Dozens of prominent Republicans sign Supreme Court brief supporting legalized gay marriage

posted at 10:41 am on February 26, 2013 by Allahpundit

We’re stretching the definition of “prominent” a bit for this one, eh? The closest thing here to a current Republican officeholder with a national profile is Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. The only person named whom the average Republican voter might be able to pick out of a line-up is Huntsman, a.k.a. the new co-chairman of No Labels.

Still, noteworthy. Not because it’ll matter to the Supreme Court, despite the hyperventilating in the article, but because it’s a way for pro-SSM Republicans to get publicity for their point of view. If you want to signal to young voters and to like-minded righties (especially in Congress) that there’s a constituency for this position in the GOP, this is one way to do it.

Legal analysts said the brief had the potential to sway conservative justices as much for the prominent names attached to it as for its legal arguments. The list of signers includes a string of Republican officials and influential thinkers — 75 as of Monday evening — who are not ordinarily associated with gay rights advocacy, including some who are speaking out for the first time and others who have changed their previous positions.

Among them are Meg Whitman, who supported Proposition 8 when she ran for California governor; Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York; Stephen J. Hadley, a Bush national security adviser; Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary to Mr. Bush; James B. Comey, a top Bush Justice Department official; David A. Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director; and Deborah Pryce, a former member of the House Republican leadership from Ohio who is retired from Congress…

But the presence of so many well-known former officials — including Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts — suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party’s official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as “the union of one man and one woman.”

Christie Todd Whitman plus two ex-governors of Massachusetts. Way to win over the conservative base, guys. As for this, c’mon:

[SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein] added: “The person who is going to decide this case, if it’s going to be close, is going to be a conservative justice who respects traditional marriage but nonetheless is sympathetic to the claims that this is just another form of hatred. If you’re trying to persuade someone like that, you can’t persuade them from the perspective of gay rights advocacy.”

Even I give Anthony Kennedy a little (emphasis: a little) more credit as a jurist than to believe he might vote no but for some weak political cover from a few dozen not-so-prominent Republicans in the form of an amicus brief. He’s broken with conservatives twice before to write landmark majority opinions in favor of gay rights. The first of those opinions, in 1996, came when national support for gay marriage was polling south of 30 percent. As the closest thing the Court has to a libertarian, clearly he can be persuaded from the perspective of gay rights advocacy. Why he’d need Jon Huntsman or Ken Mehlman in his corner in order to give the thumbs up on this one, I simply don’t understand.

Exit question: If I’m right that this brief is less about persuading Kennedy than about persuading rank-and-file Republicans who are on the fence about gay marriage, why didn’t the signatories simply start a “Republicans for gay marriage” organization instead? I thought Huntsman, in his op-ed last week, was endorsing a federalist approach to SSM, which has the virtue of building democratic legitimacy for the practice. Evidently not. According to the NYT’s piece today, the amicus brief he signed argues “that gay people have a constitutional right to marry.” If that view prevails, the democratic approach is dead; you’ll have gay marriage coast to coast immediately as a matter of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. If your goal is to persuade socially conservative opponents, running to the Supremes to ask them to override state referenda is an odd way to do it. But maybe that’s the point here — that gay-marriage supporters, at least inside the Beltway, have given up on persuasion.


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 7

Just Fabulous!

GhoulAid on February 26, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Yea, America has become so progressively enlightened that those archaic ancient dusty Christian moral and ethics can finally safely be consigned to the waste heap of history. Man created God, and now we no longer need that crutch to survive… /s

SWalker on February 26, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Why he’d need Jon Huntsman or Ken Mehlman in his corner in order to give the thumbs up on this one, I simply don’t understand.

Isn’t that guy dead?

steebo77 on February 26, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Yay, now maybe NAMBLA will send some bucks toward the GOP.

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Dozens of prominent Republicans sign Supreme Court brief supporting legalized gay marriage

The Vichy Right.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 26, 2013 at 10:46 AM

You can’t just disagree with SSM, you have to constantly be called a bigot.

Blake on February 26, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Many prminent Republicans are out of touch with their consituency in America’s Heartland.

kingsjester on February 26, 2013 at 10:47 AM

May each and every one of them be sent packing their bags come next election.

We are not fooled. We know darn well what’s really at stake is religious liberty, not a few members of the buggery brigade with self-inflicted butthurt (in more ways than one) being unable to have their relationship sanctioned by the state.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 10:47 AM

The Republican party is dead.

Axion on February 26, 2013 at 10:50 AM

When the Court votes to overturn DOMA and write marriage amendments out of the state constitutions, social conservatives will be just fine.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Gay marriage is already legal. Stop pretending that this is Loving.

besser tot als rot on February 26, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Somewhere in a bunker deep in Minnesota, Arne Carlson is fuming that he didn’t get to be a signatory.

Mr. D on February 26, 2013 at 10:51 AM

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Caligula’s horse apporves.

kingsjester on February 26, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Dozens of prominent Republicans sign Supreme Court brief supporting legalized gay marriage

Well Bless their Hearts.

And we are TRULY blessed with a pic of Huntsman,
the man whose face is permanently marred by a Smirk.

ToddPA on February 26, 2013 at 10:52 AM

While I clearly don’t agree with the reasons these “prominent Republicans” are espousing, I do think libitarianism is the ultimate conservative position and this issue is better left at the state and local level.

Tater Salad on February 26, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Civil unions for everyone.

Leave marriage to the church, mosque, synagogue or elf chapel.

All citizens, (straight, gay or otherwise) get legal recognition and legal responsibility; communities of faith are protected from coercion.

What’s not to like?

Bruno Strozek on February 26, 2013 at 10:52 AM

This is one area where I have to give Russia credit. They know how to deal with their perverts over there.

tommyboy on February 26, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Gay marriage is already legal. Stop pretending that this is Loving.

besser tot als rot on February 26, 2013 at 10:50 AM

See…that’s just stupid. In Loving v. Virginia we had a situation where interracial marriage was legal in some states and illegal in others, the same patchwork system we have with same-sex marriage. Why would you claim otherwise when the facts are a matter of public record?

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Caligula’s horse apporves.

kingsjester on February 26, 2013 at 10:52 AM

A particularly relevant statement since brainfree is the south end of a north-bound horse.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 10:53 AM

The problem is that Prop 8 was passed by the voters of California. It was a state constitutional amendment if I am not mistaken. It is a California-only issue and if the Californians are aggrieved by its passage, then put up another prop and attempt to undo it at the ballot box–end of story.

mwbri on February 26, 2013 at 10:54 AM

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Because, perfesser, homosexuality is a sexual preference. Not a race.

kingsjester on February 26, 2013 at 10:54 AM

If you can change the definition of gay, marriage, and so many other words, I’m guessing that changing the meaning of prominent is to be expected. Any Repub or conservative that embraces this is “toast”…the farthest one could go is to have a “non-position”.

bill glass on February 26, 2013 at 10:55 AM

The Republican party is dead.

Axion on February 26, 2013 at 10:50 AM

The Republican party died the moment they allowed the left to entangle itself in social issues. Why do they have to remain the party of Akin, Huckabee and Santorum, instead of being the party of freedom, Constitutional rights, small government, and law enforcement?

Archivarix on February 26, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Or make that “libertarianism”

Tater Salad on February 26, 2013 at 10:55 AM

The Vichy Right.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair

Makes no sense, they couldn’t have been more socially conservative…

voss63 on February 26, 2013 at 10:55 AM

OT but can’t wait for the thread on Long Face John statement in Germany via Drudge Ole Johnboy snuck into East Germany as a 12 year old. This guy can tell some whoppers.

D-fusit on February 26, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Civil unions for everyone.

That is exactly what same-sex marriage is. Just because one gets a state marriage license does not mean one can force a church to marry them. Straight couples can not force their way into a church which does not approve of their union for whatever reason. The church coercion piece is one of the silliest arguments against same-sex marriage. Can a protestant couple force a Catholic Church to marry them? I think not.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 10:55 AM

If that view prevails, the democratic approach is dead; you’ll have gay marriage coast to coast immediately as a matter of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. If your goal is to persuade socially conservative opponents, running to the Supremes to ask them to override state referenda is an odd way to do it. But maybe that’s the point here — that gay-marriage supporters, at least inside the Beltway, have given up on persuasion.

I strongly favor gay marriage, but I think we should get there democratically. It’s worrisome that so many prominent Republicans cannot a little more subtle in their thinking.

thuja on February 26, 2013 at 10:58 AM

I said this last night when I saw the article: I think we’re seeing the beginning of the Republican Party giving the social conservatives and Christian Right the boot, which IMO, just can’t come any sooner.

ZachV on February 26, 2013 at 10:58 AM

The church coercion piece is one of the silliest arguments against same-sex marriage. Can a protestant couple force a Catholic Church to marry them? I think not.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Protestant couples haven’t been suing, picketing, and threatening Catholic churches into marrying them, you lover of deviancy. As near as Canada Christians are facing real persecution for even preaching against homosexuality, nevermind refusing to marry them!

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 10:59 AM

These people can not be considered Republicans in any sense…

The GOP is not a conservative party… it’s an imperialist party… and grassroots national security conservatives and capitalist conservatives have aided this transition… and I want nothing to do with it anymore.

ninjapirate on February 26, 2013 at 11:00 AM

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 10:55 AM

The end goal of the SSM crowd isn’t SSM, it’s to force acceptance of homosexuality by those who regard it as unnatural an immoral. Government sanctioned SSM will give rise to government sanctioned bullying, suing, discrimination, etc. of religious people and organizations who refuse to give homosexual relationships the moral equivalence they demand.

This isn’t about equal rights, its about forcing people to accept something against their will or to STFU if they won’t accept.

Charlemagne on February 26, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Because, perfesser, homosexuality is a sexual preference. Not a race.

kingsjester on February 26, 2013 at 10:54 AM

1. I am aware that “sexuality” and “race” are different things. But religion and race are also different things, and yet the law can still protect members of religious groups and of racial groups from discrimination. In fact, religion might be even more a “preference” than sexuality is, considering that hormones and puberty make sexual desire a pretty strongly ingrained characteristic.

2. Just for sh*ts and giggles. Can you actually come up with a working definition of racial categories that is more biological than sexual preference? What defines a race biologically? What grade of pigmentation makes someone “white” or non-white? Is Latino a “race?’ From where I stand, race is determined by a range of historical forces, but also partially by preference. If you are someone who is of a medium complexion don’t you excercise preference over which group you identify with? We know this from the “white” descendents of Sally Hemmings. None of this means that “race” is not real, it so very clearly orders many arenas of life in our society, but can you actually define it?

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:02 AM

not a few members of the buggery brigade with self-inflicted butthurt (in more ways than one)

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Why do you closeted perverts always have to bring up gay sex anytime gay marriage is discussed?

For a group of people so disgusted by gay-anything, you’re quite quick to talk about butts.

cornfedbubba on February 26, 2013 at 11:02 AM

I strongly favor gay marriage, but I think we should get there democratically. It’s worrisome that so many prominent Republicans cannot a little more subtle in their thinking.

thuja on February 26, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Well thank you for at least not treating religious freedom as disposable. And “RINO” is too nice a word for those “Republicans”. Supporting this kind of approach to gay marriage is absolutely against what Republicans should stand for.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 11:02 AM

See…that’s just stupid. In Loving v. Virginia we had a situation where interracial marriage was legal in some states and illegal in others, the same patchwork system we have with same-sex marriage. Why would you claim otherwise when the facts are a matter of public record?
libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 10:53 AM

You have no clue what you are talking about. Interracial marriage was illegal – a crime – in Loving. Gay marriage is legal – it just may or may not be recognized by the government, depending on the state. That does not make it “illegal.”

besser tot als rot on February 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM

As near as Canada Christians are facing real persecution for even preaching against homosexuality, nevermind refusing to marry them!

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Proof please.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM

If gay marriage was about who you love, “gay” would be synonymous with “homoLOVEuality” not “homoSEXuality”. It’s about men having sex with men. It’s unhealthy, perverted, mutual masturbation. It’s responsible for the country’s AIDS epidemic. Isn’t there some sensible person who’ll stand up and call it for what it is? I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, but, this is a major cultural shift, redefining the word “marriage”, for everyone, for all time. For our children, in our religious institutions, in every formal and informal social circle we inhabit. Let’s not gloss over what we’re talking about.

Paul-Cincy on February 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:02 AM

I will go you one better:

Please cite the physiological factors that pre-determine homosexuality for me…and provide your source.

I’ll wait.

kingsjester on February 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM

cornfedbubba on February 26, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Oh how cute, the little corn-pone faggot accusing me of being a closet pervert. Maybe we talk about it because that’s what they DO, you knuckle-dragging bumpkin.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM

I said this last night when I saw the article: I think we’re seeing the beginning of the Republican Party giving the social conservatives and Christian Right the boot, which IMO, just can’t come any sooner.

ZachV on February 26, 2013 at 10:58 AM

So much for coalition building.

steebo77 on February 26, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Jesus weeps.

hillsoftx on February 26, 2013 at 11:05 AM

But religion and race are also different things, and yet the law can still protect members of religious groups and of racial groups from discrimination
libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:02 AM

But that was the result of the legislative process not imposed by judicial edict. Big, big difference. Another strawman by the queen of misdirection.

tommyboy on February 26, 2013 at 11:05 AM

“Prominent”, indeed. So I guess that now, the definition of a “prominent Republican” is any Republican who pushes obama’s agenda, whether it is these “prominent Republicans” pushing obama’s bizarre gay agenda, or the “prominent Republicans” such as Rubio and McCain, who are pushing obama’s destructive amnesty plan, or those who are paving the way for obamacare, such as Rick Scott, et al.

Yes, in modern America, all prominence comes from helping obama destroy America, because, as we all know, by its very nature, America is bad, and must be transformed.

Pork-Chop on February 26, 2013 at 11:06 AM

You have no clue what you are talking about. Interracial marriage was illegal – a crime – in Loving. Gay marriage is legal – it just may or may not be recognized by the government, depending on the state. That does not make it “illegal.”

besser tot als rot on February 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Please tell me you are not a lawyer? There are many things in this world that are illegal, but not criminal. Good god. First just take the Miriam Webster’s definition:

Definition of ILLEGAL

: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)

In other words. Same-sex marriage is illegal in a number of states. I believe what you are saying is that same-sex marriage does not come with a criminal penalty.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Should homosexual men be allowed to “marry” 11 year old boys? The Founders didn’t deem it necessary to put in the Constitution that men can’t marry other men or 11 year old boys. Ruth Bader Ginsburg feels the age of consent should be 11. The only basis in the future on which you prevent homosexual men from marrying 11 year old foreign orphan boys is that it shocks the conscious of the majority and the majority won’t allow it. What shocks your conscious is irrelevant to the sort of people who Democrats promote to the bench.

Buddahpundit on February 26, 2013 at 11:07 AM

If government sanctions SSM, how long will it be before churches lose their tax exempt status, and churchgoers their ability to deduct tithing, if the church continues to preach against homosexuality?

Charlemagne on February 26, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Can gays procreate now? How on earth did I miss that memo?

Bmore on February 26, 2013 at 11:08 AM

I said this last night when I saw the article: I think we’re seeing the beginning of the Republican Party giving the social conservatives and Christian Right the boot, which IMO, just can’t come any sooner.

I like the social conservatives more than I like the imperialists and the myopic capitalists…

This is pretty much my political stance these days.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preussentum_und_Sozialismus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Revolutionary_movement

ninjapirate on February 26, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Proof please.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Bill Whatcott, an evangelical Christian who is a licensed practical nurse, was fined $15,000 by his professional association, for protesting against abortion on his own time, and also fined $20,000 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.

In May 2002, a Catholic high school in Whitby, Ontario, was forced by the Ontario Supreme Court to allow a homosexual student, Marc Hall, to take his boyfriend to the graduation prom,

http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/canadian-human-rights-commissions-bear-down-on-christian-clergymen/

In Alberta, Rev. Stephen Boissoin has run up almost $200,000 in legal costs, defending himself from the provincial “human rights” commission. In Ontario, Fr. Alphonse de Valk’s monthly magazine, Catholic Insight, has incurred $20,000 in legal fees while awaiting a ruling from the commission as to whether he and his magazine are guilty of promoting “hate.”

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Did Ed and AP sign it…or is that bad for biz?

verbaluce on February 26, 2013 at 11:08 AM

I said this last night when I saw the article: I think we’re seeing the beginning of the Republican Party giving the social conservatives and Christian Right the boot, which IMO, just can’t come any sooner.

ZachV on February 26, 2013 at 10:58 AM

And giving the libertarians and the fiscal conservatives the boot too. Looks like their plan is to try and completely co-opt the Democrat’s coalition.

besser tot als rot on February 26, 2013 at 11:09 AM

But that was the result of the legislative process not imposed by judicial edict. Big, big difference. Another strawman by the queen of misdirection.

tommyboy on February 26, 2013 at 11:05 AM

You are insane. Our constitutional system is grounded in the separation of powers, which means that all three branches influence the parameters of the law. In striking down DOMA the Court would not be “legislating” they would be adjudicating whether DOMA or these state constitutional amendments violate the Constitution. That is their job.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Can gays procreate now? How on earth did I miss that memo?

Bmore on February 26, 2013 at 11:08 AM

No, but in a lot of places they can adopt. And there are enough sympathetic women out there willing to be surrogates.

Charlemagne on February 26, 2013 at 11:09 AM

That is exactly what same-sex marriage is. Just because one gets a state marriage license does not mean one can force a church to marry them. Straight couples can not force their way into a church which does not approve of their union for whatever reason. The church coercion piece is one of the silliest arguments against same-sex marriage. Can a protestant couple force a Catholic Church to marry them? I think not.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Then, why the insistence on calling it “gay marriage” rather than civil unions? As you mentioned, a civil union is basically a civil form of marriage. CA’s civil union law was basically the same as a “marriage,” so the fight was over wording. The only thing that I could think of is that the gay community not only wants the civil side of marriage, but they want to make the Catholic Church, etc. allow them to marry in the churches themselves. Many gay people are cynical about religion due to their own childhoods. I’m fine with this, but I don’t think that they should take this out on everyone else.

As for two reasons why this might happen -
1. The Obama administration has already demanded that Catholic institutions provide free birth control and are using discrimination against women as the basis for this. The Catholic Church must therefore condone certain forms of behavior that goes against its teaching in the name of “gender equality.”

2. You mentioned the Loving case. I don’t think that any religious institution today could get away with refusing to marry an interracial couple because it was against their religion. I think that the gay community is trying to frame it in the same way as interracial marriages.

Illinidiva on February 26, 2013 at 11:09 AM

As the closest thing the Court has to a libertarian, clearly he can be persuaded from the perspective of gay rights special priviledges advocacy

FIFY

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 26, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Proof please.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM

If you are as smart as you think you are, can’t you investigate these things on your own?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat7.htm

MontanaMmmm on February 26, 2013 at 11:10 AM

If government sanctions SSM, how long will it be before churches lose their tax exempt status, and churchgoers their ability to deduct tithing, if the church continues to preach against homosexuality?

Charlemagne on February 26, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Not long, despite brainfree and to a lesser extent Jetboy trying desperately to ignore the inevitable.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Come on, people. You are going to have to step it up if a comment is going to be reposted at LGF. NONE of these comments are hateful enough!

/

M240H on February 26, 2013 at 11:10 AM

The government shouldn’t be in the marriage business and the church shouldn’t be in the governing business. Our biggest enemy as Americans today are religious based governments in the Middle East; we should take a step back to be sure we have strong churchs, with no government influence, yet a government restrained enough not to be overly influenced by the latest social or religious issue.

Tater Salad on February 26, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Oh how cute, the little corn-pone faggot accusing me of being a closet pervert. Maybe we talk about it because that’s what they DO, you knuckle-dragging bumpkin.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM

“Faggot” – Nice. Stay classy. Glad to see HotAir quickly turning into Stormfront.

Tell us Einstein, what do lesbians do in the bedroom? Are they part of the “butt-hurt” buggery brigade too? Or does this conversation turn you on too much?

cornfedbubba on February 26, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Allahpundit -your official homosexual “marriage” correspondent.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on February 26, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Let it go people – there are bigger issues in our future.

Think of how the divorce industry will BOOM with this development.

Divorce is what will kill gay-marriage.

Monogamy is not a predominant part of the gay population.

jake-the-goose on February 26, 2013 at 11:11 AM

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Sure, if the court yet again wants to abuse the words and intent of the text of the Constitution.

Charlemagne on February 26, 2013 at 11:11 AM

“Prominent”, indeed.

Pork-Chop on February 26, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Not one is “prominent”. Not one.

Paul-Cincy on February 26, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Bruno Strozek on February 26, 2013 at 10:52 AM

State sanction of the miscreants who enjoy partaking in aberrant behavior that causes them to degenerate and debauch themselves and the society around them. Once they have self destructed they then go to the state to force money out of the hands of the virtuous and into their pockets. That would be one thing to not like.

Get rid of the welfare state first. Then we can talk about how your rights do not infringe on my rights.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 11:12 AM

In other words. Same-sex marriage is illegal in a number of states. I believe what you are saying is that same-sex marriage does not come with a criminal penalty.
libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Wrong. I don’t know what your definition is supposed to prove. We don’t have Napoleonic Code in the US where everything legal is explicit. If it is not prohibited, it is legal. Gay marriage is not illegal.

besser tot als rot on February 26, 2013 at 11:12 AM

We are not fooled. We know darn well what’s really at stake is religious liberty, not a few members of the buggery brigade with self-inflicted butthurt (in more ways than one) being unable to have their relationship sanctioned by the state.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 10:47 AM

You remain free not to have gay sex.
As well as to weirdly obsesses over the idea of it.

verbaluce on February 26, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Definition of ILLEGAL

: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)

In other words. Same-sex marriage is illegal in a number of states. I believe what you are saying is that same-sex marriage does not come with a criminal penalty.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Since you’re doing definitions, marriage is defined as requiring at least one of each sex, with polygamous marriage being the only one that allowed more than one of the same sex and they were each paired with the member of the opposite sex, not each other.

There is no such thing as gay pretend marriage. You idiots cannot just redefine anything you want and then try and claim that it was always defined like that. Of course, you leftist scum specialize in tearing language apart and leaving nothing but meaningless utterances and a disheveled syntax, reflections of your fevered minds.

Gay pretend marriage is not illegal in various states, the perversion of the language just doesn’t exist in those states any more than marriage of a man and a car exists.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 26, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I said this last night when I saw the article: I think we’re seeing the beginning of the Republican Party giving the social conservatives and Christian Right the boot, which IMO, just can’t come any sooner.

ZachV on February 26, 2013 at 10:58 AM

IOW, the end of the Republican party.

The GOP has been flirting with going the way of the Whigs for the past several elections. If they’re going to be just like the Democrats but a little less insane on their spending, then they’re never going to win elections. A political party that can’t win elections might as well not exist.

tom on February 26, 2013 at 11:13 AM

They yanked on the leash hard enough and now the nose is pointed to the left. Forward is now walking left.
Great.

Mimzey on February 26, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Why do you closeted perverts always have to bring up gay sex anytime gay marriage is discussed?

For a group of people so disgusted by gay-anything, you’re quite quick to talk about butts.

cornfedbubba on February 26, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Hmmmm, interesting post.

Do you mean like when Leftists bring up a woman’s right
for Free birth Control, and have females like Sandra
Fluke Flout her sexuality for the Nation??

For a person such as yourself who insists on coming on a
Conservative website, you’re quite quick to

talk
spew Corn Fed idiocy.

ToddPA on February 26, 2013 at 11:13 AM

You are insane. Our constitutional system is grounded in the separation of powers, which means that all three branches influence the parameters of the law. In striking down DOMA the Court would not be “legislating” they would be adjudicating whether DOMA or these state constitutional amendments violate the Constitution. That is their job.
libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:09 AM

No, you are either dishonest or ignorant. The prohibition on religious discrimination is based soley on the Civil Rights act not the equal protection clause. Thus it is the result of the legislature. The homo crowd is trying to use the Judicial system to impose by fiat the imposition of gay marriage in order to circumvent the democratic process. We call that tyranny.

tommyboy on February 26, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Illinidiva on February 26, 2013 at 11:09 AM

As I wrote in a comment upthread, this isn’t about SSM, it’s about forcing the acceptance of homosexual relationships as morally equivalent to natural heterosexual ones. Civil unions they believe will relegate their lawfully equivalent arrangements to second class status.

Charlemagne on February 26, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Wouldn’t it be easier to just ban families. I mean f**k tradition.

Dongemaharu on February 26, 2013 at 11:15 AM

I don’t see the church losing its tax-exempt status as a problem. They spend enough time fellating the federal Caesar. Whores should expect to be abused.

Archivarix on February 26, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Let it go people – there are bigger issues in our future.

Think of how the divorce industry will BOOM with this development.

Divorce is what will kill gay-marriage.

Monogamy is not a predominant part of the gay population.

jake-the-goose on February 26, 2013 at 11:11 AM

……as soon as the gay community is subject to the same divorce laws as straight people are, marriage won’t be such a good idea. Who gets the car, the house, alimony?

Tater Salad on February 26, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Tell us Einstein, what do lesbians do in the bedroom?

cornfedbubba on February 26, 2013 at 11:11 AM

No one really cares what lesbians do. Lesbianism is a big nothing-burger. Lesbianism is just pathetic but not much of an affront to sensibilities – except for bull dykes doing some ridiculous imitations of what they think is manly behavior. They are sort of offensive, though kind of funny.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 26, 2013 at 11:16 AM

2. Just for sh*ts and giggles. Can you actually come up with a working definition of racial categories that is more biological than sexual preference? What defines a race biologically? What grade of pigmentation makes someone “white” or non-white? Is Latino a “race?’ From where I stand, race is determined by a range of historical forces, but also partially by preference. If you are someone who is of a medium complexion don’t you excercise preference over which group you identify with? We know this from the “white” descendents of Sally Hemmings. None of this means that “race” is not real, it so very clearly orders many arenas of life in our society, but can you actually define it?

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Of course I can define it and I’ll use the standard liberal definition: If you are a liberal then you are a ethnic minority, if you are not a liberal then you’re not an ethnic minority.

Liawatha Warren is an ethnic minority. Clarence Thomas is not.

gwelf on February 26, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Tell us Einstein, what do lesbians do in the bedroom?

Are they part of the “butt-hurt” buggery brigade too? Or does this conversation turn you on too much?

cornfedbubba on February 26, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Lesbianism and male homosexuality are two different things. For example, one of them is responsible for the AIDS epidemic. I don’t see treating them the same just because they’re both described as homosexuality. Of course, politically, legally, with “equal protection” and all that, they do have to be treated the same.

Paul-Cincy on February 26, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Tell us Einstein, what do lesbians do in the bedroom?

cornfedbubba on February 26, 2013 at 11:11 AM

No one really cares what lesbians do. Lesbianism is a big nothing-burger. Lesbianism is just pathetic but not much of an affront to sensibilities – except for bull diykes doing some ridiculous imitations of what they think is manly behavior. They are sort of offensive, though kind of funny.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 26, 2013 at 11:17 AM

……as soon as the gay community is subject to the same divorce laws as straight people are, marriage won’t be such a good idea. Who gets the car, the house, alimony?

Tater Salad on February 26, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Exactly – then watch how few want to get married?

Hey wait – that’s happening to straight marriage? (yuk yuk)

jake-the-goose on February 26, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Please cite the physiological factors that pre-determine homosexuality for me…and provide your source.

I’ll wait.

kingsjester on February 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM

.
and after that, someone define where the gene for Bi-Sexuality comes from as long as we are inventing new species based on genetic sexual identity, and not choice via free will.

The gays are a dishonest bunch.

FlaMurph on February 26, 2013 at 11:17 AM

As I wrote in a comment upthread, this isn’t about SSM, it’s about forcing the acceptance of homosexual relationships as morally equivalent to natural heterosexual ones. Civil unions they believe will relegate their lawfully equivalent arrangements to second class status.

Charlemagne on February 26, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Thread Winner

ToddPA on February 26, 2013 at 11:17 AM

That is exactly what same-sex marriage is. Just because one gets a state marriage license does not mean one can force a church to marry them. Straight couples can not force their way into a church which does not approve of their union for whatever reason. The church coercion piece is one of the silliest arguments against same-sex marriage. Can a protestant couple force a Catholic Church to marry them? I think not.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Wow, you are either the biggest fool or the biggest liar to ever post on Hot Air. Personally, considering that you are a Marxist Gay professor who obtained his PhD by writing a doctoral thesis which basically called white people the root and cause of all evil on earth, I’m going to have to go with you being the biggest liar to ever post on Hot Air.

SWalker on February 26, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Do you mean like when Leftists bring up a woman’s right
for Free birth Control, and have females like Sandra
Fluke Flout her sexuality for the Nation??

For a person such as yourself who insists on coming on a
Conservative website, you’re quite quick to talk spew Corn Fed idiocy.

ToddPA on February 26, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Exactly. Somehow they have a right to blab to the nation about how good it is to screw random people or murder their children whenever they please. But heaven forbid we try and talk about the consequences of Fluking at random or march around with pictures of aborted babies. Or describe sexual deviancy with anything less than honey-covered praise.

And it’s pretty obvious he’s a sockpuppet of flatulence or brainfree, especially with that username, which was obviously chosen as a hurr-hurr-I’m-so-witty jab at his mental, physical, and moral superiors.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Corn-bubba,

Good gravy. Butt-hurt means being sore from getting your butt kicked, metaphorically, of course. It might not be the best metaphor with this thread, but the epithets were not being hurled around until you showed up.

mwbri on February 26, 2013 at 11:19 AM

That is exactly what same-sex marriage is. Just because one gets a state marriage license does not mean one can force a church to marry them. Straight couples can not force their way into a church which does not approve of their union for whatever reason. The church coercion piece is one of the silliest arguments against same-sex marriage. Can a protestant couple force a Catholic Church to marry them? I think not.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 10:55 AM

People have already been (successfully) sued for not holding gay cermonies, making cakes for gay weddings, taking pictures at gay weddings, ect.

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 26, 2013 at 11:19 AM

In other words. Same-sex marriage is illegal in a number of states. I believe what you are saying is that same-sex marriage does not come with a criminal penalty.
libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Not granting a license for something is not the same as making it illegal. Gay couples are free to be “married”, have a ceremony at a church which supports such unions, register at Target and all of the rest of it. They can live together, buy a house together, bequeath property to each other. They can’t get a state license in some states. Gay marriage is legal in America which is not the same thing as government recognition and sanction. I know you’re a liberal so this is a difficult concept but something can actually exist in society that isn’t sanctioned or licensed by the government.

gwelf on February 26, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Tell us Einstein, what do lesbians do in the bedroom?

cornfedbubba on February 26, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Way more than you can, but we already knew that.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 11:20 AM

I wonder what number of people who are 100% vehemently against gay right and gay people – have actually ever known a gay person?

Just a thought.

jake-the-goose on February 26, 2013 at 11:21 AM

It will be interesting to see if Roberts votes to uphold with the reasoning being that this is a political issue and elections have consequences.

Dusty on February 26, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Please cite the physiological factors that pre-determine homosexuality for me…and provide your source.

I’ll wait.

kingsjester on February 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM

There has been a huge amount of research on this question, I am not sure scientists have identified all of the factors that produce exclusive same-sex desire in some humans and not others.

Here is a link to some new and pretty interesting research: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121211083212.htm

How is athat relevant to the question of whether sexuality or race should count as identity categories protected by the state? Unless you can prove race is biological there’s no point to the comparison.

But because you will take my logical point as proof that I am “ducking” your dishonestly formed question here is my response. There has been decades of scientific investigation into this question and I don’t think I (or anyone outside of the field) should be asked to reproduce all of it, or summarize all of it pithily. There are also a host of other traits that we generally accept as being rooted in biology that we haven’t located a genetic marker for. Heterosexuality, for example, is something we can’t find a gene for…are you suggesting that it is also just a “preference?” Of course not.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Can a protestant couple force a Catholic Church to marry them? I think not.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Law on same-sex marriages mean churches ‘will be forced to conduct gay weddings

Section 29 of the Equality Act makes it ‘unlawful for a person concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public to discriminate on various grounds, including sexual orientation.’

Aren’t Catholic churches providing a service to a section of the public?

Washington Nearsider on February 26, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Thread Winner

ToddPA on February 26, 2013 at 11:17 AM

But it’s so early?
And many haven’t had the opp yet to fully express their opposition to SSM homosexuality.

verbaluce on February 26, 2013 at 11:24 AM

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:22 AM

The old joke about what PhD. stands for is absolutely right. And, that post was a fine example of it.

kingsjester on February 26, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Heterosexuality, for example, is something we can’t find a gene for…are you suggesting that it is also just a “preference?” Of course not.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:22 AM

So you’re claiming humanity has evolved a way to ensure the discontinuation of the species?

That flies in the face of everything we know about evolution. Animals evolve to ensure the survival of the species, not it’s extinction.

Washington Nearsider on February 26, 2013 at 11:24 AM

That is exactly what same-sex marriage is. Just because one gets a state marriage license does not mean one can force a church to marry them. Straight couples can not force their way into a church which does not approve of their union for whatever reason. The church coercion piece is one of the silliest arguments against same-sex marriage. Can a protestant couple force a Catholic Church to marry them? I think not.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Adoption agencies have already been shut down because they wouldn’t give kids to gay couples.

You can pretend that the gay mafia wants to just be left alone and live in peace and tolerance but it’s ridiculous.

Remember all the hate directed at churches during the prop 8 election? Gay groups going after individual donors and the financial standing of churches? You know they don’t want tolerance but much much more and are willing to use the power of the state to get it.

gwelf on February 26, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Can a protestant couple force a Catholic Church to marry them? I think not.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Law on same-sex marriages mean churches ‘will be forced to conduct gay weddings‘

Section 29 of the Equality Act makes it ‘unlawful for a person concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public to discriminate on various grounds, including sexual orientation.’

Aren’t Catholic churches providing a service to a section of the public?

Washington Nearsider on February 26, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Libfree is a fat mouthed liar, his feet stink and no he doesn’t believe in Jesus, and for the record, yes he is lying and yes he damned well knows it. However as a Marxist whose only moral or ethical guideline is, “The End Justifies the Means” he is perfectly ok with lying to achieve his desired goals.

SWalker on February 26, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7