Report: DOJ to ask Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage in California — and beyond?

posted at 8:21 pm on February 28, 2013 by Allahpundit

The news here isn’t that O’s weighing in on the side of Ted Olson and David Boies. Technically he doesn’t need to get involved, but good luck explaining that to his base if he sits this one out and the decision comes back 5-4 in favor of upholding Prop 8 four months from now. They’ll want to know why he didn’t lend the imprimatur of the presidency to the biggest gay-rights case in U.S. history. What’s he supposed to tell them? That he needed to keep up the charade that he’s in any way opposed to court-imposed legalized gay marriage for just a little bit longer?

The news also isn’t that O’s revealing himself once again to have been a liar on this issue. When he ran in 2008, he pretended to be against gay marriage to parry Republican claims that he was a devout liberal rather than the centrist “post-partisan pragmatist” his campaign touted him as. He finally dropped the facade last year — it’s politically safe now to support gay marriage, even in the GOP (sort of) — but he’s continued to insist that this issue should be left to the states because … I’m not sure why. Literally no one believes he sincerely feels that way, and since he’d already taken the plunge by endorsing legal gay marriage, he had little to gain politically from his phony federalism. The best I can do by way of a theory is to guess that O, instinctively, likes to posture as a “moderate” even when he’s pushing reliably liberal positions. (E.g., “the balanced approach.”) It’s good for his brand as the “reasonable” adult in the room in Washington, a vestigial version of the pragmatic independence he feigned in summer ’08. Plus, I suppose he might have thought that posing as a federalist on SSM would cushion the blow for opponents once he revealed his support for legalization. It’s not as big of a deal to find out that the president thinks gays should be allowed to marry if he’s qualifying that by saying you should get decide to your home state’s rules. But that was nonsense, as the DOJ’s brief confirrns, and anyone who didn’t see through it instantly is a fool.

No, the news is that the DOJ might be aiming higher than just Prop 8. No one’s seen their amicus brief yet as I write this, but both Politico and WaPo have sources hinting that this might be bigger than legalizing gay marriage in California. They might be making a play for the entire United States. Politico:

The Obama Administration is expected to take a strong stand Thursday in favor of marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples Thursday, filing a legal brief urging the justices to striking down Proposition 8, the California ballot measure that banned same-sex marriages in the state, a source familiar with the brief said.

In literal terms, the arguments in the Justice Department brief were limited to Prop. 8, but the legal conclusions amount to an argument that all bans on same-sex marriage violate the U.S. Constitution.

WaPo:

The Obama administration on Thursday will ask the Supreme Court to overturn California’s ban on gay marriage and take a skeptical view of similar bans elsewhere, according to a person familiar with the government’s legal filing in the California case.

While the administration’s friend-of-the-court brief in the Proposition 8 case does not call for marriage equality across the United States, it does point the court in that direction.

A Supreme Court ruling in line with the administration’s argument could have broad implications and almost certainly expand the rights of same-sex couples to wed.

Remember, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling striking down Prop 8 was deliberately written narrowly so that it would apply only to California. That was a strategic decision; the thinking was that the Supremes would be more likely to uphold the ruling knowing that the consequences were limited to one state, not all 50. Then, once that decision was on the books as precedent, lower federal courts around the country would/could use it to strike down gay-marriage bans in their own jurisdictions. The Ninth Circuit’s plan was, in other words, an incrementalist plan for legal gay marriage nationwide. Turns out that the DOJ might argue more aggressively than that and call, explicitly or implicitly, for legalizing gay marriage nationwide right now. Even if the brief limits itself to discussing only California, if the DOJ argues broadly that Prop 8 is unconstitutional because gays should have the same right to marry as straights under the Equal Protection Clause, then by that logic all gay-marriage bans everywhere in the U.S. are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, if it sides with that logic, will implicitly make SSM legal everywhere. I thought Obama would once again be the fake centrist pragmatist on this by arguing against Prop 8 but doing it narrowly enough that his brief wouldn’t have national implications. Sounds like I was wrong.

Stand by for updates as we finally see the brief. Exit quotation from CNN: “Sources told CNN that Obama made the final decision over whether to file a brief and what to say.”

Update: The brief is out and it is indeed broad. I’m embedding it below, via BuzzFeed; scroll down to the “Summary of Argument” section starting on page 6. In a nutshell, the DOJ rejects the traditional arguments against gay marriage, most notably that marriage is for straights because it’s ultimately about procreation, and specifically endorses the legal theory that gays, like other minority groups that have been discriminated against historically, should enjoy special protection under the Equal Protection Clause. If the Court agrees with the DOJ on both of those points, it’s hard to see how any SSM ban anywhere survives. However, the DOJ does leave the Court with a tiny bit of wiggle room:

The Court can resolve this case by focusing on the particular circumstances presented by California law and the recognition it gives to committed same-sex relationships, rather than addressing the equal protection issue under circumstances not present here. Under California law, same-sex partners may “enter into an official, state-recognized relationship,” i.e., a domestic partnership. Pet. App. 48a. State law grants domestic partners all of the substantive rights and obligations of a married couple: domestic partners have “the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law * * * as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” Cal. Fam. Code § 297.5(a). Same-sex partners in California may, inter alia, raise children with the same rights and obligations as spouses; adopt each other’s children; gain a presumption of parentage for a child born to or adopted by one partner; become foster parents; file joint state tax returns; participate in a partner’s health-insurance policy; visit their partner when hospitalized; make medical decisions for a partner; and,upon the death of a partner, serve as the conservator of the partner’s estate. Pet. App. 49a-50a. California has therefore recognized that same-sex couples form deeply committed relationships that bear the hallmarks of their neighbors’ opposite-sex marriages: they establish homes and lives together, support each other financially, share the joys and burdens of raising children, and provide care through illness and comfort at the moment of death.

Proposition 8 nevertheless forbids committed same-sex couples from solemnizing their union in marriage, and instead relegates them to a legal status—domestic partnership—distinct from marriage but identical to it in terms of the substantive rights and obligations understate law.

In other words, by passing a domestic partnership law that’s entirely the same as marriage except in name, California’s effectively admitting that there’s no substantive reason to deny gays the right to call themselves “married.” It’s pure discrimination, withholding the label from them just to remind them that they’re different. If the Court buys that logic, then in theory its decision could be limited to California and the three other states (Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) that have similarly broad partnership laws. Every other state with a gay-marriage ban would be safe from their ruling — for the moment. But of course, if the Court rules that way, then they’re creating a perverse incentive from the pro-SSM perspective for other states to strip gays of rights that have already been granted to them legislatively (via domestic partnership, civil unions, etc) so that they can argue in court that gays are “substantively” different under the law and therefore don’t deserve marriage rights. That possibility is why the DOJ spends so much time in the brief arguing against all the traditional justifications for banning SSM; they’re making a robust constitutional case because they want the logic of the Court’s ruling, if not the holding itself, to ensure legalization coast to coast. We’re a long way from summer 2008, if only rhetorically.

12-144 UnitedStates by Chris Geidner


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

I eagerly await discussion with someone who would at least express some intellectual honesty and not having to resort to strawman

JetBoy on March 1, 2013 at 10:46 AM

You engage the people you choose to engage. That is on you. But, I will ask you – define “marriage” and “legalize.”

besser tot als rot on March 1, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Dude. Your entire argument is based on a strawman. Physician heal thyself.

besser tot als rot on March 1, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Against my better judgement…what, pray tell, is the strawman my “entire argument” is based on?

JetBoy on March 1, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Against my better judgement…what, pray tell, is the strawman my “entire argument” is based on?

JetBoy on March 1, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Definitions. Changing the meaning of words in this context to make your argument and arrive at your desired result. When you lie about what words mean, it is easy to arrive at a desired conclusion. Obama is notorious for this.

besser tot als rot on March 1, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Is “marriage” a covenant between two people or between two people and the government? Is “marriage” a covenant between two people or a contract between two people for obtaining statist benefit?

Is “legalize” to make legal and allowed, or is it to recognize, validate, and affirm by the government? When people talk about “legalizing” marijuana, for instance, which are they talking about?

besser tot als rot on March 1, 2013 at 11:08 AM

GhoulAid on March 1, 2013 at 9:31 AM

We’ll be celebrating Christmas in hiding not long from now.

hawkdriver on March 1, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Yep.

The oldschool Penal Laws enacted by Parliament in Ireland are headed our way.

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 11:10 AM

So marriage outside of religion isn’t…marriage?

Oh, brother.

Anyway, I’m done with this discussion for the day…I’ve been down this same street with the same people saying the same things too many times.

I eagerly await discussion with someone who would at least express some intellectual honesty and not having to resort to strawman, crystal ball-gazing, using Christianity or any religion as a crutch, and blanket condemnation.

JetBoy on March 1, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Would you agree that gay unions are materially different than straight unions? If so then why shouldn’t the state treat them differently?

Civil unions – marriage – are not about love or feelings or even just relationships. They’re centered around a relationship that is the center of society and is the only union capable of regenerating and perpetuating society. Simply put straight unions provide a public/cultural/social good that gay unions simply cannot. State licensed marriages is simply a recognition of this immutable fact of nature and culture and society.

I’d say that the government has associated too many things with civil unions and this presents a problem because marriage becomes a vehicle to access (or more properly stated make easier to access) some things that either the government shouldn’t be doing at all or should be more broadly available. 99% of what most gay couples want fall into this category. So I can understand why you’d want civil unions for gay couples.

On the other hand there are a lot of gay union advocates who don’t primarily want the “access” they want to use this as a tool to push churches out of the public square, enforce acceptance (not just tolerance) of their lifestyle and generally bully people around who disagree with them. These people – unfortunately – drive most of the debate and have most of the political power in the gay movement.

gwelf on March 1, 2013 at 11:15 AM

.

Proposition 8 nevertheless forbids committed same-sex couples from solemnizing their union in marriage, and instead relegates them to a legal status—domestic partnership—distinct from marriage but identical to it in terms of the substantive rights and obligations understate law.

This is just sick. The Obama administration is basically saying that it is de facto discrimination to use 2 different words for similar things. Despite the fact that government does this ALL THE TIME. See corporations and partnerships.

Prop 8 is an amendment. Now the people can’t even tell their government how to use a word, even by amendment. It’s crazy.

How long have gay marriage proponents spent trying to claim religious considerations should play no part in a law? And now the Obama admin says a gay union must be called marriage by the government to solemnize their union in marriage. When has the GOVERNMENT ever solemnized a wedding? Does the government solemnize public action now?

California has therefore recognized that same-sex couples form deeply committed relationships that bear the hallmarks of their neighbors’ opposite-sex marriages: they establish homes and lives together, support each other financially, share the joys and burdens of raising children, and provide care through illness and comfort at the moment of death.

None of these things, NONE, are required to get a marriage license. Why are they even being brought up? If I flat out state I will do none of these things when applying for a marriage license will they refuse to issue one? No. Plus all of these same arguments can be made for any type of union you could think of. Why should only gay unions be “solemnized”?

Rocks on March 1, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Here’s a thought experiment. Lets assume that no gay couple ever sues a church to force them to perform a gay marriage against their will/teachings. What harm does same-sex marriage have on society. I am genuinely curious.

libfreeordie on March 1, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Here’s a thought experiment. Lets assume that no gay couple ever sues a church to force them to perform a gay marriage against their will/teachings. What harm does same-sex marriage have on society. I am genuinely curious.

libfreeordie on March 1, 2013 at 11:19 AM

And, let’s presume that even now, you’re riding a unicorn aound the college campus.

kingsjester on March 1, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Is DOMA still the law of the land? If so, then the DOJ will be breaking the law.

sadatoni on March 1, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Here’s a thought experiment. Lets assume that no gay couple ever sues a church to force them to perform a gay marriage against their will/teachings. What harm does same-sex marriage have on society. I am genuinely curious.

libfreeordie on March 1, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Redefining marriage, especially by judicial fiat, will reek the same havoc with our laws as redefining life did with Roe vs. Wade. Who the hell ever gave these people such authority? Why should a gay union be called marriage anyway? The only consistent definition of marriage throughout history is the union of a man and a woman. A gay union does not contain those things so why should it be called marriage? Why shouldn’t a different word be used? They are different by definition.

The people now apparently should not even have the right to tell their own government how to define a word. Not even with an amendment.You don’t see the problem with this and the process used to achieve it? Really?

Rocks on March 1, 2013 at 11:26 AM

yes it is! you are forcing traditions in america to be changed to suit your wants and needs. gay marriage is just the next awful step.

GhoulAid on March 1, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Strawman.

Gay marriage doesn’t force anything on anyone. Straight, or “traditional” marriage remains exactly the same, nothing is changed. Nothing.

And not to mention, you must want American traditions like slavery to return, burning “witches” at the stake, and other American traditions like those, no?

JetBoy on March 1, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Please explain to the rest of the class exactly How traditional religions will remain constitutionally protected if they refuse to marry homosexuals when ordered to comply with a federal mandate making it illegal discrimination to refuse.

Please explain to the rest of the class How there is no Constitutional Conflict in this case before SCOTUS.

Please explain to the rest of the class Why Homosexuals should be a protected class and that protection of their special status prevails over the Constitutional Protections of Religious Freedom, which protects Religions from Coercion by the State.

You who claim to be catholic have become a willing tool in the Fascist Attack on the Church you claim.

Look in the mirror…There stands the enemy.

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Here’s a thought experiment. Lets assume that no gay couple ever sues a church to force them to perform a gay marriage against their will/teachings. What harm does same-sex marriage have on society. I am genuinely curious.

libfreeordie on March 1, 2013 at 11:19 AM

What harm does it do to society if the Catholic church only wants to run an adoption agency that hands of kids to straight married couples?

Here’s a reality check: gay people are suing religious institutions, private institutions, businesses, and professionals. The reality is that “gay equality” is already being used as a tool to push institutions and individuals out of the public square and “gay marriage” will only amplify that.

Also, the question of what harm same-sex marriage has on society is a completely different question of whether or not the government should “license” it. The government doesn’t license all sorts of things that are allowed and permitted in society (you know the concept of liberty where things can exist outside the auspices of government). Gay marriage is allowed in society.

Straight unions are materially different than gay unions and it’s not unreasonable or an act of inequality for the government to acknowledge this fact. In fact the government has all sorts of regulations granting special benefits to women based on their differences from men.

gwelf on March 1, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Here’s a thought experiment. Lets assume that no gay couple ever sues a church to force them to perform a gay marriage against their will/teachings. What harm does same-sex marriage have on society. I am genuinely curious.

libfreeordie on March 1, 2013 at 11:19 AM

And, let’s presume that even now, you’re riding a unicorn aound the college campus.

kingsjester on March 1, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Libfreeordie…Let’s pretend Homosexuals have never invaded Catholic Churches during Mass throwing sacrilegious tantrums and bullying parishioners.

(Funny…they don’t protest in Mosques)

Let’s pretend there aren’t multiple law suits against Churches,Parochial Schools,Colleges and Christian Businesses as part of a strategy to bankrupt Christian opponents.

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 11:37 AM

I guess it doesn’t matter what the voters have thought over the last twelve years if mr. obama is for it, …….right?

Vntnrse on March 1, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Here’s a thought experiment. Lets assume that no gay couple ever sues a church to force them to perform a gay marriage against their will/teachings. What harm does same-sex marriage have on society. I am genuinely curious.

libfreeordie on March 1, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Ask the people being sued “under equal protection clause” by the GLBT groups. Ask parents who are told by a court system that their children must learn that homosexual relationships are normal despite their belief systems. Ask children who are forced to change in front of opposite gender children in locker rooms because those children “think” they their gender, and if they don’t they get punished for insensitivity. It is all part and parcel of the same agenda and it is being pushed on people via “equal protection.” The movement is not about live and let live; it is about coercion and force– and it is the height of delusion to think that that won’t carry over into churches.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Here’s another thought experiment. Think of how “gay marriage” came on the scene and the process which has been used to promote it and manipulate the courts.

The word Lake has had a fairly consistent definition throughout history. To promote wetlands the government decides to give tax breaks and benefits to people/states who have or establish lakes.
Everybody thinks this is great. Who doesn’t love wetlands right?
The people of Wisconsin are especially happy being the Land of Ten Thousand Lakes and all. For 200+ years nobody has a problem with this. Then suddenly someone in Arizona sees the disparity here. They have few lakes. This is discrimination. After all Arizonians love wetlands too. Someone gets the bright idea that the state will legally redefine the word lake to include swimming pools. It’s only fair as pools are a body of water too right? You would have to be a bigot to disagree.

You can see where this is going and why this process is bad, bad bad. If this works it’s basically a Swiss Army Knife of ways for liberals to rework the basic processes of how laws work. It’s disastrous.

Rocks on March 1, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Here’s another thought experiment. Think of how “gay marriage” came on the scene and the process which has been used to promote it and manipulate the courts.
Rocks on March 1, 2013 at 11:52 AM

It’s also noteworthy that not just 20 years ago the gay community generally disdained marriage as a bourgeois institution that had nothing to do with them and was a vestige of a deteriorating culture. Now it’s a fundamental human right.

Curiously black slaves and blacks living under Jim Crow never had this same ambivalent history of regard towards their status in society.

gwelf on March 1, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Keep it at the state level. I support gay marriage however, each state sets a different age limit on marriage and I don’t see the Feds getting involved to make it a universal age. My inclination is the state has the choice to ISSUE a license of marriage or not. Just as they have a choice to issue a driver’s license. The only reason I see the Feds getting involved is so that all states recognize other states licenses regardless of hetrosexual or homosexual. Not all states agree on the age of marriage but they will still recognize the marriage. So it can be done.

TturnP on March 1, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Here’s another thought experiment. Think of how “gay marriage” came on the scene and the process which has been used to promote it and manipulate the courts.

The word Lake has had a fairly consistent definition throughout history. To promote wetlands the government decides to give tax breaks and benefits to people/states who have or establish lakes.
Everybody thinks this is great. Who doesn’t love wetlands right?
The people of Wisconsin are especially happy being the Land of Ten Thousand Lakes and all. For 200+ years nobody has a problem with this. Then suddenly someone in Arizona sees the disparity here. They have few lakes. This is discrimination. After all Arizonians love wetlands too. Someone gets the bright idea that the state will legally redefine the word lake to include swimming pools. It’s only fair as pools are a body of water too right? You would have to be a bigot to disagree.

You can see where this is going and why this process is bad, bad bad. If this works it’s basically a Swiss Army Knife of ways for liberals to rework the basic processes of how laws work. It’s disastrous.

Rocks on March 1, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Nice analogy…

Here’s another Thought Experiment…

Consider the term Female

Now historically Female was defined as a specific biological gender.

Now modern science has made it possible for biological Males to have surgery and consume drugs to perpetuate an illusion or artifice of Femaleness.

These people sue to have the legal term Female changed because they Feel female now that they have completed the process of self mutilation.

The artificial Females insist on Legal protections that perpetuate their fraud such as changing their Birth Certificates.

The artificial Females insist on competing against natural Females in Sports, where they likely have advantages.

The artificial gender swappers of both sexes insist children be taught that gender swapping is natural.

The artificial Females insist on forcing civic authorities to allow them access to segregated Female Private Spaces.

The artificial Females and artificial Males lobby to coerce Institutions and the State pay for their expensive psychotherapy, mutilating surgery and Drugs.

The artificial Females expect society to support their right of deception and seek to overturn gender roles and policies altogether.

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Here’s a thought experiment. Lets assume that no gay couple ever sues a church to force them to perform a gay marriage against their will/teachings. What harm does same-sex marriage have on society. I am genuinely curious.

libfreeordie on March 1, 2013 at 11:19 AM

No, you’re not.

You’re avoiding reality, which is that gay-sex bigots like you ARE suing churches, ARE suing businesses, and ARE abusing governmental power to force people to act against their will.

So your gay-sex marriage push IS already damaging society and violating peoples’ Constitutional rights.

Just like your promiscuity push in the 1960s wreaked havoc in the black community and has created an entire generation of bastard children because black men like you wanted to be playas.

Of course, your degree in Black Skin has rendered you both incapable of thinking and incapable of taking responsibility for your own actions.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2013 at 12:41 PM

The movement is not about live and let live; it is about coercion and force– and it is the height of delusion to think that that won’t carry over into churches.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Yup.

Does anyone here seriously believe that “Catholic” JetBoy won’t use the power of government to demand that his church push gay-sex marriage?

That really shows the problem. The vast majority of gays are like JetBoy and libfreeordie — they want society to judge them, pay them. and obey them based on their sexual orientation rather than their character.

This is one of the fundamental problems that conservatives and Republicans have. We can’t appeal to people like libfreeordie and JetBoy because being judged on character means a) actually having some and b) actually doing some work. It’s much easier to demand payments based on minority status, and also allows people like JetBoy and libfreeordie to deny rights and payments to others for being the “wrong” skin color or sexual orientation. Hence they follow Obama and the Obama Party, both of which endorse and support racial, religious and sexual orientation discrimination.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Strawman.

Gay marriage doesn’t force anything on anyone. Straight, or “traditional” marriage remains exactly the same, nothing is changed. Nothing.

JetBoy on March 1, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Sorry, JetBoy, it is you who is employing the strawman. Gay marriage as you are suggesting is already legal. What you want is gay marriage that comes with governmental benefits that do indeed impact us (e.g., via decreased tax receipts, greater government debt, greater corporate costs in covering spousal benefits, and the like). Now, maybe all of that is worth it, but why don’t you try to stop lying about what is at stake and what is not?

besser tot als rot on March 1, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Anyway, I’m done with this discussion for the day…I’ve been down this same street with the same people saying the same things too many times.
I eagerly await discussion with someone who would at least express some intellectual honesty and not having to resort to strawman, crystal ball-gazing, using Christianity or any religion as a crutch, and blanket condemnation.
JetBoy on March 1, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Running away again huh?

You refuse to acknowledge any valid arguments and want to narrow the argument to “two people should do whatever they want together”

Fine. How about government recognition of master slave relationships. Y’know… The BDSM kind…
That’s not “marriage” but it is a relationship that deserves government oversight and equal rights taxation…
Right?

Skywise on March 1, 2013 at 12:48 PM

What harm does same-sex marriage have on society. I am genuinely curious.

libfreeordie

You can start with this.

Knott Buyinit on March 1, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Be interesting to see what effect this has on states like North Carolina, who have passed state constitutional amendments stating marriage is strictly heterosexual.

I have never understood why gay folks insist anything other that the truth – there is NOWHERE in the US where same-sex marriage is “illegal.” This is not about wanting to be married – forget the phony baloney knee-jerk emotional pleas. This is about money, plain and simple.

Every single family law in every single state and the Federal government would have to be rewritten, at taxpayer expense, to cover same-sex divorce issues (and do NOT try to claim it won’t happen).

Civil unions are perfectly legal to handle every single “issue” that LGBTs have, but they DEMAND the definition of marriage be changed.

Here’s a hint – even in heterosexual unions, the “marriage” part is the RELIGIOUS part, this is why any preacher performing a marriage ALWAYS ends with “By the power vested in me by Almighty God and the State of …”, but a JoP does not mention God once.

PJ Emeritus on March 1, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Every single family law in every single state and the Federal government would have to be rewritten, at taxpayer expense, to cover same-sex divorce issues (and do NOT try to claim it won’t happen).

Why would all the family law statutes have to be rewritten? Instead of “man/wife” the designations would be “party A/Party B”.

Civil unions are perfectly legal to handle every single “issue” that LGBTs have, but they DEMAND the definition of marriage be changed.

Civil unions are this generation’s “separate but equal.”

Here’s a hint – even in heterosexual unions, the “marriage” part is the RELIGIOUS part, this is why any preacher performing a marriage ALWAYS ends with “By the power vested in me by Almighty God and the State of …”, but a JoP does not mention God once.

PJ Emeritus on March 1, 2013 at 1:27 PM

So because a JoP doesn’t mention God, the marriage is invalid?

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 1:38 PM

chumpThreads, you are an idiot. I never said they were invalid I said it is semantics – “marriage” is a religious concept. Civil Unions are why you need a Marriage License, they are the purview of the government. A religious officiant is performing BOTH ceremonies simultaneously.

And civil unions are no such thing, dippy. As I just pointed out in the previous paragraph, heterosexual couples ALSO have the civil union – the part under the purview of the government.

And JUST to change man/wife to Party A/Party B will never happen. Just as everything else the government does, no matter how simple YOU think it will be – it will NOT.

PJ Emeritus on March 1, 2013 at 1:42 PM

chumpThreads, you are an idiot.
PJ Emeritus on March 1, 2013 at 1:42 PM

That’s the general consensus around here.

kingsjester on March 1, 2013 at 1:45 PM

The movement is not about live and let live; it is about coercion and force– and it is the height of delusion to think that that won’t carry over into churches.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Yup.

Does anyone here seriously believe that “Catholic” JetBoy won’t use the power of government to demand that his church push gay-sex marriage?

That really shows the problem. The vast majority of gays are like JetBoy and libfreeordie — they want society to judge them, pay them. and obey them based on their sexual orientation rather than their character.

This is one of the fundamental problems that conservatives and Republicans have. We can’t appeal to people like libfreeordie and JetBoy because being judged on character means a) actually having some and b) actually doing some work. It’s much easier to demand payments based on minority status, and also allows people like JetBoy and libfreeordie to deny rights and payments to others for being the “wrong” skin color or sexual orientation. Hence they follow Obama and the Obama Party, both of which endorse and support racial, religious and sexual orientation discrimination.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2013 at 12:46 PM

And evidently both of these moonbats are in great denial as to the factual history of Fascism with regards to both groups once the Fascists gain total power.

Obama is a Fascist who has organized a personality cult centered on himself and flaming minority grievance real or imagined. Democrats will work to overturn the amendment that limits presidential terms to 2 terms…

In order to do this Democrats must gain majorities in both houses in the upcoming congressional elections and this is why Obama is still in campaign mode.

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 1:46 PM

PJ Emeritus on March 1, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Texas has a similar amendment in their state constitution.

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Exactly, forcing a change to the definition os the WORD marriage is precisely to go after the churches on yet another front.

PJ Emeritus on March 1, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Civil unions are this generation’s “separate but equal.”

Nope.

I find it funny when racists like yourself try to pervert the language of the civil rights era, especially since you and your Barack Obama openly call for racial discrimination and quotas.

You are a bigot, chumpy. We already proved that on multiple occasions. Furthermore, you are a homophobe and an exploiter, given how you attempt to use gay people as an excuse for your outright attacks on and disregard for the First Amendment and other actual WRITTEN law.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2013 at 1:55 PM

“It is hard to imagine a more aggressively anti-marriage administration. In his first term, he undercut DOMA at every turn, dispensing federal benefits to same-sex couples (which includes time off to take care of “children not related by blood or adoption”) , authorizing gay nuptials at military bases, and ordering the Justice Department to cast a blind eye to it all. Meanwhile, many of his agencies, no matter how lowly, operated as propaganda mills for gay marriage. The Department of Agriculture, of all places, held seminars on “heterosexism,” instructing federal employees that opposition to gay marriage is no different than racism.

For his Department of Education, he named as “Safe Schools Czar” a homosexual activist, Kevin Jennings, who had written the foreword to a book titled Queering Elementary Education. Not long thereafter, the Department of Education boasted its first “LGBT Youth Summit,” at which plans were formed for spreading gay activism to schools across the country. “Your federal government has finally come out of the closet in support of LGBT youth,” burbled one official. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius denounced “homophobes” and promised to LGBT youth, “I want to tell you, you have a friend in this administration, who will stand beside you each and every step along the way.”

The promotion of gay marriage hasn’t even been restricted to our own borders. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton announced in 2011 that urging countries to adopt gay rights formed a “priority” of American foreign policy. She instructed diplomats to operate like gay rights activists abroad, outfitting them with a “toolkit” designed to teach them how to dispel the notion that such lifestyle choices as gay marriage and sex-change operations are merely “Western” phenomena…

When it comes to marriage, Obama respects neither natural law nor even positive law. What God and Congress have joined together, he feels free to put asunder.

“In practice they can just look the other way. But this is not the way our government was intended to work,” House Speaker John Boehner has said. Indeed, America’s Founding Fathers would have regarded Obama’s open defiance of DOMA as a tyrannical act. In his inaugural oath, he promised to uphold the law. On DOMA, he is actively subverting it.

Last week, his Justice Department filed a brief with the Supreme Court, urging it to discard DOMA on the grounds that the law violates the “fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection.” This is the chimerical catch-all phrase of liberals who want to ignore justly enacted laws and smuggle their ideology into the Constitution.

The spectacle of the federal government filing briefs against federal laws (in this case, a law signed by Bill Clinton) is ridiculous. The Justice Department exists to enforce the law, not to serve as pro bono counsel for gay activists who seek to violate it…”

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/president-obamas-war-on-marriage?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CrisisMagazine+%28Crisis+Magazine%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Civil unions are this generation’s “separate but equal.”

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 1:38 PM

That is an insult to human intelligence. Since when can a groups PRIVATE sexual orientation and “struggle” to be recognized (and accepted), by a church they don’t even believe in, ever be compared to a specific skin color and their genuine struggle to be treated fairly?!

The comparison is completely ridiculous. But im going to throw you the biggest bone of all: Lets say for all intents and purposes, its upheld and gay “marriage” is the law of the land. DO you seriously believe that the vast majority of gays seeking marriage will COMMIT and actually be MONOGAMOUS?!

There might even be a large smidgen of sympathy for “gay rights” if that were the case. As it is, there is none (for that specific reason).

nobar on March 1, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Civil unions are this generation’s “separate but equal.”

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 1:38 PM

A Homosexuals civil right of choice in consenting sexual behavior has been legally guaranteed.

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Ok, I’ve never interacted with you on in this forum before, so I’m going to overlook the name calling this once. I replied to your post without calling you names; I hope you have the courtesy to do the same.

chumpThreads, you are an idiot. I never said they were invalid I said it is semantics – “marriage” is a religious concept.

You’re confusing religious rites with the act itself. According to Merriam-Webster: “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage . It’s the name for what ends up being a mutual agreement to live together…”
Some states recognize Common Law marriages; no religous implications involved.

Civil Unions are why you need a Marriage License, they are the purview of the government. A religious officiant is performing BOTH ceremonies simultaneously.

This makes no sense. In my state, if you’re married by a JoP, you still need a marriage license. You’re not making any sense.

And civil unions are no such thing, dippy. As I just pointed out in the previous paragraph, heterosexual couples ALSO have the civil union – the part under the purview of the government.

Hetero couple also have access to marriage, which same sex couples do not. That’s what this is all about. Your “purview of the government” is incoherent. Neither one of us has any idea what you’re talking about.

And JUST to change man/wife to Party A/Party B will never happen. Just as everything else the government does, no matter how simple YOU think it will be – it will NOT.

PJ Emeritus on March 1, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Says you.

It can and WILL happen nationwide, eventually, whatever the SCOTUS does next summer. SSM is legal in my state, and the family law statutes are not an issue.

Just because you don’t want change to happen, doesn’t mean it won’t.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 2:15 PM

A Homosexuals civil right of choice in consenting sexual behavior has been legally guaranteed.

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Beside the point. So has a heterosexual’s.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 2:16 PM

That is an insult to human intelligence. Since when can a groups PRIVATE sexual orientation and “struggle” to be recognized (and accepted), by a church they don’t even believe in, ever be compared to a specific skin color and their genuine struggle to be treated fairly?!

Easily.

Jim Crow laws had no rational basis other than to discriminate against a segment of our population. Laws prohibiting SSM equally lack a genuine rational other than “ewww, I don’t like gays.”

Offering a substitute form of “marriage” (civil unions) is the equivalent of offering an alternate water fountain for waiting room. Gay rights is the Civil Rights movement of this generation. You can deny it all you want, but that won’t change the fact.

The comparison is completely ridiculous. But im going to throw you the biggest bone of all: Lets say for all intents and purposes, its upheld and gay “marriage” is the law of the land. DO you seriously believe that the vast majority of gays seeking marriage will COMMIT and actually be MONOGAMOUS?!

There might even be a large smidgen of sympathy for “gay rights” if that were the case. As it is, there is none (for that specific reason).

nobar on March 1, 2013 at 2:03 PM

HAHAHAHAhahahahaha! Stop it nobar, you’re killing me!

Deny gays the right to marry because they might break their marriage vows? *chortle*. You’re actually serious, aren’t you?

Oh, and that “large smidgen” is now majority polling in support of gay rights/SSM.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 2:28 PM

blink on March 1, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Yes, I’m content with Party A and Party B right now.

Call me names all you want, but I’m not going to get on your slippery slope carnival ride.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 2:31 PM

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Homosexuality is not a race. It is a sexual preference.

To try to justtify changing the definition of a word that is thousands of years old, just so you and Bubba the Love Sponge cn shack up for a couple of years, shave each others backs, and divorce, is ludicrous.

kingsjester on March 1, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Says you.

It can and WILL happen nationwide, eventually, whatever the SCOTUS does next summer. SSM is legal in my state, and the family law statutes are not an issue.
Just because you don’t want change to happen, doesn’t mean it won’t.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Except when it comes to couples with children. Same sex couples with children do, however, change the whole family court statutes when it comes to children. Why? Because of instead of taking care of the issue by having one partner adopt the other’s bio children; they are throwing a tandrum and wanting another set of special rights whereas a non-bio person automatically gets right to a child just because of a sexual relationship they have with their bio parents. This doesn’t even happen in “step parent” relationships unless the step parent ACTUALLY adopts the child. So yes, the statutes will have to change as divorces become more prevalent. SSM marriage is relatively new. Statutes are created when problems happen, and problems will happen.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Serious question — if this passes, what is stopping legal incest polygamy or pedo stuff. Don’t attack me just asking. What’s the legal basis for not those but yes to SSM

pamplonajack on February 28, 2013 at 8:28 PM

As a lawyer, technically the answer is there’s “not much is stopping it”. I’ve made this point since it was brought up by a family law profession in law school 10 years back, and a lib professor to boot.

Legally, it’s “same sex marriage”, not “gay marriage”. No need to demonstrate a homo act for the court records dept. to get a license. And even so, two brothers won’t reproduce, and if it’s consensual, no one is hurt, “who are you to tell me who to love”, yadda yadda, then why won’t it happen?

As far as pedo, it’s limited only by the legal fiction of “consent” which can be moved up, down or eliminated, but if pedos run a line about how “I’m born that way” and “that’s my sexual orientation”, then it ain’t just a criminal act anymore (like sodomy once was) and they could get any protection provided to a sexual orientation if it’s made a “protected class”. So when gays what “sexual orientation” protected, watch out. gays HATE this argument, cause they know it’s true and can’t fight it.

As for dogs, etc., well, if the dog’s your property and you’re not “hurting it”, then hell’s a poppin’, isn’t it?

It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen. I used to fear it as an abstract (like foreign invasion, say), but now I’m convinced of it. Gird your loins.

Saltyron on March 1, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Easily.

Jim Crow laws had no rational basis other than to discriminate against a segment of our population. Laws prohibiting SSM equally lack a genuine rational other than “ewww, I don’t like gays.”

Offering a substitute form of “marriage” (civil unions) is the equivalent of offering an alternate water fountain for waiting room. Gay rights is the Civil Rights movement of this generation. You can deny it all you want, but that won’t change the fact.

Race is a genetic OBJECTIVE qualifying characteristic that is easily recognizable by an outside source and therefore can be fought or defended in court. Sexual preference is not objective or genetic but is entirely subjective. It is not a characteristic but a behavior. You can walk into a bar and people won’t know you are gay, but you can’t walk into a bar and hide your are black.

And yes, there are lots of rationales for being against SSM marriage- lots of legal rationale. You tend to stick your fingers in your ears and say “nanannaa boo boo can’t hear you you bigots.” Or “you are wrong, because I think you are wrong.”

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Saltyron on March 1, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Exactly, once marriage becomes based solely on equal protection with no compelling reason for the state to regulate it then there is no reason to deny any other combination marriage licenses.

Same sex advocates have argued so vigorously that procreation is not a reason to deny marriage licenses but that is the ONLY reason that incestuous couples are denied marriage licenses.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Nothing about same-sex marriage alters the legal principle of consent, which governs everything from contract law to sexual assault law.

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 8:41 PM

Good ole’ Libfreeordie, sick fudge that he is, chimes in with my proof for me.

His argument sounds so solid, doesn’t it? It’s not – it’s a smokescreen. “Consent, grumble grumble, never be changed, solid, A-OK, etc.”.

If a 12 year old girl can consent to an abortion, then she can consent to sex, right? That would be a few years lower than 16-17 like now. Ya down with that, or no?

If 12, why not 10? 8? 5?

Saltyron on March 1, 2013 at 2:41 PM

I will opt out and pay the fine..

Electrongod on February 28, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Either way, you take it up the @$$.

Saltyron on March 1, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Except when it comes to couples with children. Same sex couples with children do, however, change the whole family court statutes when it comes to children. Why? Because of instead of taking care of the issue by having one partner adopt the other’s bio children; they are throwing a tandrum and wanting another set of special rights whereas a non-bio person automatically gets right to a child just because of a sexual relationship they have with their bio parents. This doesn’t even happen in “step parent” relationships unless the step parent ACTUALLY adopts the child. So yes, the statutes will have to change as divorces become more prevalent. SSM marriage is relatively new. Statutes are created when problems happen, and problems will happen.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Really are you saying this is the case for every same sex couple? Can you send me a link to where you found this information?

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Really are you saying this is the case for every same sex couple? Can you send me a link to where you found this information?

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 2:43 PM

You really are an idiot– And should really spend more time looking at the news than on this board if you haven’t seen any of these cases, because there have been several public ones. Here is one for your information– anymore you can take the time to look up yourself.

And futhermore ignoramous it doesn’t have to be EVERY same sex couple to have to overhaul a whole family court system; it only has to be a couple of complicated cases that are brought to lawmakers attention via precendent etc. You have no working knowledge of the law do you?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/lesbian-legal-fight-florida-mom-birth-biological-mother/story?id=15291765

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Same sex advocates have argued so vigorously that procreation is not a reason to deny marriage licenses but that is the ONLY reason that incestuous couples are denied marriage licenses.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 2:41 PM

And BINGO was his name-o.

Saltyron on March 1, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Here is another case for you Chump

A Christian woman in Virginia who was ordered to turn over her daughter to her former lesbian partner in Vermont did not do so by the set deadline, a lawyer for the second woman reported.

Lisa Miller had been ordered by a judge in Vermont to turn over her daughter, Isabella, to Janet Jenkins by 1 p.m. Friday, but has not shown up, Sarah Star, Jenkins’s lawyer, told the New York Times.

Officer Tawny Wright, a Fairfax County police spokeswoman, meanwhile, said the Jenkins family had called the police and that a detective is investigating.

For the time being, the case remains a civil matter, Wright added.

Last week, Vermont Family Court Judge William Cohen, who awarded custody of Isabella to Jenkins on Nov. 20, noted that Miller appeared to have “disappeared with the minor child” and ceased communication with her attorneys.

For the past five years, Miller and Jenkins have been engaged in a custody battle over Isabella, who was conceived when the two women were living together in Virginia. Miller, a born-again Christian, had renounced her homosexuality just a few years after entering into a civil union with Jenkins in Vermont in 2000. Jenkins, on the other hand, is today still an active lesbian and has expressed disapproval in raising Isabella in a Christian home.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 2:50 PM

A Homosexuals civil right of choice in consenting sexual behavior has been legally guaranteed.

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Beside the point. So has a heterosexual’s.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 2:16 PM

No it is not beside the point.

Homosexuals are not denied mutually consensual sex under the law.

Homosexual activists conflate the two issues claiming discrimination and appealing for federal intervention through the Supreme Court…Federal overturning of the will of California voters in Prop 8.

If Homosexual activists force Homosexual Marriage to become the law of the land how do you expect the government to force traditional religions to marry these couples.

Why do these particular Gay rights super cede the Religious protections of the Constitution…or the protections for Freedom of Speech etc.?

This Fascist Puscht undermines the Constitution…But you know that don’t you.

The end justifies the means…eh?

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Nope CHUMPTHREADS.. No cases going on that would cause the family court systems to have to change laws to accomodate same sex marriage or gay parentage.. nope..

Two dads face off against two moms. It’s perhaps the most unique custody battle in recent Florida history and maybe the most radical verdict. Katherine Alicea and her eight-year partner, Ana Sobrino, decided to have a baby about a half-decade ago. Again and again, they tried using sperm from anonymous donors. But Katherine — a driven real estate agent then in her late 30s — couldn’t get pregnant

Enter their close friend, Ray Janssen, a handsome, gay Air Force veteran.

After some casual negotiation, he donated and Katherine conceived. In August 2006, a sweet and burbling baby whom we’ll call Austin was born. Katherine put Ray’s name on the birth certificate because she wanted the child to know his dad’s identity.

That was a big mistake.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 2:57 PM

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Your name calling is getting a bit tiresome also.

Retract and apologize if you want this discussion to continue.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Your name calling is getting a bit tiresome also.

Retract and apologize if you want this discussion to continue.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Nope, you compare all of us to Jim Crow bigots, and then you want an “apology” because I called you and idiot and an ignoramous because you don’t have a working knowledge of the law.. LMAO!!

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Serious question — if this passes, what is stopping legal incest polygamy or pedo stuff. Don’t attack me just asking. What’s the legal basis for not those but yes to SSM

pamplonajack on February 28, 2013 at 8:28 PM

As a lawyer, technically the answer is there’s “not much is stopping it”. I’ve made this point since it was brought up by a family law profession in law school 10 years back, and a lib professor to boot.

Legally, it’s “same sex marriage”, not “gay marriage”. No need to demonstrate a homo act for the court records dept. to get a license. And even so, two brothers won’t reproduce, and if it’s consensual, no one is hurt, “who are you to tell me who to love”, yadda yadda, then why won’t it happen?

As far as pedo, it’s limited only by the legal fiction of “consent” which can be moved up, down or eliminated, but if pedos run a line about how “I’m born that way” and “that’s my sexual orientation”, then it ain’t just a criminal act anymore (like sodomy once was) and they could get any protection provided to a sexual orientation if it’s made a “protected class”. So when gays what “sexual orientation” protected, watch out. gays HATE this argument, cause they know it’s true and can’t fight it.

As for dogs, etc., well, if the dog’s your property and you’re not “hurting it”, then hell’s a poppin’, isn’t it?

It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen. I used to fear it as an abstract (like foreign invasion, say), but now I’m convinced of it. Gird your loins.

Saltyron on March 1, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Kudos on your argument.

It’s an old story.

We will become a chaotic Pagan society that practices legal abortion,infanticide,assisted suicide and without moral restraint of any kind.

Moral critics, especially religious will be persecuted and martyred.

It will be ugly for a long time.

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 3:01 PM

No it is not beside the point.

Homosexuals are not denied mutually consensual sex under the law.

Homosexual activists conflate the two issues claiming discrimination and appealing for federal intervention through the Supreme Court…Federal overturning of the will of California voters in Prop 8.

Nonsense. You aren’t even close to being correct.

If Homosexual activists force Homosexual Marriage to become the law of the land how do you expect the government to force traditional religions to marry these couples.

Why do these particular Gay rights super cede the Religious protections of the Constitution…or the protections for Freedom of Speech etc.?

They don’t. In my state there is a religious exemption so that religious institutions not only do NOT have to perform same sex weddings, they don’t even have to rent out their facilities to same sex couples. Most, if not all states where SSM is legal have similar protections.

This Fascist Puscht undermines the Constitution…But you know that don’t you.

The end justifies the means…eh?

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Psssst! Your paranoia is showing!

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Psssst! Your paranoia is showing!

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 3:08 PM

No. It’s not. You have a problem with the definition of the word marriage. You want it, because it conveys normalcy to a
hedonistic lifestyle.

And now, you’re at the edge of throwing a hissy fit, because all the push polls in the world, and a petulant president, cannot give you what you want. There are still too many Americans who have no desire to see the definition of the word “marriage” changed to fit a political agenda.

Stinks to be you.

kingsjester on March 1, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Here’s a thought experiment. Lets assume that no gay couple ever sues a church to force them to perform a gay marriage against their will/teachings. What harm does same-sex marriage have on society. I am genuinely curious.

libfreeordie on March 1, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Straw man argument. We absolutely, positively know without a shadow of a doubt that churches will be sued over this. To deny this is to deny that a scorpion’s nature is to sting.

dominigan on March 1, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Psssst! Your paranoia is showing!

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Pssst! Your Fascism is showing!

(eyes rolling here)

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 3:15 PM

It figures the reprobate obamabot is a sodomite as well.

tom daschle concerned on March 1, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Nope, you compare all of us to Jim Crow bigots, and then you want an “apology” because I called you and idiot and an ignoramous because you don’t have a working knowledge of the law.. LMAO!!

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 2:59 PM

I have never called you a name.

If you cannot offer me the same courtesy, then I’ll have no further interaction with you.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 3:17 PM

If you cannot offer me the same courtesy, then I’ll have no further interaction with you.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Add me to that snub list…Please

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 3:20 PM

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 3:20 PM

I’m already on it. When somebody verbally makes him look like the idiot he is, he pulls this garbage.

kingsjester on March 1, 2013 at 3:23 PM

I have never called you a name.

If you cannot offer me the same courtesy, then I’ll have no further interaction with you.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 3:17 PM

I am sorry I called you a personal name. Of course I generally have more respect for people who get in my face than for people who take broad brushes to large swatches of people but you may be different, so for that offense I apologize. In essence though you did however call me a bigot. By comparing anyone who is against same sex marriage to those that were against Jim Crow laws you did exactly that.

You liberals are quite cute you know. You expect courtesy and respect, but yet you feel quite free to call anyone who disagrees with you politically bigots etc. It has worked out quite well for you. Our candidates tend to be scared of it and won’t fight back.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Add me to that snub list…Please

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Hey, nobody forced you to respond to one of my comments.

If you don’t want to talk to me…don’t.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 3:28 PM

I am sorry I called you a personal name. Of course I generally have more respect for people who get in my face than for people who take broad brushes to large swatches of people but you may be different, so for that offense I apologize.

Spoken like a gentleman, sir. Accepted and appreciated.

In essence though you did however call me a bigot. By comparing anyone who is against same sex marriage to those that were against Jim Crow laws you did exactly that.

If I recall, I made a very general statement that “offering civil unions is like offering separate drinking fountains” or something to that effect. I was comparing the concepts and not calling anyone racist or segregationist.

However, I stand by my point. “Marriage-lite” is not the same marriage. We don’t need a two-tier system of matrimony in this country.

You liberals are quite cute you know. You expect courtesy and respect, but yet you feel quite free to call anyone who disagrees with you politically bigots etc. It has worked out quite well for you. Our candidates tend to be scared of it and won’t fight back.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 3:25 PM

I refrain from personal name-calling a much as possible. No, I’m not perfect and have done so in very rare instances. However, it is not off limits to compare and characterize particular political viewpoints within reason.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 3:38 PM

A Homosexuals civil right of choice in consenting sexual behavior has been legally guaranteed.
workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Beside the point. So has a heterosexual’s.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Oh yeah? Please cite a statute, rule, or decision. Pretty much everything that you’ve said this thread is a deflection or is flat out untrue.

It can and WILL happen nationwide, eventually, whatever the SCOTUS does next summer. SSM is legal in my state, and the family law statutes are not an issue.
Just because you don’t want change to happen, doesn’t mean it won’t.
chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 2:15 PM

It is legal in all states. If you don’t think so, please define “marriage” and “legal.”

besser tot als rot on March 1, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Oh yeah? Please cite a statute, rule, or decision. Pretty much everything that you’ve said this thread is a deflection or is flat out untrue.

Do you really need a statute, rule or decision? I think you are the one who wants to deflect.

It is legal in all states. If you don’t think so, please define “marriage” and “legal.”

besser tot als rot on March 1, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Same sex marriage is legal in all states?
That’s the issue under discussion, right?

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Spoken like a gentleman, sir. Accepted and appreciated.

Thank you, but I am a girl dragon.

If I recall, I made a very general statement that “offering civil unions is like offering separate drinking fountains” or something to that effect. I was comparing the concepts and not calling anyone racist or segregationist.

However, I stand by my point. “Marriage-lite” is not the same marriage. We don’t need a two-tier system of matrimony in this country.

Marriage is regulated by the state and thus defined by the state and the voters. There are many people who have sex and do not have a marriage i.e. polyamorous trios and incestuous couples– Do you consider their unions as getting the Jim Crow treatments as well or do you think the state can deny them licensure?

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 3:56 PM

It is legal in all states. If you don’t think so, please define “marriage” and “legal.”

besser tot als rot on March 1, 2013 at 3:42 PM

I think I know exactly what you are getting at. It isn’t illegal for gay marriage. Same sex marriage is isn’t about making same sex marriage legal. It is about state recognition of those unions. Quite a different thing.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Marriage is regulated by the state and thus defined by the state and the voters. There are many people who have sex and do not have a marriage i.e. polyamorous trios and incestuous couples– Do you consider their unions as getting the Jim Crow treatments as well or do you think the state can deny them licensure?

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 3:56 PM

melle1228,
The only issue on the table is two consenting same sex people. As I told blink, I’m not getting on the slippery slope merry go-round.

The nature of marriage has changed thoughout history. It used to be only accessible to opposite sex couples, but that is now changing here and in many other countries. It’s pretty certain that marriage will continue to evolve. Same sex marriage in America is where we are now.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 4:07 PM

melle1228,
The only issue on the table is two consenting same sex people. As I told blink, I’m not getting on the slippery slope merry go-round.

Incestuous couples are two consenting adults. You have to get on the slippery slope because that is what legal precedent does. When you tell states that marriage is strictly a federal precedent and that the state has not legal right to regulate marriage for any reason; that the only need is “consenting adults” then it opens the door IMMEDIATELY to all other groups and combinations. You can stick your fingers in your ears all you want, but that is the legal reality. You cannot make the Jim Crow argument and then say but it doesn’t apply to everyone BECAUSE IT DOES. That argument has consequences. You can’t just say it only applies to the groups you like.

The nature of marriage has changed thoughout history. It used to be only accessible to opposite sex couples, but that is now changing here and in many other countries. It’s pretty certain that marriage will continue to evolve. Same sex marriage in America is where we are now.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Marriage has always until the last 50 or so years been about offspring. It has always included male/female pairings for that very reason. Procreation is the SOLE reason that incestuous couples have been denied the right to get married.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 4:18 PM

The only issue on the table is two consenting same sex people. As I told blink, I’m not getting on the slippery slope merry go-round.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Of course, because you’re a coward who is running away from the obvious.

Fortunately, your lies have already been exposed in the manifestos of the Obama Party and what you endorse and support:

Policy #91, National ACLU Policy on Polygamy, April, 1991: (Current Policy)

The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.

Oh, but there’s more:

Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities – do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example:

· Single parent households

· Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents

· Adult children living with and caring for their parents

· Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives

· Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

· Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

Isn’t it hilarious how Obama supporters like Chumpy actually state and advocate that they want to be able to marry their relatives?

So you’ve screamed and pissed yourself that plural marriage is constitutional, that incestuous marriage is constitutional, that child marriage is constitutional and should be pushed – ALREADY.

So why not answer the question, ChumpThreads? Why are you so afraid of acknowledging what is already being pushed by your Obama Party — sibling, child, and plural marriage?

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2013 at 4:19 PM

They don’t. In my state there is a religious exemption so that religious institutions not only do NOT have to perform same sex weddings, they don’t even have to rent out their facilities to same sex couples. Most, if not all states where SSM is legal have similar protections.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Actually, that is a complete and total lie.

Gay-sex marriage supporters like ChumpThreads regularly use governmental power to silence and punish religious beliefs in states with so-called “religious exemptions”.

Enter City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. The future mayoral candidate drew her line of opposition to the chicken sandwich purveyor, stating, “Chick-fil-A is not welcome in New York City as long as the company’s president welcomes continues to uphold and promote his discriminatory views.”

She is referring to President Dan Cathy’s remarks on his defense the ‘biblical definition of marriage’ and how America should stop questioning God – these statements were mentioned in yesterday’s piece as well. For Ms. Quinn, the ‘biblical definition of marriage’ is a far cry from reality, especially since she recently wed her longtime partner, Kim M. Catullo.

And, with that, she has started her campaign to boot this organization from NYC’s restaurant ranks.

And there are even more examples.

This is just appalling. A government official thinks that the proper “consequence” for a business owner’s “statements and beliefs” is the denial of the ability to do business. Because he’s “sure the majority of” his constituents find the owner’s “comments and attitudes repugnant,” it’s just fine for him to use the coercive power of the government to block the business from opening up a store. His “belief in equality is resolute,” and that apparently justifies him discriminating against businesspeople for exercising their First Amendment rights to speak out. They “should really reconsider [their] platform on gay issues,” or else the government of Chicago will exclude them from the alderman’s ward.

Meanwhile, the Obama Party and the Obama regime, through its insane anti-religious bigot Chai Feldblum, has openly stated:

But the bottom line for Feldblum is: “Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

So the insane bigot Feldblum and her Obama Party intend to force churches to marry gays because “sexual liberty” trumps religious liberty.

Therefore, you lie, ChumpThreads. You and your segregationist Obama Party are up to your old tricks again, where people who do not toe your racial line will be punished by your racist Obama Party and its racist hatemongering bigots like Feldblum.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Do you really need a statute, rule or decision? I think you are the one who wants to deflect.

I think that you are lying or just making stuff up. If the question is so easy to answer, do so.

Same sex marriage is legal in all states?
That’s the issue under discussion, right?
chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 3:51 PM

That’s what you are alleging. I don’t think that it is. Which is why I want you to define “marriage” and “legal.” Should be pretty easy.

besser tot als rot on March 1, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Incestuous couples are two consenting adults. You have to get on the slippery slope because that is what legal precedent does.

Not necessarily. You’ll remember that after the Loving case in 1967, a gay couple wanted the court to rule on gay marriage, and the court declined.

When you tell states that marriage is strictly a federal precedent and that the state has not legal right to regulate marriage for any reason; that the only need is “consenting adults” then it opens the door IMMEDIATELY to all other groups and combinations.

Again, I have to disagree with you here. Court are not under an obligation to ace immediately on issues arising from one ruling or other. They can decline to take cases, modify their findings etc.

No one is saying states have NO right to regulate marriages, but as with Loving, the judicial can intervene to protect people from rank discrimination. I think it can rule on SSM without opening the door to people marrying their automobiles.

You can stick your fingers in your ears all you want, but that is the legal reality. You cannot make the Jim Crow argument and then say but it doesn’t apply to everyone BECAUSE IT DOES. That argument has consequences. You can’t just say it only applies to the groups you like.

It’s not sticking my fingers in my ears because I can’t say how far the implications of nationwide SSM might go. I simply refuse to succumb to alarmism over the issue.

Marriage has always until the last 50 or so years been about offspring. It has always included male/female pairings for that very reason. Procreation is the SOLE reason that incestuous couples have been denied the right to get married.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 4:18 PM

You couldn’t be more wrong.

Marriage, thoughout history has been about many things; property, alliances, status, and yes, securing offspring. Marriage consisted of male/female pairings because any homosexuals who openly declared their love for each other and wanted to marry would be burned at the stake or at least ostracized. This is the first time in history that same sex couples can be open about who they are without fear (in most cases) of being killed.

As far as incestuous couples are concerned, I’m content to let the future take care of itself.

Ok, I know I’ll be accused of running away, but I have an actual life, and things to do.

Nice talking with you melle1228

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 4:43 PM

For instance, I think that “marriage” is a covenant between two people. And “legal” is not prohibited. Under those definitions, same sex marriage is legal in all states. As I said earlier in this thread:

Is “marriage” a covenant between two people or between two people and the government? Is “marriage” a covenant between two people or a contract between two people for obtaining statist benefit?

Is “legalize” to make legal and allowed, or is it to recognize, validate, and affirm by the government? When people talk about “legalizing” marijuana, for instance, which are they talking about?

besser tot als rot on March 1, 2013 at 11:08 AM

besser tot als rot on March 1, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Nice job, melle1228. You sent the bigot running away, squealing and crying, showing off how he’s really not put any sort of intelligent thought into this and is just repeating his Obama Party talking points.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Nice job, melle1228. You sent the bigot running away, squealing and crying, showing off how he’s really not put any sort of intelligent thought into this and is just repeating his Obama Party talking points.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2013 at 4:47 PM

I absolutely love how they think polygamy and incest marriage isn’t going to happen just because they say so. Ugh!

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Not necessarily. You’ll remember that after the Loving case in 1967, a gay couple wanted the court to rule on gay marriage, and the court declined

Again, I have to disagree with you here. Court are not under an obligation to ace immediately on issues arising from one ruling or other. They can decline to take cases, modify their findings etc.

No one is saying states have NO right to regulate marriages, but as with Loving, the judicial can intervene to protect people from rank discrimination. I think it can rule on SSM without opening the door to people marrying their automobiles

Because you realized that they felt that Minnesota had a RIGHT to restrict SS couples from marrying. That there was a compelling reason to grant opposite sex couples licenses and not SS couples. And that same sex couples were inherently DIFFERENT to the state than opposite sex couples were. Do you know what that compelling logical reason was? Care to take a guess? Ding ding ding– The ability to procreate…

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 4:53 PM

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Nicely done.

kingsjester on March 1, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Xcellent job Team Sanity with logical challenges to the lunacy of the SSM Fascism.

KUDOS!

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Serious question — if this passes, what is stopping legal incest polygamy or pedo stuff. Don’t attack me just asking. What’s the legal basis for not those but yes to SSM

pamplonajack on February 28, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Using Obama’s “argument,” nothing to stop such.

He’s arguing “class” as to homosexual behaviors as if “homosexuals” are a third gender or a new race or some sort of “class” that merits special privileges because they’re, uhh, a “class” and not meeting their demands means there’s “discrimination”.

There ARE NO RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION BASED UPON ‘CLASS’.

Listen to what Obama said today if you can becsuse he goes into lengthy “explanation” using “class” as his excuse to demand “‘gay’ marriage”.

Lourdes on March 1, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Because you realized that they felt that Minnesota had a RIGHT to restrict SS couples from marrying. That there was a compelling reason to grant opposite sex couples licenses and not SS couples. And that same sex couples were inherently DIFFERENT to the state than opposite sex couples were. Do you know what that compelling logical reason was? Care to take a guess? Ding ding ding– The ability to procreate…

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 4:53 PM

This is the simple fact that many of us easily identify (as you have, as some states and their voters do) but Obama’s pushing his idea based upon referring to or defining “homosexuals” as “a class”…he’s using this whole “class” thing to declare they as “a class” are therefore being “discriminated against” IF and AS they’re not being allowed to “marry”.

He’s entitled to his Marxist notions, certainly, but not as a President trying to leverage the Supreme Court to opine as he wants them to despite it not being supported by the Constitution (which does NOT contain ANY “right” based upon “class” as cause or reason).

Lourdes on March 1, 2013 at 5:20 PM

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2013 at 4:47 PM

I absolutely love how they think polygamy and incest marriage isn’t going to happen just because they say so. Ugh!

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 4:50 PM

What “melle” wrote there…because IF Obama’s wonky reasoning is taken seriously and applied, incredibly, despite it’s lack of logic, then there’s nothing to then prevent “anyone” from marrying “anything” in any combination of whatever. Point being that the logic, however illogical, that Obama is pushing would, if applied, rationalize or enable any combination of “marriage” for no reason other than a claim of it being “discrimination” if marriage of whatever combination was “denied”.

It’s the issue of marriage itself that should be addressed here.

Lourdes on March 1, 2013 at 5:24 PM

For instance, I think that “marriage” is a covenant between two people. And “legal” is not prohibited. Under those definitions, same sex marriage is legal in all states.

besser tot als rot on March 1, 2013 at 4:44 PM

It’s a case of “today,” or, these contemporary, later times of people having reinvented a definition of “marriage” and discounting every definition of it prior to this newly-invented definition based upon everything “earlier” being “tradition” and therefore, not admissible as to argument against “‘gay’ marriage”.

This can literally be said about EVERYthing. EVERYthing in language, all institutions, all words, all nouns especially, are defined and have been defined and in application throughout humanity for our species’ history, or most of it.

But the current Leftwing/pro-gay thing is to claim all prior understandings (“definitions”) of just about everything is somehow antiquated and non-admissible legally to their wants because it’s “all tradition” — meaning, if anything’s been “in use” and accepted for longer than, say, the last decade, it’s “old” and “tradition” and has to be discounted as understood as it was compared with what they now want “it” to mean.

This argument is so disrespectful to the human mind and human reasoning. It’s madness asserting itself as reason and calling reason crazy.

Lourdes on March 1, 2013 at 5:29 PM

As far as incestuous couples are concerned, I’m content to let the future take care of itself.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 4:43 PM

And this is why you’re wrong, and why we can’t have people like you, self-important holier-than-thou no-nothings pushing and drafting legislation that “socially engineers” society in profundly destructive ways. No different than designing a car that’s a road hazard – no thought put into safety design, let’s just hit the gas and see what happens.

You can’t and WON’T think more than 5 minutes into the future, and are only concerned with hooking up your little preferred group (homosexuals) at this hot minute. And when another similar and socially deviant group (incest/pedo, etc.) belly’s up to the legal bar to have what your group is having, and the predictable and inevitable consequences of your actions and support come to pass, you’ll either struggle in vain to discriminate against them like a hypocrite or instead be desperate to deny any involvement in it at all.

But don’t worry, people like me will be there to wash your face with it.

Saltyron on March 2, 2013 at 2:09 PM

by passing a domestic partnership law that’s entirely the same as marriage except in name, California’s effectively admitting that there’s no substantive reason to deny gays the right to call themselves “married.” It’s pure discrimination, withholding the label from them just to remind them that they’re different.

They are different. It’s not the government’s place to avoid reminding people of unpleasant truths.

alwaysfiredup on March 2, 2013 at 6:51 PM

This is more important than securing the border in California & beyond?

RdLake on March 3, 2013 at 1:17 AM

300. ( y a w n )

listens2glenn on March 5, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3