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

Fudge..

Electrongod on February 28, 2013 at 8:27 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

Yawn, I just don’t care any longer…

Scrumpy on February 28, 2013 at 8:28 PM

And what if the Supremes uphold Prop 8? What then?

I’ll tell you exactly what will happen. Prop 8 will be in court again, under a different challenge, next year. And the year after that, and the year after that.

Because the will of the voters only matters when it synchronizes perfectly with the liberal viewpoint on the issue.

KingGold on February 28, 2013 at 8:29 PM

…but the legal conclusions amount to an argument that all bans on same-sex marriage violate the U.S. Constitution.

 
While actually-written-down-in-the-Constitution things need heavy restrictions and monitoring.

rogerb on February 28, 2013 at 8:29 PM

I have great fear about the future of America.

Same Sex Marriage is such a great Abomination.

GOP will punish any country that embraces it.

Steveangell on February 28, 2013 at 8:29 PM

What’s the legal basis for not those but yes to SSM

pamplonajack on February 28, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Morals…
But wait…

Electrongod on February 28, 2013 at 8:30 PM

They might be making a play for the entire United States.

This is no surprise. It’s an agenda of the Left.

INC on February 28, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Obama wants to keep his options open for when he leaves the White House and can dump the Beast.

VorDaj on February 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM

GOP will punish any country that embraces it.

Steveangell on February 28, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Rusty Allen on February 28, 2013 at 8:33 PM

America has gone to hell, and it didn’t even get to ride in a hand-basket. 50 million plus babies murdered because their mothers needed the right to murder their own children, and now deviant sex as the law of the land. Anyone really wonder why God is no longer blessing America? Why, one must wonder did Obama feel the need to force the democrat Party to bring God back into their party? God must surely be indignant at that move.

SWalker on February 28, 2013 at 8:34 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

Nothing to stop the first two, assuming they were “consenting adults.” The last would presumably still be illegal, at least without the parental consent now required for marriage of those under 18.

Wethal on February 28, 2013 at 8:36 PM

The “evolution” won’t be complete until Obama forces everyone to have gay sex.

John the Libertarian on February 28, 2013 at 8:36 PM

And what if the Supremes uphold Prop 8? What then?

I’ll tell you exactly what will happen. Prop 8 will be in court again, under a different challenge, next year. And the year after that, and the year after that.

True, true.

Allahpundit on February 28, 2013 at 8:37 PM

SWalker on February 28, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Your blog looks totally different!

Scrumpy on February 28, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Gays should be careful what they wish for.

Curtiss on February 28, 2013 at 8:39 PM

This will end religious freedom in this country.

workingclass artist on February 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

What kills me is this guy will not butt the F out of anything (no pun intended..lol). He’s such an attention wh0re. How about just leave the courts to do their job like they’re supposed to??!!!
Although I live in CA, so there’s going to be riots over this no matter which way it goes.

RadioAngel on February 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

So what are the predictions for the ruling?

Flapjackmaka on February 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

The family is always the main target of totalitarians. They bring anything to bear on it that will destroy it. Redefining marriage is perhaps their most toxic weapon.

So many are duped by them because of buzz words like “rights” and “equal” and “discrimination.”

So many are duped by them because of their own hedonistic and flexible morality.

So many are duped by them because they haven’t done any thinking about consequences or the effect on children and society.

So many are duped by them because they don’t know the answer or refuse to face the truth of what marriage is.

INC on February 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

It’s pure discrimination, withholding the label from them just to remind them that they’re different.

BULLSHIT Allah! Let’s see ‘em make a baby TOGETHER!

Or are you hinting that Mother Nature will be sued next?

GarandFan on February 28, 2013 at 8:40 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

There’s not one.

INC on February 28, 2013 at 8:41 PM

This nation is turning more and more into Sodom and Gohmorah and Obama is leading this country in that direction…God is not amused and certainly doesn’t approve of this and the 50 plus million babies murdered…

sadsushi on February 28, 2013 at 8:41 PM

Serious question — if this passes, what is stopping legal incest

Nothing. Nor should it be stopped.

polygamy

I think there’s a smart argument that all marriage case law is based on the presumption that the institution is of two, consenting adults and that three or more individuals truly breaks precedent. The case law which exists that assumes that opposite sex partnership is essential to marriage is either based upon religion (which is not a valid basis for case law) or is based in antiquated notions about “natural” differences between the genders, which society has already challenged in a wide range of arenas. For example, case law which presumes women operate exclusively in the domestic sphere as childrearers and men operate in public sphere as breadwinners and community leaders is rejected even by conservative female politicians like Sarah Palin or Nikki Haley who would outright reject that a woman’s “natural” place is in the home. Even their belief that women can be just as good conservative mothers and political leaders flies in the face of the idea that the genders are fundamentally in separate spheres and, therefore, that marriage requires the “complimentary” relationship between man and woman.

or pedo stuff.
pamplonajack on February 28, 2013 at 8:28 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

Equal protection under law breaks down when individual causes are taken in to consideration for any reason.

Drugs are illegal. If I’m a drug user can I pervert equal protection to say drug laws are unconstitutional?

Why even have equal protection if every subsect of society can carve out thier very own individual protections?

wolly4321 on February 28, 2013 at 8:41 PM

The “evolution” won’t be complete until Obama forces everyone to have gay sex.

John the Libertarian on February 28, 2013 at 8:36 PM

I will opt out and pay the fine..

Electrongod on February 28, 2013 at 8:42 PM

They might be making a play for the entire United States.

excerpt: Allahpundit

.
This is no surprise. It’s an agenda of the Left.

INC on February 28, 2013 at 8:31 PM

.
The “left” despises homosexuality as much as we do. They’re temporarily using it to weaken the U.S., and take it over.

Once they’ve taken the U.S., they’ll turn against homosexuals fast as lightning.

listens2glenn on February 28, 2013 at 8:42 PM

It’s pure discrimination, withholding the label from them just to remind them that they’re different.

BULLSHIT Allah! Let’s see ‘em make a baby TOGETHER!

Or are you hinting that Mother Nature will be sued next?

GarandFan on February 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Marriage is more than a label.

INC on February 28, 2013 at 8:42 PM

So what are the predictions for the ruling?

Flapjackmaka on February 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

I predict..

Overturn…

Electrongod on February 28, 2013 at 8:42 PM

BULLSHIT Allah! Let’s see ‘em make a baby TOGETHER!

Or are you hinting that Mother Nature will be sued next?

GarandFan on February 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

First of all, how did that get past the moderation filter. And second of all, there’s nothing about marriage that is intrinsically linked to reproduction. Humans did it before marriage, have always done it outside of marriage and will continue to do so if “marriage” ever is phased out of society.

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 8:43 PM

The “left” despises homosexuality as much as we do. They’re temporarily using it to weaken the U.S., and take it over.

Once they’ve taken the U.S., they’ll turn against homosexuals fast as lightning.

listens2glenn on February 28, 2013 at 8:42 PM

If gays stand in the way of their agenda, they’ll find themselves persona non grata faster than you can say Bob Woodward.

INC on February 28, 2013 at 8:43 PM

So what are the predictions for the ruling?

Flapjackmaka on February 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

The Court will invalidate DOMA and Prop 8, but will not attack other states Constitutional bans. Unfortunately, if you invalidate DOMA than those Constitutional bans have a severe Full Faith and Credit Clause problem.

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 8:44 PM

The basic question to be answered is what is marriage? That’s why Gergis, George, and Anderson, who I’ve linked to many times, gave that title to their article and book. We’re dealing with two views of marriage, the conjugal view—the historic view across time and culture—and the revisionist view beginning in the late 20th century.

It’s impossible for both views to simultaneously exist because the two definitions are diametrically opposed to each other.

In What Is Marriage? the authors make the point that it’s a false assumption to say that any distinction with the law is unjust discrimination. IOW it’s not automatically a matter of equality, rights, etc.

INC on February 28, 2013 at 8:45 PM

INC on February 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Indeed.
But the master of this Socialist plan is the Devil himself make no mistake. As he is Allah the anti-GOD Islam prays to.

Steveangell on February 28, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Whoah, what? How can two guys or two women get married?

Dongemaharu on February 28, 2013 at 8:46 PM

I think there’s a smart argument that all marriage case law is based on the presumption that the institution is of two, consenting adults and that three or more individuals truly breaks precedent.

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 8:41 PM

The presumption was that it would be a man and a woman. After you break that down there is no way you should be able to deny 2 women marrying one man.

thebrokenrattle on February 28, 2013 at 8:46 PM

They are different. What they are seeking is a redefinition of the word marriage because they do not fit the definition. They are not being discriminated against. They just are not the same.

Rose on February 28, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Overturn…

Electrongod on February 28, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Overturn ninth circuit or prop 8?

Flapjackmaka on February 28, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Steveangell on February 28, 2013 at 8:46 PM

I agree.

INC on February 28, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Gergis, George and Anderson write in What Is Marriage?:

But suppose that the legal incidents of marriage were made available to same‐sex as well as opposite‐sex couples. We would still, by the revisionists’ logic, be discriminating against those seeking open, temporary, polygynous, polyandrous, polyamorous, incestuous, or bestial unions. After all, people can find themselves experiencing sexual and romantic desire for multiple partners (concurrent or serial), or closely blood‐related partners, or nonhuman partners. They are (presumably) free not to act on these sexual desires, but this is true also of people attracted to persons of the same sex.

If those who want to redefine marriage, say, hey, wait a minute, I object to some of those, the question they have to answer is why?

And if they insist the law be limited in some fashion:

Revisionists who arrive at this conclusion must accept at least three principles.

First, marriage is not a legal construct with totally malleable contours – not “just a contract.” Otherwise, how could the law get marriage wrong? Rather, some sexual relationships are instances of a distinctive kind of relationship – call it real marriage – that has its own value and structure, whether the state recognizes it or not, and is not changed by laws based on a false conception of it….

Second, the state is justified in recognizing only real marriages as marriages. People who cannot enter marriages so understood for, say, psychological reasons are not wronged by the state, even when they did not choose and cannot control the factors that keep them single….

Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition….

Third, there is no general right to marry the person you love, if this means a right to have any type of relationship that you desire recognized as marriage. There is only a presumptive right not to be prevented from forming a real marriage wherever one is possible. And, again, the state cannot choose or change the essence of real marriage; so in radically reinventing legal marriage, the state would obscure a moral reality.

INC on February 28, 2013 at 8:49 PM

The Court will invalidate DOMA and Prop 8, but will not attack other states constitutional bans. Unfortunately, if you invalidate DOMA than those constitutional bans have a severe Full Faith and Credit Clause problem.

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Prop 8 amended the CA constitution. It would be some fine hair-splitting to invalidate one state’s constitutional definition of marriage, and leave other similarly-worded provisions in other state constitutions intact.

Wethal on February 28, 2013 at 8:50 PM

First of all, how did that get past the moderation filter. And second of all, there’s nothing about marriage that is intrinsically linked to reproduction. Humans did it before marriage, have always done it outside of marriage and will continue to do so if “marriage” ever is phased out of society.

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 8:43 PM

LOL.

Marriage exists because the end result of copulation is a helpless baby without any means of caring for itself, participating fully in society, or legal status.

Marriage exists not to MAKE humans procreate, but because humans DO procreate, and it is in society’s best interest that the inevitable result be brought up by its parents in an established structure for its benefit.

The problem is that normal adults recognize that libfreeordie’s racist hatred of white people, its helpless dependence on the state, and its desperate need for a daddy figure to replace the one it didn’t have are all symptoms of its LACK of parenting — while it desperately tries to impose these problems on a new generation.

northdallasthirty on February 28, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Overturn ninth circuit or prop 8?

Flapjackmaka on February 28, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Prop 8…

Sad but this is where we have come.

What shouldn’t be in the power of the Feds..
But in power of the States or the People..

Will be taken by the Feds..

We are too stupid to think for ourselves..

Electrongod on February 28, 2013 at 8:52 PM

n winter of 2010, Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan T. Anderson published, “What is Marriage?” in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. It’s online at the link.

The article has since been revised, expanded and published as a book in December 2012. What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.

Read the article. Buy the book at their site or Amazon. I just got the book and I’m reading it.

In the article they discuss:

I. …Part I provides the core or essence of our argument, what could reasonably be taken as a stand‐alone defense of our position…

A. Equality, Justice, and the Heart of the Debate
B. Real Marriage Is – And Is Only – The Union of Husband and Wife
1. Comprehensive Union
2. Special Link to Children
3. Marital Norms

C. How Would Gay Civil Marriage Affect You or Your Marriage?
1. Weakening Marriage
2. Obscuring the Value of Opposite‐Sex Parenting As an Ideal
3. Threatening Moral and Religious Freedom

D. If Not Same‐Sex Couples, Why Infertile Ones?
1. Still Real Marriages
2. Still in the Public Interest

E. Challenges for Revisionists
1. The State Has an Interest in Regulating Some Relationships?
2. Only if They Are Romantic?
3. Only if They Are Monogamous?

F. Isn’t Marriage Just Whatever We Say It Is?

II . …Part II considers all of the serious concerns that are not treated earlier…

A. Why Not Spread Traditional Norms to the Gay Community?
B. What About Partners’ Concrete Needs?
C. Doesn’t the Conjugal Conception of Marriage Sacrifice Some People’s Fulfillment for Others’?
D. Isn’t It Only Natural?
E. Doesn’t Traditional Marriage Law Impose Controversial Moral and Religious Views on Everyone?

Conclusion

INC on February 28, 2013 at 8:52 PM

They also have links to other articles they’ve written at their site.

http://whatismarriagebook.com/articles/

INC on February 28, 2013 at 8:55 PM

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 8:43 PM

How do you see the vote? Is it going to be close and possible that prop 8 wins out?

Flapjackmaka on February 28, 2013 at 8:56 PM

And the lies libfreeordie tells about plural marriage are easily dismissed by the words that the liar libfreeordie has already stated about it.

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.

Moreover, the reason the insane bigot and racist Obama joined this lawsuit is simple: he and his Obama Party intend to force churches to marry gay people and punish those with religious beliefs, as his bigot Chai Feldblum admits.

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.”

The answer to this is simple. Since Barack Liar Obama wants to force gay-sex marriage on churches, black churches and the Nation of Islam need to be immediately sued to force them to perform gay-sex marriages.

Watch the screaming black child Obama try to back away from that one.

northdallasthirty on February 28, 2013 at 8:57 PM

I’m heterosexual and can’t legally marry my same gender.

They are homosexual and can’t legally marry thier same gender.

That’s the definition of equal protection under law.

wolly4321 on February 28, 2013 at 8:58 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

“Pedo stuff” is a matter of consent.

As for legal incest (where the parties have the capacity to consent) and polygamy, the barrier is that their lobby isn’t strong enough and enough people disapprove of those practices to keep them at bay.

That’s not, strictly speaking, a legal basis. But its the practical effect of how moral changes drive legal changes. 50 years ago it would be unthinkable for a Court to legalize same sex marriage — things are different now, because the views of the population have changed, and continue to change.

Revenant on February 28, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Don’t worry, Obama still has Roberts by the shorthairs. He’ll vote the way Obama tells him to – the same way when it was about Obamacare.

iamsaved on February 28, 2013 at 9:00 PM

This will end religious freedom in this country.

workingclass artist on February 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Of course it will – this is one of obama’s goals.

Pork-Chop on February 28, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Marriage exists not to MAKE humans procreate, but because humans DO procreate

Bingo! The WHOLE reason that the state got involved in marriage was because heterosexual NATURALLY pairbond via children and the state wanted to exploit that and encourage that. It made the state’s job easier by keeping property and tax roles straight. Making dads support their kids and also ensuring that children grew up in functional two parent households so that they became future taxpayers.

melle1228 on February 28, 2013 at 9:00 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

You’re not suppose to ask that question. You’re thinking. Stop it.

Yeah… we’re told the whole country has gone left. We’re over the tipping point and all that. Everybody loves Obama, we’re all socialists now, blah blah blah.

OK, take the gay marriage thing. Every time it was put to a vote by the people.. it lost. Every single time. Was there an exception somewhere? Can’t think of any. The people voted against it. Put it to the vote.. and the people said no! But.. of course… the courts, some judge or some panel would over turn the will of the people. Time and time again. And now… we finally come to where DADT is history. Removed by a lame duck congress who had just lost an election. And finally.. we are at SCOTUS. SCOTUS, I predict, will make gay marriage the law of the land. Judge Roberts will bow and the door to any marriage of any kind will now be legal.

And we are told it’s all because the people… yes.. the people have rejected conservatism, traditional American ideals and now embrace all things liberal. But we have to ignore the fact that how we have arrived here is through the courts. The courts. The courts. Judges. Judges and more judges and a corrupt congress rejecting the will of the people. Say whatever you want.. call it what you want.. but we have come to this place because courts and congress have rejected the will of the people. And this is not just about gay marriage. Pick your issue, and it has been the courts dragging America from there to here.

I sorta think sometimes a lot of people look over the land and say what’s the freaking use. We pass laws and judges strike them down. We vote for Republicans and Republican leaders work to pass Democrat agendas. We get Republican judges on the SCOTUS and they call ObamaCare constitutional. The best Republican we can get to run against this Marxist is the man who laid the blueprint for ObamaCare…. and then campaigned by saying he’d work with the barbarians.

And then we are told… “Hey.. America now embraces all things left!” I tend to think a lot of Americans are looking out the window and just saying… “What’s the point anymore. Let it all burn.”

JellyToast on February 28, 2013 at 9:02 PM

First, marriage is not a legal construct with totally malleable contours –
INC

Well except that there’s this really problematic thing called the public historical record. Marriage in the United States has been a legal concept since the inception of the nation. And the legal rules governing what “marriage” is have likewise changed significantly over the years. Marriage once included coverture, it no longer does. There was not a national marriage registry in this country until the early 20th century which made it very easy for traveling men to engage in bigamy. Prior to Loving v. Virginia, some states put racial restrictions on who could marry. The shifting age of consent laws over time changed when people could enter into marriage.

In other words, INC, the authors of these articles are engaging in the very same practice they complain about in terms of revisionists. They want us to locate something they call “real marriage.” But in order to identify what real marriage is they have to identify a time period *when* real marriage was defined either within the law or in society as a whole. But by their own logic they are not allowed to isolate the man-woman definition of marriage at that earlier point, but they also have to endorse *ALL* of the restrictions on marriage that were active in that time period. The word “real” speaks to a totality. For example, if we were to say that “real” marriage is what marriage was at the founding of the nation, and we proposed to 18th century folks that a woman retained rights to her property upon entering a marriage they would say “that’s not a real marriage.” If these folks are anti-revision, then they MUST endorse coverture as a necessary component of “real marriage.” Otherwise, they too, are engaging in revisionism.

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 9:04 PM

…but the legal conclusions amount to an argument that all bans on same-sex marriage violate the U.S. Constitution.

While actually-written-down-in-the-Constitution things need heavy restrictions and monitoring.

rogerb on February 28, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Indeed.

AesopFan on February 28, 2013 at 9:05 PM

If it’s overturned it’ll be a great excuse for Bronco Bama to nominate the first openly gay Supreme Court Justice.

(I know what you’re thinking, but I said “openly gay”.)

Curtiss on February 28, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Pedo stuff” is a matter of consent

Consent is a matter of laws. Laws are changed and challenged everyday.. See gay marriage. Furthermore, there is large groups in the pysche and legal community who push for the consent laws to be changed see abortion consent laws for an indication.

As for legal incest (where the parties have the capacity to consent) and polygamy, the barrier is that their lobby isn’t strong enough and enough people disapprove of those practices to keep them at bay

Gays are 3 percent of the population. It does not take a large population to have a powerful lobby. It takes a leftist population who wants to destroy traditional families and create a stronger government by creating a more libertine society. Theses ARE COMING DOWN THE PIKE. And furthermore, one you say a state cannot regulate marriage under equal protection, it takes ONE court case to get these legalized in ALL states.

That’s not, strictly speaking, a legal basis. But its the practical effect of how moral changes drive legal changes. 50 years ago it would be unthinkable for a Court to legalize same sex marriage — things are different now, because the views of the population have changed, and continue to change.

Revenant on February 28, 2013 at 9:00 PM

They changed because of a “normalization” media movement i.e., characterization on tv. If you look at Glee you would think that most of the population is gay.. It has already started with polygamy with shows like Sister Wives and Big Love. It is coming sooner than you think.

melle1228 on February 28, 2013 at 9:05 PM

northdallasthirty on February 28, 2013 at 8:57 PM

I can’t quite picture 0 forcing either Islam or Muslims to accept homosexual marriage…

But to be fair, IF he chooses to sue, he then has to sue not only Christian Churches but Jewish Synagogues, Sikh Temples, Buddhists, Islamists etc etc…

Oh I relish this ‘battle’…

Won’t this be fun!

Scrumpy on February 28, 2013 at 9:06 PM

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 9:04 PM

I don’t think you got the point they were making in their comparison.

INC on February 28, 2013 at 9:07 PM

E. Doesn’t Traditional Marriage Law Impose Controversial Moral and Religious Views on Everyone?

NO.

No one is forced to marry. Thus it forces nothing onto anyone.

It simply fosters Marriage which has proved worthwhile during 6,000+ years of history. Nothing else has accomplished that. Destroying marriage always destroys society.

Although we are way down on that path. Most inner city youth have no real chance in life because they have no home life. No parents that care about each other let alone them. If they are lucky they have one parent but mostly they have none. My wife sees these poor children in school daily that go hungry except for the food at School. I know a man who runs a youth detention facility. Many children purposely re-offend rather than go back to a home with no food, no heat and often no electricity. A home where every penny is spent on drugs and the kids are sometimes pimped out.

The destruction of marriage is what caused that. The new found anti-freedom of sex without consequences. That is a lie. Anti-freedom.

You either do all you can to encourage Marriage and faithfulness to it or you destroy the children of the next generation.

Steveangell on February 28, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Steveangell on February 28, 2013 at 9:07 PM

That’s one of the points they refute. Don’t jump the gun. They bring up objections and answer them.

INC on February 28, 2013 at 9:08 PM

The bible has stories of times like these..

Is anyone building a big boat…
Oh Wait..

Titanic II…China built..

Electrongod on February 28, 2013 at 9:08 PM

Marriage exists because the end result of copulation is a helpless baby without any means of caring for itself, participating fully in society, or legal status.

You simply do not know the history of marriage in Western society. “Helpless babies?” Believe me, that is not what marriage is about. Marriage in the West became institutionalized as a tactic to:
1. Keep power and wealth in the hands of a male aristocracy/royal family.
2. Organize lines of succesion.
3. Incentivize peace between warring powers.

Helpless babies and the care of children? Ha! You do realize that aristocrats who were married had all sorts of b@stardized kids, who they had zero obligation to care for right? The very idea that society had an obligation to care for impoverished children is a product of the modern era. You know, that pesky move in history that also ushered in a major revision into what marriage was, and what it looked like? Learn your history.

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 9:09 PM

“Defining Deviancy Down”
American Scholar (Winter 1993)
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN

Nothing amiss in this tale.

It goes like this:

The life course is full of exciting options. The lifestyle options available to individuals seeking a fulfilling personal relationship include living a heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual single lifestyle; living in a commune; having a group marriage; being single parents; or living together. Marriage is yet another lifestyle choice.

Obama’s morality, formed by a rebellious mother, left-wing schooling, rantings of Rev. Wright, and silly notions of a socialist Utopia, has no proscriptions beyond “do whatever feels good, as long as you don’t hurt anyone”.

What we really need is a fun word for sodomy, like “gay” has replaced “homosexual”. How about “sunshine”. Gay men, practicing sunshine, not hurting anyone. What’s wrong with that? Let’s celebrate it. Enshrine it in our culture, embrace it, normalize it. Call it marriage. Children must learn to accept everyone. It’s part of diversity. Religion that denies that is bigotry. Anyone who thinks otherwise is sick. That’s what’s going on.

Paul-Cincy on February 28, 2013 at 9:09 PM

Sorry, it’s easy to divide people by gender. Not so easy or permanent to classify people by sexuality. Everyone is either male or female so their is no discrimination.

monalisa on February 28, 2013 at 9:09 PM

Literally to hell with what the voters want.

The gay D.C. Ruling class wants it done, so there you dumb, hick, bible thumping, Honey Boo-Boo loving hicks and hayseeds in flyover country.

And the rulers in D.C. say “not only are we going to legalize it but we’re going to CRIMINALIZE not going along with it (the logical direct result of the action). So you churches and synagogues and temples that don’t want it….haaaahhhhahahahaha, get ready”.

PappyD61 on February 28, 2013 at 9:09 PM

But by their own logic they are not allowed to isolate the man-woman definition of marriage at that earlier point, but they also have to endorse *ALL* of the restrictions on marriage that were active in that time period. The word “real” speaks to a totality. For example, if we were to say that “real” marriage is what marriage was at the founding of the nation, and we proposed to 18th century folks that a woman retained rights to her property upon entering a marriage they would say “that’s not a real marriage.” If these folks are anti-revision, then they MUST endorse coverture as a necessary component of “real marriage.” Otherwise, they too, are engaging in revisionism.

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 9:04 PM

And once again we see how pathetic the scholarship and academics in the programs that grant degrees based on skin color.

In every single one of the examples you provided, marriage was male-female.

No matter what the status, no matter what the color, no matter anything else, marriage was male-female.

So you lose. All you have done is proven that, no matter WHAT status was afforded to marriage, no matter what the color of the participants, no matter what the legal property-holding or voting status of the participants, it was always, ALWAYS male-female.

Which STRENGTHENS the argument for male-female marriage rather than weakening it.

You lose. Indeed, you lose big, because the reason bigamy was illegal was because it was a man or woman being married to two or more people of the opposite sex. Your own example shoots you in the foot.

northdallasthirty on February 28, 2013 at 9:09 PM

…It is coming sooner than you think.

melle1228 on February 28, 2013 at 9:05 PM

‘Gayness’ is fully played out on TV to attempt normalization within our society…

TV is a powerful messenger…

Are we more aghast at it now then before it pretty much dominated the tv waves?

I doubt it.

Many of those show have a huge audience…

The populace is being prepped and have become accepting…

L.i.B…

Scrumpy on February 28, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Not so easy or permanent to classify people by sexuality. Everyone is either male or female so their is no discrimination.

monalisa on February 28, 2013 at 9:09 PM

Who said that same-sex marriage law would have anything to do with sexual identity (oh yeah, the annoying liberals whose arguments have been rooted in emotion, blah) but really, there’s no reason two same-sex people could not marry out of pure convenience. Even if they were not gay. Marriages of convenience exist between heterosexuals. Asexual people can also marry opposite sex partners.

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Next up: The road to polyamory.

Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and “polyamory” (group marriage). Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female. A scare scenario? Hardly. The bottom of this slope is visible from where we stand. Advocacy of legalized polygamy is growing. A network of grass-roots organizations seeking legal recognition for group marriage already exists. The cause of legalized group marriage is championed by a powerful faction of family law specialists. Influential legal bodies in both the United States and Canada have presented radical programs of marital reform. Some of these quasi-governmental proposals go so far as to suggest the abolition of marriage.

Unlike classic polygamy, which features one man and several women, polyamory comprises a bewildering variety of sexual combinations. There are triads of one woman and two men; heterosexual group marriages; groups in which some or all members are bisexual; lesbian groups, and so forth. (For details, see Deborah Anapol’s “Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits,” one of the movement’s authoritative guides, or Google the word polyamory.)

Taking a leaf from the gay marriage movement, (polyamorist advocate Joy) Singer suggested starting small. A campaign for hospital visitation rights for polyamorous spouses would be the way to begin. Full marriage and adoption rights would come later. Again using the gay marriage movement as a model, Singer called for careful selection of acceptable public spokesmen (i.e., people from longstanding poly families with children). Singer even published a speech by Iowa state legislator Ed Fallon on behalf of gay marriage, arguing that the goal would be to get a congressman to give exactly the same speech as Fallon, but substituting the word “poly” for “gay” throughout. Try telling polyamorists that the link between gay marriage and group marriage is a mirage.

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/28/gop-elites-and-the-abolition-o/print

Jayrae on February 28, 2013 at 9:12 PM

That’s not, strictly speaking, a legal basis. But its the practical effect of how moral changes drive legal changes. 50 years ago it would be unthinkable for a Court to legalize same sex marriage — things are different now, because the views of the population have changed, and continue to change.

Revenant on February 28, 2013 at 9:00 PM

“Views of the population” are usually best and most accurately expressed by the votes of the people, not determined by nine people.

Wethal on February 28, 2013 at 9:12 PM

That’s one of the points they refute. Don’t jump the gun. They bring up objections and answer them.

INC on February 28, 2013 at 9:08 PM

Why I did not quote you. I assumed as much but did not read the book or article.

I apologise for not making that clear.

I was just answering that single question in my own words.

Steveangell on February 28, 2013 at 9:14 PM

You simply do not know the history of marriage in Western society. “Helpless babies?” Believe me, that is not what marriage is about. Marriage in the West became institutionalized as a tactic to:
1. Keep power and wealth in the hands of a male aristocracy/royal family.
2. Organize lines of succesion.
3. Incentivize peace between warring powers.

Helpless babies and the care of children? Ha! You do realize that aristocrats who were married had all sorts of b@stardized kids, who they had zero obligation to care for right? The very idea that society had an obligation to care for impoverished children is a product of the modern era. You know, that pesky move in history that also ushered in a major revision into what marriage was, and what it looked like? Learn your history.

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 9:09 PM

Your meltdowns are ever the more hilarious, because they show how little mental and rational acumen you have.

For instance, you scream about lines of succession and keeping power/wealth in the hands of a family — which is done by producing recognized heirs, aka procreating.

Your arguments are always a fine demonstration of how you lack true intelligence and education and merely repeat racist and liberal talking points. No one but an idiot would scream that marriage had nothing to do with children while citing lines of succession; that only proves that you have no idea what you’re talking about and are just saying things because you think they sound good.

Do you lack any education whatsoever? Or were you passed through college based on black skin and nothing else?

northdallasthirty on February 28, 2013 at 9:14 PM

ANYTHING (families, faith in anything other than the Federal or state authorities, individual rights) that is a threat to the power of the Federal beast (in any national history) must be eliminated.

Mao did it.

Stalin did it.

Lenin did it.

Pol Pot did it.

Hitler did it.

and we’re about too.

The family is always the main target of totalitarians. They bring anything to bear on it that will destroy it. Redefining marriage is perhaps their most toxic weapon.

INC on February 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

PappyD61 on February 28, 2013 at 9:14 PM

All natural artificial flavor
Amtrak schedule
Astronomically small
Athletic scholarship
Gay marraige
Authentic replica

SparkPlug on February 28, 2013 at 9:14 PM

In every single one of the examples you provided, marriage was male-female.
(rest of northdallasthirty’s typically hateful screed snipped

You misunderstand my argument. The authors have made no argument as to why the male-female arrangement is the *only* part of “real marriage” that should be retained. And until someone makes that claim in a way that is entirely decontextualized from a specific historical moment, than the defenders of “real marriage” have to argue that the entire institution of “real marriage” needs to be preserved without alteration. Which means a return to coverture.

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Who said that same-sex marriage law would have anything to do with sexual identity (oh yeah, the annoying liberals whose arguments have been rooted in emotion, blah) but really, there’s no reason two same-sex people could not marry out of pure convenience. Even if they were not gay. Marriages of convenience exist between heterosexuals. Asexual people can also marry opposite sex partners.

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 9:11 PM

You did, actually.

You stated that gays could not marry, which is clearly a lie; they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they choose that is of age, human, and not a blood relative.

northdallasthirty on February 28, 2013 at 9:16 PM

The worry du jour was that they can force Christian priests perform wedding ceremonies for gays. However if I remember correctly, churches are on private land. It is still legal, I believe, to forbid gays, blacks, women, or any other group of people, no matter protected or not, to enter a private building. If they cannot enter, they cannot be married. And if they must be let in – hey, what is to prevent them from entering your house?

Archivarix on February 28, 2013 at 9:17 PM

No one but an idiot would scream that marriage had nothing to do with children while citing lines of succession;

I didn’t say it had nothing to do with children. I said it had nothing to do with the care of “helpless babies.” As you contended. Marriage, in fact, was the key way of determining which children were legitimate or illegitimate and it rationalized the disregard and non-care for “b@stard” children. It had nothing to do with children’s helplessness. The category of legitimate child, was all about the organization of wealth and power. Is that the “real marriage” you would have us return to?

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 9:19 PM

You misunderstand my argument. The authors have made no argument as to why the male-female arrangement is the *only* part of “real marriage” that should be retained. And until someone makes that claim in a way that is entirely decontextualized from a specific historical moment, than the defenders of “real marriage” have to argue that the entire institution of “real marriage” needs to be preserved without alteration. Which means a return to coverture.

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 9:15 PM

I understand it perfectly.

As you hilariously and inadvertently proved with your examples of different periods of history, in which I illustrated that in every single one, marriage was (and is) male-female.

Therefore, the point is made; regardless of at what point in history you look, marriage is male-female.

You lose.

Perhaps you can get a refund from the affirmative-action mill that gave you a diploma based on skin color.

northdallasthirty on February 28, 2013 at 9:19 PM

The “evolution” won’t be complete until Obama forces everyone to have gay sex.

John the Libertarian on February 28, 2013 at 8:36 PM

With children…

Seven Percent Solution on February 28, 2013 at 9:19 PM

I will opt out and pay the fine..

Electrongod on February 28, 2013 at 8:42 PM

It’s a TAX.

Solaratov on February 28, 2013 at 9:20 PM

You stated that gays could not marry, which is clearly a lie; they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they choose that is of age, human, and not a blood relative.

northdallasthirty on February 28, 2013 at 9:16 PM

No. What I said on the other threat is that “gay marriage is illegal” not that “gay people can not marry opposite sex partners.” As a gay man from Dallas you know perfectly well the number of queens married to women in that town (and all over the country). The question is whether the restriction on same-sex marriage passes Constitutional muster under the 14th Amendment.

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 9:22 PM

Don’t worry, Obama still has Roberts by the shorthairs. He’ll vote the way Obama tells him to – the same way when it was about Obamacare.

iamsaved on February 28, 2013 at 9:00 PM

6-3 supporting homosexual marriage. Roberts has sold his Bush soul to the Ruling class. Kennedy is well, the “swing” vote. It could actually wind up being 7-2 with Alito going along as well.

If the court has decided that people can be made to buy medical insurance then what else can they be made to do?

America is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah with cell phones.

PappyD61 on February 28, 2013 at 9:23 PM

I didn’t say it had nothing to do with children. I said it had nothing to do with the care of “helpless babies.” As you contended.

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 9:19 PM

You heard it here first, folks; babies are not children and do not need to be cared for.

So says the affirmative-action “professor” with the degree in Black Skin and whose job is due to having the most quota boxes checked.

Marriage, in fact, was the key way of determining which children were legitimate or illegitimate and it rationalized the disregard and non-care for “b@stard” children. It had nothing to do with children’s helplessness. The category of legitimate child, was all about the organization of wealth and power. Is that the “real marriage” you would have us return to?

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 9:19 PM

Male-female.

Isn’t that amazing.

Regardless of the historical period, regardless of a society’s view toward bastardy, it’s still male-female.

Meanwhile, the black community, as exemplified by black males, disregards and refuses to care for their children. Since you hate that so much, why do you support and endorse it? Indeed, when have bigot gays and lesbians like you ever criticized the abysmal number of fatherless, disregarded, and uncared-for children in your Obama Party black community?

northdallasthirty on February 28, 2013 at 9:23 PM

Gays are 3 percent of the population. It does not take a large population to have a powerful lobby. It takes a leftist population who wants to destroy traditional families and create a stronger government by creating a more libertine society. Theses ARE COMING DOWN THE PIKE. And furthermore, one you say a state cannot regulate marriage under equal protection, it takes ONE court case to get these legalized in ALL states.

They changed because of a “normalization” media movement i.e., characterization on tv. If you look at Glee you would think that most of the population is gay.. It has already started with polygamy with shows like Sister Wives and Big Love. It is coming sooner than you think.

melle1228 on February 28, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Regardless of how it changed, it changed. Enough people believe that gay marriage should be allowed that there is a serious chance at it happening via the courts.

If (through the media, or otherwise) enough people believe that incest or polygamy should be legalized, it might happen.

Revenant on February 28, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Archivarix on February 28, 2013 at 9:17 PM

No that isn’t the only worry. How about parental rights, business right etc. Business people are being sued. Parents are being told they can’t opt out of their six year olds learning about homosexuality by courts. Children are being told that they have to change in a locker room with opposite sex children because that child identifies themselve as as their sex even though they aren’t and if they are uncomfortable with it; they will get punished by the school for insensitivity. The whole GLBT rights movement is a fascists movement that doesn’t just want to get married and live their lives. They want to get into our lives and force themselves in our lives.

melle1228 on February 28, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Therefore, the point is made; regardless of at what point in history you look, marriage is male-female.

*sigh* I strongly recommend you head to a library at some point in your life. They have these things there, called books! All kinds of knowledge can be accrued from them. Give it a shot will you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142905/Civil-partnership-medieval-style-In-days-sex-marriage-Christian-rite.html

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Who said that same-sex marriage law would have anything to do with sexual identity (oh yeah, the annoying liberals whose arguments have been rooted in emotion, blah) but really, there’s no reason two same-sex people could not marry out of pure convenience. Even if they were not gay. Marriages of convenience exist between heterosexuals. Asexual people can also marry opposite sex partners.

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Huh? I don’t understand what you are trying to say. I am saying that gays believe they have a “right to marry” and based on their sexuality, that should be to a member of the same sex. I am saying that there is no “right to marry” and that there is no discrimination because everyone is either male or female, so marriage does not discriminate.

I think you are talking about the assignment of benefits. A right is not a benefit. We give unequal benefits to different groups all the time. My income status puts me in a certain tax category and my marriage status does the same. No benefits there!

monalisa on February 28, 2013 at 9:24 PM

No. What I said on the other threat is that “gay marriage is illegal” not that “gay people can not marry opposite sex partners.”

So you lied, and gay people are perfectly able to marry RIGHT NOW, same as straight people.

As a gay man from Dallas you know perfectly well the number of queens married to women in that town (and all over the country). The question is whether the restriction on same-sex marriage passes Constitutional muster under the 14th Amendment.

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 9:22 PM

And you answered the question: it does not, because, as you yourself blabbered, “Who said that same-sex marriage law would have anything to do with sexual identity?”

Therefore, you admit that current law does NOT discriminate based on sexual identity, and in fact, sexual identity is IRRELEVANT to marriage law.

You lose again. Did you actually take out student loans to get as crappy of an education as your degree in Black Skin clearly gives you?

northdallasthirty on February 28, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Regardless of how it changed, it changed. Enough people believe that gay marriage should be allowed that there is a serious chance at it happening via the courts.

If (through the media, or otherwise) enough people believe that incest or polygamy should be legalized, it might happen.

Revenant on February 28, 2013 at 9:24 PM

LOL– If enough people actually believe it should be changed then you fascists could actually get it through through a vote, but you have to ram it through the courts.

melle1228 on February 28, 2013 at 9:25 PM

I kind of thought we looked to natural law as a basis. Biology is what it is.

You want to be gay? Go ahead. I don’t care.

But marriage is rooted deeper than legalities. Much deeper.

Perversion of politics may gain some more ground in the short term, but nature will win long term. It always does.

So play teh politics of it. Ultimately, it loses. May be 100 years from now, but it loses.

wolly4321 on February 28, 2013 at 9:27 PM

sigh* I strongly recommend you head to a library at some point in your life. They have these things there, called books! All kinds of knowledge can be accrued from them. Give it a shot will you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142905/Civil-partnership-medieval-style-In-days-sex-marriage-Christian-rite.html

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 9:24 PM

(sigh) And sweetie those were the equivalent of commitment ceremonies of today. They had no legal basis. If you want one of those today.. have at it. THere has never been ONE society in all of history that has had a legal compelling reason to have the state recognize same sex unions.

melle1228 on February 28, 2013 at 9:29 PM

*sigh* I strongly recommend you head to a library at some point in your life. They have these things there, called books! All kinds of knowledge can be accrued from them. Give it a shot will you.

libfreeordie on February 28, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Actually, I have. Perhaps if you had, you might realize that these so-called “gay marriages” were, in fact, established rites of establishing brotherhood and friendship that had existed for millenia.

But, of course, since gay-sex marriage is all you want, you desperately flail about looking for crumbs, anything to justify your desperation, no matter how stupid it makes you look and how obvious it makes the fact that your degree is based solely on black skin rather than any actual education.

northdallasthirty on February 28, 2013 at 9:29 PM

“Views of the population” are usually best and most accurately expressed by the votes of the people, not determined by nine people.

Wethal on February 28, 2013 at 9:12 PM

I agree. But, as you start to get into 50/50 splits (and beyond), courts become more comfortable with making those kinds of decisions.

Revenant on February 28, 2013 at 9:33 PM

(sigh) And sweetie those were the equivalent of commitment ceremonies of today. They had no legal basis. If you want one of those today.. have at it. THere has never been ONE society in all of history that has had a legal compelling reason to have the state recognize same sex unions.

melle1228 on February 28, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Gay marriage is like gun control; it has nothing to do with actually improving or helping society, and everything with carrying out leftist hate fantasies to get rid of religion and independent thought.

northdallasthirty on February 28, 2013 at 9:35 PM

LOL– If enough people actually believe it should be changed then you fascists could actually get it through through a vote, but you have to ram it through the courts.

melle1228 on February 28, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Hahahaha — Its not every day I’m called a fascist.

(The votes are coming as well — look at the most recent election). Give it another 10 years . . . .

Revenant on February 28, 2013 at 9:37 PM

From NRO:

In the latest event regarding last summer’s Chick-fil-A-gay-marriage fiasco, the board of the University of New Mexico’s Student Union Building voted yesterday to keep the restaurant on campus, despite some students claiming its mere presence made them feel “unsafe.“

An LGBTQ group launched a campaign to push for the eatery’s removal, saying that “even the bags have become a symbol of hate.” Chick-fil-A’s support for traditional marriage, which has recently grown more controversial, apparently had group members worried that its presence would trigger retaliation for their lifestyle. “Please look at this from a moral standpoint,” one student pleaded before the vote, “look at the kids that are here that are telling you, ‘I do not feel safe on this campus anymore.’”

Despite the group’s petition, and protests outside the campus Chick-fil-A, the board voted 8 to 3 to keep the chain’s branch in the student union. Other UNM students thought the claims against the restaurant were ridiculous. “Nobody’s in imminent danger on this campus because of chicken,” one student stated, while others argued that Chick-fil-A brought revenues to the university, and doesn’t hold a “hateful” stance.

Sorry, I just don’t see a sweeping decision. It will be left up to the states.

monalisa on February 28, 2013 at 9:39 PM

Gays are 3 percent of the population. It does not take a large population to have a powerful lobby. It takes a leftist population who wants to destroy traditional families and create a stronger government by creating a more libertine society.

melle1228 on February 28, 2013 at 9:05 PM

I had a very liberal friend, who was thin-skinned, was very sensitive to criticism, and quick to take offense. So I was careful around him, and then learned I was to understand he was just as sensitive to criticism of GROUPS he supported. I thought of that as “taking offense by proxy”. Gays are 3%, they’re a minority, so the Left will be right there with them. Never mind 80% of the population of the US is some minority or other.

Paul-Cincy on February 28, 2013 at 9:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3