 3:29 AM

Rome was atheist?

What an idiot.

riddick on December 8, 2012 at 3:54 AM

You spent a lot of time telling me how my faith was wrong, but not one bit of explanation of how I can adhere to my faith and not get sued.

cptacek on December 8, 2012 at 4:19 AM

Group A and Group B can be completely different, but they still deserve equal rights.

Why can’t you support this?

blink on December 8, 2012 at 2:31 AM

Group B does not consist of two adult citizens with recognized rights.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 6:31 AM

So for all the talk about marriage being a religious institution, it is not the church that arrogates to itself the power to redefine marriage, but the government.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 8, 2012 at 3:14 AM

That a briliant post that none of the social cons will be able to respond to.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 6:33 AM

So for all the talk about marriage being a religious institution, it is not the church that arrogates to itself the power to redefine marriage, but the government.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 8, 2012 at 3:14 AM

That a briliant post that none of the social cons will be able to respond to.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 6:33 AM

There’s nothing to respond to as it is just an observation. Further, the word “marriage” could be replaced with any moral imperative and the observation would hold.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 6:54 AM

Legitimizing an act through lawful interpretation doesn’t make it right or good, just lawful. Rationalizing same-sex marriage is nothing more than denying the physiological and psychological science and succumbing to pseudo-intellectual argument that ‘fairness and equality’ lie at the heart of the issue and ‘love’ is the only thing that really matters. The real crime in all this is the creation and perpetuation of the ‘gay’ class, the protections surrounding such and the true end of ‘equal protection under the law’ as we know it.

LizardLips on December 8, 2012 at 7:20 AM

Liberals constantly confuse love and lust. They cannot distinguish eros from agape.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 7:25 AM

While socons mistakenly claim agape is eros when it doesn’t fit their narrow paradigm.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 7:40 AM

While socons mistakenly claim agape is eros when it doesn’t fit their narrow paradigm.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 7:40 AM

That paradigm that has been around for thousands and thousands of years.

You’re so intolerant.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Liberals constantly confuse love and lust. They cannot distinguish eros from agape. – tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 7:25 AM

To make a homosexual to deny that he/she is homosexual would be forcing them to tell a lie and live a lie. That homosexuals aren’t capable of “true” love is to deny the truth. In addition, I may be gay, but I am not effeminate. So do the preachings of Paul not apply to myself and lesbians, but only effeminate men?

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 8:02 AM

Liberals constantly confuse love and lust. They cannot distinguish eros from agape. – tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 7:25 AM

Frankly, I’ve seen a lot of heterosexual conservatives confuse love and lust. Strip joints and singles bars are full of them.

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 8:06 AM

That paradigm that has been around for thousands and thousands of years.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 7:54 AM

So has polytheism, which has a far more extensive pedigree than monotheism. Care to join a prayer circle for Enlil, Ishtar, Zeus, Osiris, Marduk, El Elyon, Ninlil or Saturn? Happy Saturnalia to you, btw.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 8:13 AM

Perhaps we all should just adopt that great religion of peace, Islam. The infallible religion of Mohammad.

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 8:23 AM

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 8:13 AM

Oh and Enlil, Ishtar, Zeus, Osiris, etc have been apart of our culture to any substantive degree? Really? Nice fallacious argument though.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Oh and Enlil, Ishtar, Zeus, Osiris, etc have been apart of our culture to any substantive degree? Really? Nice fallacious argument though.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 8:26 AM

There are no Hindus in America? No “New Agers” or “neo-Pagans” I hear Evangelical preachers rail about often?

You’re moving away from the argument about “thousands and thousands of years” for your particular paradigm while ignoring it when it’s inconvenient?

Ok, let’s stick to our culture then if you like while incorporating your original line of reasoning.

I find it amusing that an American of all people would make this kind of argument when our entire existence as a nation and a culture defies “thousands and thousands of years” of the prevailing paradigm of totalitarianism, autocracy and oligarchy. “We The People”? Seriously? You grubby socon hipsters might like that innovative slogan but why, everyone knows that it defies tradition and certainly isn’t biblical.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 8:37 AM

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 8:37 AM

You’re a hateful individual, aren’t you?

Christians make up 78% of America’s population.

Get over it.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 8:44 AM

Tell us why it can’t be redefined so that everyone has the same right? Why are you opposed to True Marriage Equality?

blink on December 8, 2012 at 2:04 AM

Changing the word marriage will not magically make it so two men can make a baby on their own. Nor two women for that matter.

astonerii on December 8, 2012 at 9:01 AM

You’re a hateful individual, aren’t you?

Christians make up 78% of America’s population.

Get over it.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 8:44 AM

Are you sure? I seem to recall socons pointing out that not everyone who calls themselves “Christian” are really Christian since they don’t hold to the same beliefs and tenets they do. Why, they’re just “Cafeteria Catholics”, “pseudo-Christians”, etc. all of whom have of course “given in” to this “sinful”, “modernist” and “post-Christian” culture. So I’m “hateful” because I point out what your own side already acknowledges that not everyone in this nation is Christian, however you wish to define that?

Btw, how many of that 78% you tout voted for Obama or someone other than Romney? Heck, for that matter how many voted for Romney – a man who holds to a faith Evangelical preachers have for all of my life railed as not being authentically Christian? Sullying your hands by voting in an “apostate” in the name of Christ? Ok.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Well, I threw out all logic and based my thinking on emotion only. Still came up with the same result. Marriage is and has always been an instrument for protecting the offspring of the heterosexual humans. The rest of the arguments I read here are just rationalization to have reality fit with your perception of it. Flawed thought does not make something so.

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 9:10 AM

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Please cite your sources for your claims against “Social Conservatives”, insulting Christians…and provide links. I’ll wait.

Otherwise, your statement has no weight, whatsoever and you are just bloviating.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 9:11 AM

So all heterosexual couples that gets married can make a baby on their own?

And if a heterosexual couple can’t make a baby on their own should they no longer be able to claim that they are married?

I don’t understand your make-a-baby test for marriage. It makes almost as less sense as Genuine’s bigoted social-stigma test.

blink on December 8, 2012 at 9:10 AM

No, but there is opportunity to have children. Heterosexual marriages have proven valuable to society.

What have two gay partners ever proven? Go out and prove your value to society instead of trying to force yourself on society.

astonerii on December 8, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Rome was atheist?

What an idiot.

riddick on December 8, 2012 at 3:54 AM

No, the “atheists” would have been the Christians as far as the ancient Romans were concerned.

You’ve heard of the Christians, right? There part of that group which tossed away “thousands and thousands of years” of polytheism, along with centuries of ancient Roman imperial custom, for some new-fangled idea. What nerve!

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:13 AM

That homosexuals aren’t capable of “true” love is to deny the truth.
SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 8:02 AM

“True love’ has nothing to do with sexual attraction

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 9:15 AM

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 9:11 AM

I do it! We got some guy on here who claims to be catholic who seems to worship Romney full on.

astonerii on December 8, 2012 at 9:16 AM

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:13 AM

I am waiting for you to back up your hateful, fallacious statements, with links citing your sources, “average gay Joe”.

Put up or shut up.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Please cite your sources for your claims against “Social Conservatives”, insulting Christians…and provide links. I’ll wait.

Otherwise, your statement has no weight, whatsoever and you are just bloviating.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Amusing. So distraction and denial are your game, eh? Google is your friend, give it a try. If you want to pretend that socons have not been saying these things about other Christians who don’t hold to their own beliefs, about Mormons or about the state of our culture in general, then it must be quite cozy in that fantasy world of yours.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Btw, how many of that 78% you tout voted for Obama or someone other than Romney? Heck, for that matter how many voted for Romney – a man who holds to a faith Evangelical preachers have for all of my life railed as not being authentically Christian? Sullying your hands by voting in an “apostate” in the name of Christ? Ok.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:04 AM

You’re one fallacious argument after another. Where did you learn that?

There are no Hindus in America? No “New Agers” or “neo-Pagans” I hear Evangelical preachers rail about often?

…..
JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Do you know what the word substantive means?

I know you think you’re real smart…but you’re not.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:21 AM

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Nice attempt at reflection, Skippy.

In other words. you’ve got nothing. You’re a lightweight Troll.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 9:21 AM

“True love’ has nothing to do with sexual attraction

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Indeed. Yet sometimes they do go hand-in-hand.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 8