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 4 7

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

.
What do you mean by “known” ?
Like in the biblical sense ?

eww -eww -ewww !

FlaMurph on February 26, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Can’t say any of these Republicans endorsing legalized gay marriage surprise me. Most represent the left wing of the GOP.

bw222 on February 26, 2013 at 11:26 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

Well said.

gwelf on February 26, 2013 at 11:26 AM

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:22 AM

It doesn’t matter what causes certain men to go after other men. There is still no such thing as gay pretend marriage. If you find a gene for homosexual attraction (and I have little doubt that there is, though much homosexuality is environmental and a matter of “fashion” among the leftist perverts) then you’ll also find one for pedophilia. Are you advocating for pedophiles to be “legalized” and marriages to 5 year olds sanctioned because some screwed-up chromosomes might support that? I’m sure you do, because you are a brain-dead leftist who is out to do nothing but tear civilization down and return the Earth to slime, your biological peers.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 26, 2013 at 11:27 AM

O/T: Does anyone other than Allahpundit give a damn what his buddy David Frum thinks (about anything)?

bw222 on February 26, 2013 at 11:27 AM

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

No. They don’t demand tolerance. They demand you SUPPORT them. Tolerance falls squarely into the ‘what you do in your house is your business, not the government’s’ camp. That’s where I come down. I couldn’t care less who does what with whom.

What I care about – and despise – is being told that I’m a hate-mongering bigot because I won’t actively campaign for their lifestyle.

I tolerate it, but I will never encourage or support it.

Washington Nearsider on February 26, 2013 at 11:28 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

Isn’t it just hilarious that sexual deviancy not only goes against any moral system worth speaking of, but even against the most basic Darwinian concepts which liberals tout as superior to creation?

If a “gay gene” existed (which is does not), it would be DE-volution, a step backward by evolutionary standards, because it went 180 degrees against continuation of the species! How crazy is that?

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Washington Nearsider on February 26, 2013 at 11:28 AM

+1

Some forget the positions taken by Ronald Reagan and Dick Cheney.

jake-the-goose on February 26, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Libslave, many have given you proof.
You do not refute….still trying to come up with an answer?

MontanaMmmm on February 26, 2013 at 11:30 AM

This whole issue has nothing to do with gay people wanting to get married, only to stick it in the church’s eye to be “accepted”; that’s why civil unions doesn’t cut it with them.

If the government could retrain itself and get out of the marriage busines and leeave it to the churchs, the Left could do nothing about it.

Tater Salad on February 26, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Maybe they’ve been reading The Washington Post, where reporters believe that allowing readers to hear both sides of the gay marriage debate would be an act of bigotry.

But then, I haven’t seen any pro-marriage posts on Hot Air lately, either. Hmmmm…

Socratease on February 26, 2013 at 11:31 AM

this isn’t about SSM, it’s about forcing the acceptance of homosexual relationships as morally equivalent to natural heterosexual ones.

Charlemagne on February 26, 2013 at 11:14 AM

It’s nothing more or less than that. A world where “I’m married” isn’t enough to identify the gender of your spouse. Where traditional religion is seen as bigoted. Where kindergarteners are taught that homosexuality is as natural as motherhood and apple pie. Where the culture of narcissism, of life being about you and who you are, is pushed to its farthest limits.

Paul-Cincy on February 26, 2013 at 11:31 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

Well, of course, only a bigot would think that gay sex has something to do with gay marriage…..

But if we’re going to be precise in our terminology, there’s actually no such thing as gay sexual intercourse, since two men don’t have the necessary female sexual organs for actual intercourse. Therefore, whatever it is that two men do is not actually sexual intercourse. When we refer to “gay sex,” we’re already doing gays the courtesy of treating their practice as if it were the equivalent of real sex.

But “gay sex” involves substituting a man’s rectum for a female’s vagina. Since the very act at the core of “gay sex” is essentially a perversion of natural sex, at some points the whole pretense that the two are equivalent falls apart.

Some of those points are a) terrible health risks, including wasting diseases such as AIDS and Hepatitis, b) inability to actually reproduce, which means a gay “couple” is never going to create a family, c) the lack of the emotional bond between a man and a woman that leads naturally to children and lifetime commitment.

By insisting constantly that same-sex couples should be married, the SSM advocates are actually forcing people to think more about how homosexuality differs from normal sexuality. I believe it’s ultimately going to backfire.

But you’ll never know it from the media, which has already decided on their narrative and won’t let go of it.

Homosexuality is not the equivalent of normal sexuality. Tolerance for those who want to practice it anyway does not require the rest of us to pretend it’s “just as good.”

tom on February 26, 2013 at 11:31 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

Stop the marginalization game, you dishonest fraud.

Civil Unions were legal in Cali, and a handful of ghey couples stilled sued over “emotional distress” for feeling like second-class citizen.

Instead of addressing any legal discrepancies, which the vast majority of the right would support, they went straight for the word “marriage”.

The path is clear.

Pass ghey mirage by fiat.

Have the State sue every private business,including buildings owned by or are adjacent to religious orgs, that will not participate as a rights violation, and establish court precedent.

Have Dem state lawmakers propose bills that declare any institution that does not perform SSM as a rights violation and hate speech if they speak out against it.

Have the state then threaten to take away tax exempt status from these institutions, and hope the smaller christian lite orgs comply.

(The above was already attempted in New England, for the record).

For every actual gay couple who thinks marriage is a nice option, there’s an emotionally disturbed advocate who’s more obsessed with teaching “christianists” a lesson.

The problem with the SSM marriage debate, is no one is willing to take this on honestly.

I get the civil rights comparison, but it’s sophistry. Segregating a restaurant because the State had enacted racial segregation laws for generations, is not the same as denial of service due to religious conscience.

Sex preference under law, until Obama, has always been litigated as a private manner. Now it’s becoming another “quality of life” issue. If that’s the road the advocates want to travel, then let me point once more to the lack of science.

budfox on February 26, 2013 at 11:32 AM

The prohibition on religious discrimination is based soley on the Civil Rights act not the equal protection clause.

Can we all acknowledge that tommyboy is a conservative. I just want it to be clear that a conservative is saying that prohibition on religious discrimination is based solely on the 1964 Civil Rights Act and not, oh I don’t know, THE FIRST AMENDMENT. LOL!

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

Why are you being so thick on this question. Of *course* things can exist that are not recognized or sanctioned by the government. The question is not whether two people of the same sex can call each other “married.” The question is whether gay marriage is legal or illegal. The word legal is not a synonym for “existence.” The word “illegal” is not a synonym” for “non-existence.” They are, as you rightly point out, different things.

What is up for debate is whether gay marriage is “illegal.” So lets return to the definition of illegal:

Definition of ILLEGAL

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

The word “authorize” is a particular one. It means that if something is illegal it does not have the authority of law behind it. I.E. a same-sex couple who called themselves “married” would not have the authority to demand that a hospital extend their policies towards “married couples” to them. And the same would be for any other category of the law which is exclusive to “married” couples. Hence, it is illegal.

Maybe I can try this in a different way. Is it “illegal” for a minor to sign an entertainment contract?

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:32 AM

And the parade of ‘False conservatives’ goes on in an attempt to appease the masses….

The term ‘marriage’ should not be supported, as it refers to a ceremony ‘blessed by God’. As the Bible calls homosexuality an ‘abomination’, it is ridiculous to call what is being approved by MAN (government) a ‘marriage’.

Instead, it should be called a ‘civil Union’ – a union of 2 people approved by MAN/Government & which permits man/government-provided monetary & otherwise benefits. I am all for granting those benefits for couples so joined in ‘civil unions’. Calling it a ‘marriage’, however, to ME, is almost an insult to the traditional/biblical definition of ‘marriage’.

easyt65 on February 26, 2013 at 11:32 AM

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Acknowledge the proof posted, coward.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 11:33 AM

But! But! All the cool kids are doing it!

TimBuk3 on February 26, 2013 at 11:33 AM

If a “gay gene” existed (which is does not), it would be DE-volution, a step backward by evolutionary standards, because it went 180 degrees against continuation of the species! How crazy is that?

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 11:28 AM

I’m sure a gene has mutated in a way that can influence a person’s sexual orientation. I’m also sure that, if left to evolution, that mutation would remove itself after a few generations.

Of course, while that’s happening, watching the pro-abortion lobby fight with the militant gay lobby would be fantastic. Women would be aborting their children because they have a genetic deformity, just like the left totally supports.

Washington Nearsider on February 26, 2013 at 11:33 AM

What is it about aberrant, high-risk sexual conduct that necessitates our society lauding it as awesomely awesome in its awesomeness? What about it warrants promoting it in our public policy? What about it demands that we introduce it into the education (read “indoctrination”) of children at the earliest age conceivable? And what about it singles it out a virtue giving its practitioners absolute moral authority foreclosing the ability of others to judge them on their merit?

BuckeyeSam on February 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM

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

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.

Allahpundit

.
Let’s alter that headline a bit:

Dozens of prominent “no-name, no-risk” Republicans RINOs sign Supreme Court brief supporting legalized gay marriage

.

listens2glenn on February 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM

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

Actually there are a number of reasons why homosexuality might be part of evolution. Population control for one thing. We know that overpopulation has had a damaging impact on a number of mammals when their natural predators have been eliminated, see deer. This may be why o many youngest male siblings are gay.

But I am not arguing that there is a gay gene. I’m arguing that its actually immaterial to the question before the Court.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM

The more the GOP gets away from the non-issue issue of gay marriage, the more the GOP can focus on winnable political positions.

@AsalamaTweetum

Opinionnation on February 26, 2013 at 11:35 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.” – AllahP

How well versed are you on SCOTUS decisions, Allah?
Recall, if you are old enough, or intellectually curious enough, to know that it was a NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) “study” submitted to sway The Supremes, via an amicus brief, that claimed the vast majority of Americans approved of unrestricted abortions for all.
The “study” was a ginned up (literally) fraud/lie perpetrated by two Leftist clowns who managed to sway the Court via a “study” that never existed. The co-founder finally admitted a few years back that he and his gal pal drank themselves stupid while writing the document at their kitchen table while swilling booze. AND they laughed their ässes off as money (donations) came their way.

Chip, chip, chippin’ away at the altar of faux public opinion. Leftist SCOTUS poseurs just love to point out the “living constitution”.
Those who support SSM, knock yerselves out. WE might recognize it IF and WHEN other States agree to honor “conceal carry” laws across State borders – you know: The Commerce Clause that Leftists are so quick to invoke re: anything and everything on their agendas.
Fat f’ing chance, eh? Until then, the metrosexuals like Huntsman can STFU.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM

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?

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

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

Isn’t it just hilarious that sexual deviancy not only goes against any moral system worth speaking of, but even against the most basic Darwinian concepts which liberals tout as superior to creation?

If a “gay gene” existed (which is does not), it would be DE-volution, a step backward by evolutionary standards, because it went 180 degrees against continuation of the species! How crazy is that?

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Ok folks, what’s the up or down on how long it take the good Marxist atheist professor to realize he just made a case for Intelligent design… Oh did he do that you ask? Well, by suggesting that the Human race has encoded in at the genetic level a “Killfile”. Leave it to the Marxist Gay Atheist to make the most compelling case for why certain people, namely “Marxist Gay Atheists” should not be permitted to reproduce.

SWalker on February 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM

The more the GOP gets away from the non-issue issue of gay marriage, the more the GOP can focus on winnable political positions.

Opinionnation on February 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Yep

jake-the-goose on February 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM

By libfree’s logic, it is illegal for me to take a nap. Why? Because the government doesnt’ give me a certificate recognizing that I’m taking a nap.

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Do you ever get the impression that the HA establishment represents the HA posters about as well as the GOP establishment represents the rank and file of the Republican Party?

bw222 on February 26, 2013 at 11:37 AM

I’m sure a gene has mutated in a way that can influence a person’s sexual orientation. I’m also sure that, if left to evolution, that mutation would remove itself after a few generations.

Of course, while that’s happening, watching the pro-abortion lobby fight with the militant gay lobby would be fantastic. Women would be aborting their children because they have a genetic deformity, just like the left totally supports.

Washington Nearsider on February 26, 2013 at 11:33 AM

The whole thing is anti-science, but Repubs are supposed to be the ones who are the anti-science party.. I had an interesting discussion on another board on this very subject in which Zachv actually tried to tell me that research showed where simple organism were actually gay and lesbian. I had to laugh– I still want to see the slides that show fungi as lesbians.

melle1228 on February 26, 2013 at 11:38 AM

easyt65 on February 26, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Marriages benefit society by creating the future generations, and thus society granted them special priveledge, why do you think granting such special priveledge to gays will be OK?

I do not want to increase the number of malfunctioning citizens that I will end up having to support with my labor. These will be the people who, since they have no children, who will be voting for ever more money out of the pockets of my children to feed their ever longer end of life multiple decades long vacations and health spa treatments.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Actually there are a number of reasons why homosexuality might be part of evolution. Population control for one thing.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM

There it is – Humanity has evolved itself a way to destroy itself.

There is no way for the genetic code of a person to know how many other people are on the planet. Therefore, there is no way the genetic code would know it needed to destroy humanity to save the planet.

Washington Nearsider on February 26, 2013 at 11:39 AM

The headline should read.Dozens of prominent elite Rinos sign supreme court brief.

logman1 on February 26, 2013 at 11:39 AM

I say give what they want; all people straight or gay can have a civil union, with a civil union liscence (formally known as a marriage liscence) so we can all be equal under the eyes of our government. If a couple wants to be “married” that can only be sanctioned by a church.

Tater Salad on February 26, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Actually there are a number of reasons why homosexuality might be part of evolution. Population control for one thing. We know that overpopulation has had a damaging impact on a number of mammals when their natural predators have been eliminated, see deer. This may be why o many youngest male siblings are gay.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Gay males have zero effect on population, Einstein. Population is totally controlled by the bottleneck, which is women (or does, in deer). Females can only have a very limited number of offspring, while one male can impregnate unlimited numbers of females with no time limits.

Don’t try your hand at science. Your IQ is far too low, though you seem about average intelligence for a leftist.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 26, 2013 at 11:39 AM

If gays have a constitutional right to marry, then why shouldn’t bisexuals have the right to marry two people they love?

This is the natural question that arises when you redefine marriage away from gender to sexuality. Everyone has a gender, male and female. It is black and white and easily understood. Sexuality is 3D scale (more than 50 shades of grey) that changes over a lifetime.

My hope is that one of the conservative justices will ask this. If marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman there is no discrimination. If you open the definition to certain forms of sexuality but not others there is inherent discrimination.

monalisa on February 26, 2013 at 11:40 AM

BuckeyeSam on February 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM

We haven’t treated transmissible, incurable diseases with the seriousness they deserve since the polio epidemics. We don’t make even the faintest pretense of restricting the activities or movements of someone with a lethal STD. And even worse, the lifestyles that most put you at risk are not only condoned but promoted.

We didn’t even make any efforts back when AIDS was called GRIDS (because it originated from gay men) and our society had an ounce of sense and morals. Now it’s way too late to contain short of efforts we have neither the money, manpower, or willpower to do.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 11:40 AM

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:32 AM

.
What about the Bi’s?

Shouldn’t there be a check box for Bi-Sexual Marriages as well ?
Why should those poor souls be denied marriage just because they are genetically “pre-disposed” to swing both ways- maybe at the same time ?

Why should they be forced to choose only one team…. just because the law says so ?
That’s so unfair.

FlaMurph on February 26, 2013 at 11:40 AM

I don’t get the whole gay thing but, a majority of states have civil unions and if the conservatives went all in for SSM the left wouldn’t have it as a club to beat the conservatives with. I also think that the gays would be dropped as quickly as they dropped Cindy Sheehand because they, like she, would no longer be of use to the left.

Dr. Frank Enstine on February 26, 2013 at 11:41 AM

What is it about aberrant, high-risk sexual conduct that necessitates our society lauding it as awesomely awesome in its awesomeness? What about it warrants promoting it in our public policy? What about it demands that we introduce it into the education (read “indoctrination”) of children at the earliest age conceivable? And what about it singles it out a virtue giving its practitioners absolute moral authority foreclosing the ability of others to judge them on their merit?

BuckeyeSam on February 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM

It’s awesomely awesome like single mothers on welfare *cue angels singing in heaven*, children born to single mothers on welfare *angels*, wise Latinas, person of color, LGBT, and in general, all minorities. Did I mention Muslims. All non-white or non-male or non-heterosexual, which is probably more than 80% of the U.S. population.

Paul-Cincy on February 26, 2013 at 11:41 AM

The good news for social conservatives is that younger folks tend to view abortion with more skepticism; the bad news is they just don’t care if gays get married. And the really bad news is that they take it as a sign of bigotry or small-mindedness among those who do.

Smart Republicans know their party needs to grow. It needs to be inclusive, and to apply its best values to new and changing times.

jake-the-goose on February 26, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Instead, it should be called a ‘civil Union’ – a union of 2 people approved by MAN/Government & which permits man/government-provided monetary & otherwise benefits. I am all for granting those benefits for couples so joined in ‘civil unions’.

easyt65 on February 26, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Just curious: WHY do you support the granting of government benefits to those civil unions? What benefit does society and the state gain from giving funds or exempting from taxes any random pair of humans? Don’t they have to do anything to earn that benefit?

Socratease on February 26, 2013 at 11:43 AM

The word “authorize” is a particular one. It means that if something is illegal it does not have the authority of law behind it. I.E. a same-sex couple who called themselves “married” would not have the authority to demand that a hospital extend their policies towards “married couples” to them. And the same would be for any other category of the law which is exclusive to “married” couples. Hence, it is illegal.

Maybe I can try this in a different way. Is it “illegal” for a minor to sign an entertainment contract?

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Sure that’s one way of framing illegal but it’s not the only one. Earlier you mentioned that it doesn’t come with criminal penalty which is more in line with the way gay marriage is usually discussed.

Gay marriage advocates talk all the time like their love is illegal. They turn it into a discussion about their love not being legitimized. Clearly this is disingenuous because a marriage license doesn’t have anything to do with the state approving your feelings.

If the gay lobby was actually interested in securing some sort of civil union that provided the legal structure of marriage you wouldn’t have disagreement on 95% of the stuff you wanted. Conservatives don’t care about hospital visitation, distribution of property etc (though libertarians should quibble about hospitals being forced to allow access to patients based on marital status as unnecessary government intrusion).

There will be some disagreement about some things but gay marriage advocates completely ignore the states interest in marriage. The state’s interest in marriage is not that people love each other it’s centered around the fundamental unit of society capable of producing more citizens, providing some legal framework ensuring responsibility for the children. It’s ridiculous to claim that gay marriages are the same as heterosexual marriages and that the state shouldn’t treat them different in some ways because they aren’t the same thing at a fundamental, sociological and natural level.

gwelf on February 26, 2013 at 11:43 AM

I’m not seeing the comment I posted, which means it’s probably caught in the filter.

Isn’t it funny how even a straight-forward discussion of homosexuality leads to the use of terms which are totally accurate, but still trigger decency filters?

tom on February 26, 2013 at 11:43 AM

By libfree’s logic, it is illegal for me to take a nap. Why? Because the government doesnt’ give me a certificate recognizing that I’m taking a nap.

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Furthermore, you are discriminated because the government doesn’t specifically recognize your right to take a nap, although it does pay some of its employees to travel and sleep on its dime.. And even though it has a compelling reason to recognize its employees nap time, you my dear are not getting equal protection- so sue.

melle1228 on February 26, 2013 at 11:43 AM

I don’t get the whole gay thing but, a majority of states have civil unions and if the conservatives went all in for SSM the left wouldn’t have it as a club to beat the conservatives with.

Dr. Frank Enstine on February 26, 2013 at 11:41 AM

It has been repeatedly shown that the left is not satisfied with civil unions, Dr. Their endgame is to sue or imprison people into actively supporting their lifestyle in order to make themselves feel better.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 11:43 AM

By libfree’s logic, it is illegal for me to take a nap. Why? Because the government doesnt’ give me a certificate recognizing that I’m taking a nap.

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Do I need a government certificate to prove that I don’t have donkey brains?

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Some years ago in CA, a Christian woman was sued because she wouldn’t rent an apartment to a gay couple. She lost, and not only had to pay money, but the judge ordered her to put notices all over her building describing her ‘crime’.

This whole SSM thing is about more than silencing opposition and poking religious Americans in the eye. It’s a first step to another privileged class, one that will demand in due course a form of Affirmative Action. Lawsuits will take care of themselves, but I can foresee laws passed to ‘make up for past injustices’. Like maybe same sex couples get preferential consideration in adoption. How about a quota system when hiring? Or a military unit has to have a certain number of gays in addition to women (gay women might be a two-fer, but that’s not certain).

We know, and so do the gays, that SSM is not the end of the matter. It’s only the beginning, soon to be followed with pedophiles itching to get on the bandwagon of a sex-based civil right. Then will come their turn, pressuring, “Why not us, too?”

Give it time.

Liam on February 26, 2013 at 11:44 AM

I don’t get the whole gay thing but, a majority of states have civil unions and if the conservatives went all in for SSM the left wouldn’t have it as a club to beat the conservatives with.

Dr. Frank Enstine on February 26, 2013 at 11:41 AM

We are the frickin anti-slavery, civil rights party and yet Dems still beat us with the racist club. They beat us with the misygynistic club. There were some twits who swore we were going to take away their birth control pill and their tampons this last election. As long as Republicans continue to let Dems right the narrative on social issue and don’t make a logical case, and Dems continue to lie; we will continue to get clobbered. And as long as Repubs continue to call our own side bigots..

melle1228 on February 26, 2013 at 11:45 AM

MelonCollie: Examples from Canada certainly do not count, that country has had a vexed relationship to codifying religious freedom. They have nothing like our First Amendment nor has their judicial system found overwhelmingly in favor of religious rights historically.

By libfree’s logic, it is illegal for me to take a nap. Why? Because the government doesnt’ give me a certificate recognizing that I’m taking a nap.

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM

*sigh* What would be illegal is for you to attempt to secure legal recognition of your right to nap in a way that would coerce actions from others or the state. Why are you people being purposefully obtuse.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 26, 2013 at 11:39 AM

As i said earlier, I’m not a scientist or an expert in biology. All of these biological questions are immaterial to the questions before the Court with regards to same-sex marriage. But you all can continue to spin your wheels on the issue. But, again, there is no reason why anyone has to prove anything on theh genetic origins of homosexuality.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:46 AM

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

cornfedbubba on February 26, 2013 at 11:11 AM

One thing they don’t do is procreate.

Bmore on February 26, 2013 at 11:46 AM

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:46 AM

What is before the court is this: Can the State compel religous people to violate their Constitutionally-protected belief system to pacify a militant subset of the population?

No.

Washington Nearsider on February 26, 2013 at 11:48 AM

MelonCollie: Examples from Canada certainly do not count, that country has had a vexed relationship to codifying religious freedom. They have nothing like our First Amendment nor has their judicial system found overwhelmingly in favor of religious rights historically.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:46 AM

That’s a chickensh!t non-answer and you know it.

That fact aside, have you refused to listen to all the examples of AMERICANS being sued by the gayfia?

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 11:48 AM

But, again, there is no reason why anyone has to prove anything on theh genetic origins of homosexuality.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Great. If there’s no biological reason for it, then it is a deviant behavior. Perverts are lining up with their inflatable dolls at the County Clerk’s office even as we post.

kingsjester on February 26, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Instead, it should be called a ‘civil Union’ – a union of 2 people approved by MAN/Government & which permits man/government-provided monetary & otherwise benefits. I am all for granting those benefits for couples so joined in ‘civil unions’. Calling it a ‘marriage’, however, to ME, is almost an insult to the traditional/biblical definition of ‘marriage’.

easyt65 on February 26, 2013 at 11:32 AM

I’m all for getting rid of the tax benefits of marriage, if there are any. Benefits should be tied to children. The problem with our collective system now is that it is the children produced by heterosexuals that will bear the burden of paying for the beneficiaries of civil unions. This would all go away if we got the government out of healthcare, retirement social security, estate taxes etc.

monalisa on February 26, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Sure that’s one way of framing illegal but it’s not the only one.

No boo boo. It isn’t one way of “framing” the word “illegal,” its one of the *MEANINGS* of the word illegal. Try and think about it this way. Both squares and rectangles are parallelograms, but a square is not a rectangle. So things that carry a criminal penalty are illegal and things which are not authorized by the state are also illegal. But things that carry a criminal penalty and things which are not authorized by the state are different things. Does that help?

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:49 AM

I had to laugh– I still want to see the slides that show fungi as lesbians.

melle1228 on February 26, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Mold on chinese food?

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 26, 2013 at 11:50 AM

What is before the court is this: Can the State compel religous people to violate their Constitutionally-protected belief system to pacify a militant subset of the population?

No.

Washington Nearsider on February 26, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Which brings up a good point. Isn’t atheism and the use of government force to remove all religion from the public sphere itself making it a state sponsored religion?

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 11:50 AM

What is before the court is this: Can the State compel religous people to violate their Constitutionally-protected belief system to pacify a militant subset of the population?

No.

Washington Nearsider on February 26, 2013 at 11:48 AM

That is actually *not* the question before the Court. Have you read the briefs?

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:51 AM

I had to laugh– I still want to see the slides that show fungi as lesbians.

melle1228 on February 26, 2013 at 11:38 AM

I’m sure Toad likes to eat chinese food every once in a while.

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 26, 2013 at 11:51 AM

MelonCollie: Examples from Canada certainly do not count, that country has had a vexed relationship to codifying religious freedom. They have nothing like our First Amendment nor has their judicial system found overwhelmingly in favor of religious rights historically.

But just to point out as I mentioned above – I do think that the Courts would side against a religious institution in an interracial marriage case. I think that is what the gay community actually is banking on by trying to get gay marriage approved by courts rather than using the legislative processes in each states. I’m fine with NY’s legislature codifying gay marriage. I’m not okay with the Supreme Court declaring it a Constitutional right.

Illinidiva on February 26, 2013 at 11:51 AM

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:46 AM

What is before the court is this: Can the State compel religous people to violate their Constitutionally-protected belief system to pacify a militant subset of the population?

No.

Washington Nearsider on February 26, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Actually what is before the court is even more insidious than that. What is before the court is, do the citizens of any given State have the right to amend their State Constitutions in accordance with the provisions of said State constitutions if said amendments offend certain minority constituencies.

SWalker on February 26, 2013 at 11:52 AM

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:32 AM

You really don’t think there is a difference from a societal perspective and a natural perspective between gay marriage and straight marriage? You don’t think the state should in any way recognize these differences?

Conservatives don’t really care what contracts gay couples form with each other. We don’t care about 99% of it.

But it insults our intelligence that you want to pretend like there isn’t a powerful gay lobby that wants to turn this into state sanctioned acceptance of the feelings of gay people. Prop 8 was overturned due to “emotional stress” as budfox pointed out. Not because of any legal considerations but because of feelings.

15 years ago the gay community didn’t care about marriage because they viewed it as a bourgeois institution that didn’t have any bearing on them as gay people.

gwelf on February 26, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Government should have no role in defining marriage.. period.

When as a nation we are fighting for every semblance of fiscal sanity for a nations survival this gay marriage battle is the dumbest battle of them all.

I am a traditionalist BUT I have no right as a person nor as a part of governemnt to deny two people a right afforded to others.

Define it all you want and keep it to your religion and I’ll respect that decision as well as defend that right..

And you wonder why we keep losing.. Some of you want everything yet as a salesman I learned a long time ago.. part of something is better than all of nothing..

theblacksheepwasright on February 26, 2013 at 11:52 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

Never too early to post wise prose…

…you’ve got oh, about the rest of the day….relax.

ToddPA on February 26, 2013 at 11:53 AM

The SCOTUS decision will come down to deciding whether or not marriage, like privacy, is a civil and Constitutional right.

Do you have a right to be married? The Islamists are going to have fun with this one if SCOTUS decides in the affirmative.

ss396 on February 26, 2013 at 11:54 AM

theblacksheepwasright on February 26, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Everything after the first sentence was mindless bleating.

We are fighting defensively to keep our religious freedoms, genius. If the entire gayfia was suddenly defanged tomorrow we wouldn’t give tuppence about their movement.

And we are quite intelligent enough to know that the fiscal cliff could make all other debates academic.But they are coming after our churches and our friends. We HAVE to fight.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Gay marriage advocates talk all the time like their love is illegal. They turn it into a discussion about their love not being legitimized. Clearly this is disingenuous because a marriage license doesn’t have anything to do with the state approving your feelings.

You are critiquing the rhetorical devices same-sex marriage advocates use to appeal to the public. And in that sense, you have no argument from me. I find their efforts maudlin and highly conservative. Look up “homonormativity” that’s the word that describes how I feel about the same-sex marriage cause. But that is actually irrelevant to the Constitutional issues at play.

If the gay lobby was actually interested in securing some sort of civil union that provided the legal structure of marriage you wouldn’t have disagreement on 95% of the stuff you wanted. Conservatives don’t care about hospital visitation, distribution of property etc (though libertarians should quibble about hospitals being forced to allow access to patients based on marital status as unnecessary government intrusion).

Right, which is why conservative controlled state legislatures have been passing civil union laws left and right in order to cut same-sex marriage off at the pass. This is just an intellectually dishonest argument. All of the prominent opponents to same-sex marriage also oppose civil unions, Focus On The Family etc.

There will be some disagreement about some things but gay marriage advocates completely ignore the states interest in marriage. The state’s interest in marriage is not that people love each other it’s centered around the fundamental unit of society capable of producing more citizens, providing some legal framework ensuring responsibility for the children. It’s ridiculous to claim that gay marriages are the same as heterosexual marriages and that the state shouldn’t treat them different in some ways because they aren’t the same thing at a fundamental, sociological and natural level.

gwelf on February 26, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Here is a link to the pro-gay marriage brief before the Supreme Court. It addresses this issue and more.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/US-merits-brief-Windsor-2-22-12.pdf

For the issue of childrearing see page 41.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:57 AM

As someone who’s gone after Lib time and again over the science issue, I hope everyone is paying close attention.

Lib is now arguing science, and framing this as a case of legalities.

This is new.

Before, when asked about the lack of science, he would barely answer, and it always ended with some marginalizing swipe at “determintive” reasons.

Now, he’s embracing it. Just like he’s embracing the legal/illegal argument.

Science is a no-win for the LGBT movement. They don’t want to know the “why”, because they know not everyone in their community lives that lifestyle for the same reason. Some will turn out to be for genetic-based reasons, others will be biochemical reactions, and then others for purely societal issues.

Once you have the State bestow special rights on a group that has amorphous cultural features, such as the “unsure” or “curious” members, than all bets are off.

The irony is that it can eventually lead to reverse policies when certain groups within the majority can file for minority rights. Ig the LGBT community gets what they want, then redheads and blondes ought to ban together and file for “equal protection” since they’re a minority in the population.

Lib’s admitted to being fine with adult/teen, incestual, and inter-species “relationships”. While I don’t think he signifies the standard gay person, he certainly represents the advocacy wing.

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.

budfox on February 26, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Have the state then threaten to take away tax exempt status from these institutions, and hope the smaller christian lite orgs comply.

Oh, the state most certainly will likely try to take away the tax exempt status for institutions that refuse to comply based on their teachings.

A Cali legislator has already proposed a bill directly aimed at the Boy Scouts policy on gays, Senate Bill 323, to revoke the tax exempt status of any youth organization that excludes members who are homosexual. Sacramento is radical enough that it may actually pass.

Don’t think for a moment that the same wouldn’t happen to religious institutions which refuse to recognize SSM. Although muslims, if they voice their view of SSM being culturally unacceptable, will probably be allowed special exemption if this becomes a legislative possibility, I’m sure.

hawkeye54 on February 26, 2013 at 12:00 PM

The fiscal cliff is the utmost important aspect this nation faces. Thus we must legalize all drugs, marriage for all forms of unions no matter how detestable, cave in to the environmentalists, give up on coal fired power plants, reduce the military to two tug boats and a janitor, allow the president to strip citizenship from anyone he does not like, leave the media alone, give citizenship to every person on the planet………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………
and begin forced abortions for all, because this is what will save the nation.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 12:02 PM

I’m not seeing the comment I posted, which means it’s probably caught in the filter.

Isn’t it funny how even a straight-forward discussion of homosexuality leads to the use of terms which are totally accurate, but still trigger decency filters?

tom on February 26, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Ah, the comment finally made it through the filter.

What I was getting at in the comment is that gay sex is not really sexual intercourse. That is, if one of the sexes is missing, then you don’t have actual sexual intercourse, just some form of sex play. And while the distinction may not matter in a lot of cases, in other cases it makes all the difference in the world.

Besides which, we are more than our bodies or our sexual appetites. The dynamic between men and women is the foundation of our families and our society. Homosexuality is never going to be as good or as healthy as normal relationships. And it’s madness to demand that everyone pretend it is “just as good.” Homosexuals do not have a right to demand that everyone else approve.

tom on February 26, 2013 at 12:02 PM

It may be ants that eat at the body of liberty, but give the ants long enough, enough methods of attack, and enough ants the body of liberty will be eaten.

Cut off the ant trails to the body of liberty and you have less ant bites.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 26, 2013 at 12:02 PM

No boo boo. It isn’t one way of “framing” the word “illegal,” its one of the *MEANINGS* of the word illegal. Try and think about it this way. Both squares and rectangles are parallelograms, but a square is not a rectangle. So things that carry a criminal penalty are illegal and things which are not authorized by the state are also illegal. But things that carry a criminal penalty and things which are not authorized by the state are different things. Does that help?

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:49 AM

You didn’t pay very close attention to the rest of what I said did you?

Civil unions were legal in California yet we still have fights over gay marriage being illegal in California. The point for the gay lobby is not what is ignored by the law, allowed by law, or officially sanctioned by the law but using the law to force others to accept you and approve of your lifestyle.

In the debate over gay marriage the phrase that gay marriage is illegal is commonly used outside of the strict bounds you want to define it as. Gay marriage advocates talk about their LOVE being illegal (which using your definition is impossible so your beef is with those on your side misusing the term as you wish to have it universally apply). Gay marriage advocates talk about gay RELATIONSHIPS being illegal. Holy crap! I never knew that all my friendships are illegal! This is the way many on your side talk about it. If I went around screaming that my friendships were illegal people would think that I live in some sort of totalitarian state – which is clearly the intent of the usage of the term most of the time it’s used.

gwelf on February 26, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Do you ever get the impression that the HA establishment represents the HA posters about as well as the GOP establishment represents the rank and file of the Republican Party?

bw222 on February 26, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Yep. That’s why I don’t visit here, or post, very often anymore.
(especially since alleged Roman Catholics never attended a Tridentine Mass)
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 26, 2013 at 12:03 PM

libfreeordie, aka life out of balance

You ever meet a fact that you understood?

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Science is a no-win for the LGBT movement. They don’t want to know the “why”, because they know not everyone in their community lives that lifestyle for the same reason. Some will turn out to be for genetic-based reasons, others will be biochemical reactions, and then others for purely societal issues.

There has been an ongoing discussion within LGBTQ communities about this very question. I’m sorry, did you confuse the fact that you’re not a part of those conversations with the idea that these are new ideas to us? Ha!

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM

It will become a crime to preach traditional religious doctrine in this country unless this doctrine is approved by the State.

It will become a crime to refuse to sanction this and other perversions of marriage.

It will become a crime to teach traditional ideals of families and gender roles in history unless these are approved by the State.

Yep…That’s the Fascist Way

workingclass artist on February 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM

One of the best arguments against gay marriage from a gay French man:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/337393/extraordinary-french-rebellion-against-gay-marriage-maggie-gallagher

“Another reason that I think this is homophobic is this: This law encourages homosexual couples to think they can copy and fit in the way heterosexual couples do. It makes them think they have to follow the example of man, woman, and child, without respecting sexual difference. It denies respect to homosexual couples in reality, with regards to their specificity and who they really are. Gay couples do not exist so that they can be procreative; one doesn’t recognize that (if one turns these into marriages). Even if you present this to gay couples like it’s a gift, it’s still denying who they really are.”

But then, what about equality of rights?
“It’s not a question of equality. Equality isn’t inherently positive. There are bad/wrong equalities. We call that conformism, uniformity. A lack of recognition to the realities of people. The gay activists who treat equality as sacred do not differentiate between equal rights and the equality of identity. Equality of the law, and equality of self-respect or dignity.”

gwelf on February 26, 2013 at 12:06 PM

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:46 AM

That’s a chickensh!t non-answer and you know it.

That fact aside, have you refused to listen to all the examples of AMERICANS being sued by the gayfia?

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Are you familiar with Dr. Neil Clark Warren?

I’m sure libfree doesn’t want to discuss his rather unique case.

Neil Clark Warren (born September 18, 1934) is a Christian theologian, inspirational speaker, chairman and co-founder of the online dating services eHarmony and Compatible Partners.

Repeated sued by the Gay Mafia because eHarmony (a christian online dating service) refused accept homosexual members.

SWalker on February 26, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Homosexuals do not have a right to demand that everyone else approve.

tom on February 26, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Well actually, as a matter of speech, gay people (like all people) have the right to ask anything. You also have a right to not comply. If someone invites you to a same-sex marriage just don’t go.

Here’s the thing though. If you find yourself more socially isolated because the people around you are going to that same-sex wedding or whatever, and you are left out of social events because people don’t want to associate with someone who holds your views…thems the breaks. That’s society. You can either participate or not, but no one is being unreasonable if they choose to not associate with you because you hold onto divergent opinions from you.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 12:07 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair

Im curious. If you think Homosexuality is just a result of lifestyle choice how do you explain evidence of Homosexuality through out different species in nature?

Secondy, why are some people so quick to equate homosexuals with pedofiles or beastaility? I think that says more about the person who has that thought then anyone else.

I personally find it kind of odd that as a straight man I can go to Vegas, meet some girl at the club and drunkenly stumble to a all night altar and marry her but two people of the same sex who have been in a loving committed relationship for years cant do the same thing.

Things that make you go hmmm…

Politricks on February 26, 2013 at 12:08 PM

All this so that 6% of the gay population, who represent 3% of the total population, can get married.

CrustyB on February 26, 2013 at 12:09 PM

A Cali legislator has already proposed a bill directly aimed at the Boy Scouts policy on gays, Senate Bill 323, to revoke the tax exempt status of any youth organization that excludes members who are homosexual. Sacramento is radical enough that it may actually pass.

Don’t think for a moment that the same wouldn’t happen to religious institutions which refuse to recognize SSM. Although muslims, if they voice their view of SSM being culturally unacceptable, will probably be allowed special exemption if this becomes a legislative possibility, I’m sure.

hawkeye54 on February 26, 2013 at 12:00 PM

It may pass the California legislature, but it will indisputably be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, who have already ruled that it is the Boy Scout’s of America’s Constitutional right to exclude Homosexuals.

SWalker on February 26, 2013 at 12:10 PM

The gay marriage thuggery can’t be stopped.

The next step is the daily suing of every church everywhere that won’t marry same sex couples, and the media cheerleading of it.

You can see this stuff a mile away.

Moesart on February 26, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Here is a link to the pro-gay marriage brief before the Supreme Court. It addresses this issue and more.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/US-merits-brief-Windsor-2-22-12.pdf

For the issue of childrearing see page 41.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Wow, I’m shocked that the lawyer for the pro gay marriage side is arguing that in fact gay marriage and straight marriage are equal in all respects including “research” that shows no differences in parenting (even though there is recent research that showed there are differences).

gwelf on February 26, 2013 at 12:10 PM

“Another reason that I think this is homophobic is this: This law encourages homosexual couples to think they can copy and fit in the way heterosexual couples do. It makes them think they have to follow the example of man, woman, and child, without respecting sexual difference. It denies respect to homosexual couples in reality, with regards to their specificity and who they really are. Gay couples do not exist so that they can be procreative; one doesn’t recognize that (if one turns these into marriages). Even if you present this to gay couples like it’s a gift, it’s still denying who they really are.”

I agree with all of this. And yet, none of it matters to the question of whether DOMA is constitutional or not….

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Homosexuals do not have a right to demand that everyone else approve.

tom on February 26, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Well actually, as a matter of speech, gay people (like all people) have the right to ask anything. You also have a right to not comply. If someone invites you to a same-sex marriage just don’t go.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Not if this passes the SCOTUS.

SWalker on February 26, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Here’s the thing though. If you find yourself more socially isolated because the people around you are going to that same-sex wedding or whatever, and you are left out of social events because people don’t want to associate with someone who holds your views…thems the breaks. That’s society. You can either participate or not, but no one is being unreasonable if they choose to not associate with you because you hold onto divergent opinions from you.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 12:07 PM

I still see you haven’t addressed the numerous examples given in this thread where the gay lobby sued individuals exercising their freedom of association.

gwelf on February 26, 2013 at 12:12 PM

I still see you haven’t addressed the numerous examples given in this thread where the gay lobby sued individuals exercising their freedom of association.

gwelf on February 26, 2013 at 12:12 PM

He wouldn’t unless he was tied to a chair and shown the relevant news articles on a giant-screen TV, and slapped everytime he started going “Lalalala I can’t hear you!”

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Homosexuality is not the equivalent of normal sexuality. Tolerance for those who want to practice it anyway does not require the rest of us to pretend it’s “just as good.”

tom on February 26, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Well said, Tom. I’m reconsidering the whole doctrine of tolerance itself. It may come at too high a cost.

Mason on February 26, 2013 at 12:14 PM

I agree with all of this. And yet, none of it matters to the question of whether DOMA is constitutional or not….

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 12:10 PM

And yet it completely counters the argument on page 41 of the brief you linked.

You still haven’t answered the question: Do you think there is any sociological or natural difference between straight couples and gay couples?

gwelf on February 26, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Homosexuality is not the equivalent of normal sexuality. Tolerance for those who want to practice it anyway does not require the rest of us to pretend it’s “just as good.”

tom on February 26, 2013 at 11:31 AM

+1

gwelf on February 26, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Few questions for the holier than thou.

1) Do you really want to enforce the bible as the moral standard?

2) If yes, have you read the bible?

Don’t let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

Don’t have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)

Don’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

Don’t cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).

If a man sleeps with his father’s wife… both him and his father’s wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)

If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)

If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16).
triple on February 22, 2013 at 12:45 AM

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Government should have no role in defining marriage.. period.

When as a nation we are fighting for every semblance of fiscal sanity for a nations survival this gay marriage battle is the dumbest battle of them all.

I am a traditionalist BUT I have no right as a person nor as a part of governemnt to deny two people a right afforded to others.

Define it all you want and keep it to your religion and I’ll respect that decision as well as defend that right..

And you wonder why we keep losing.. Some of you want everything yet as a salesman I learned a long time ago.. part of something is better than all of nothing..

theblacksheepwasright on February 26, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Thank you for the Neville Chamberlain perspective.

The parallels between your argument and the European community letting Hitler have Czechoslovakia and Poland are pretty strong. You see a graver threat, don’t see where you should have an interest in nations far away or issues you don’t care about, and would rather give in on the things that don’t matter to you or the freedom of others.

As Reagan said, ” .. there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace–and you can have it in the next second–surrender.”

All you people who say, “Let’s have a truce on social issues. It’s the fiscal issues that count,” are actually saying, “You people that care about this issue should just surrender, because I don’t care.”

MelonCollie is right, above. This is just more of the progressive campaign to remake all society in their utopian image. You should really recognize and support your natural allies in the fight against progressivism that has lead to historic deficits and a weaker nation.

tom on February 26, 2013 at 12:16 PM

(even though there is recent research that showed there are differences).

gwelf on February 26, 2013 at 12:10 PM

If its the study I’m thinking of, the authors of that study have come out and said that the religious right is twisting their findings.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 12:18 PM

If someone invites you to a same-sex marriage just don’t go.

Yeah, it should work as long you don’t explain why you aren’t going. However, as a member of the clergy, invited to perform a SSM, and you decline, you will probably find yourself in a pickle, if government policy insists you accept.

hawkeye54 on February 26, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Maybe I can try this in a different way. Is it “illegal” for a minor to sign an entertainment contract?

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:32 AM

It is not illegal, but the contract is not enforceable. There are rules against it. There are not rules against gay marriage.

besser tot als rot on February 26, 2013 at 12:20 PM

And of course Marxist Pig the hypocritical self-proclaimed Bible scholar had to join in.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 7