Obama: If I was on the Supreme Court, I’d strike down bans on gay marriage in every state

posted at 7:21 pm on March 1, 2013 by Allahpundit

In case there was any lingering doubt after last night’s post that O wants prohibitions on SSM neutralized coast to coast, not just in California, here’s the man himself at today’s presser to clarify.

Obama responded by saying: “What we’ve said is that same-sex couples are a group, a class that deserves heightened scrutiny. The Supreme Court needs to ask the state why it’s doing it, and if the state doesn’t have a good reason, it should be struck down. That’s the core principle, as applied to this case.

“Now, what the court may decide that if it doesn’t apply in this case, it probably can’t apply in any case. There’s no good reason for it. If I were on the court, that would probably be the view that I would put forward. But I’m not a judge, I’m the president.”

Two things. One: If he believes state-enacted bans on gay marriage violate the Equal Protection Clause, why isn’t he pushing Congress for a federal statute to legalize SSM? He swore an oath to defend the Constitution; his reading of the Constitution holds that laws prohibiting gays from marrying are barred by the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress could, theoretically, pass something under Section 5 of that amendment to nullify those laws. Granted, there’s little chance it would get through the Republican House, but so what? There’s zero chance that Feinstein’s assault-weapons ban will get through the House but good luck getting The One to shut up about that. He’s happy to make the GOP take a tough vote on guns; why wouldn’t he make them take a tough vote on this, especially as prominent Republicans elsewhere emerge as supporters of SSM? The answer, of course, is that O’s still thinking about the bottom line electorally. That’s why he didn’t “evolve” on this issue in 2008 and that’s why he’s not pressing Congress now — namely, because red-state Senate Democrats who are up for reelection next year would have to take a tough vote on this too and they already have their hands full with gun control and immigration. Obama has no choice but to make them vote on those two issues but he does have a choice on gay marriage: He can try to get this done through the courts instead. In other words, even when he’s in gay-rights-warrior mode, The One is still shortchanging gays by not fully ventilating their legal options. And in this case, he’s ignoring his own reading of equal protection to do it.

Two: I didn’t see all of today’s presser, but can it really be true that no reporter followed up on this by pressing him to explain, precisely, how he went from gay-marriage opponent five years ago to federalist gay-marriage supporter last year to advocate of compulsory gay-marriage legalization via the Fourteenth Amendment today? We all know he’s “evolved” but this isn’t the typical “evolution” on SSM where an opponent looks at the policy in action and gradually decides that it’s not that big a deal. O’s not some average voter. He’s a Harvard-trained former law professor who’s moved, in an astoundingly short period of time, between two (or even three) distinct constitutional views of gay marriage. In 2008, when he was (pretending to be) opposed to SSM on the merits, he must have thought that state laws banning SSM were permissible under the Equal Protection Clause. The alternative, that he didn’t think they were permissible even when he opposed SSM, would necessarily mean that he was pushing a policy which he himself thought was unconstitutional. Last year, when he switched to the pro-federalist position, presumably he still thought there was no equal-protection problem with bans on gay-marriage. You can’t be a federalist on a subject if you think the Constitution bars the states from regulating that subject. Flash forward to today and suddenly he’s telling people openly that if he were on the Court, he’d use the Fourteenth Amendment to nuke every last one of those bans. I’d bet there’s not a single law prof in all the land who’s changed their interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause that dramatically in so short a period of time. Obviously, O thought gay-marriage bans were unconstitutional all along and yet he kept that fact to himself, in contravention of his oath, for four full years. And the media, oddly, seems incurious about it even though legalizing gay marriage is one of their ultimate pet issues. Go figure.


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

I predict Obama to be on the Supreme Court within the next 15 years.

Let’s hope he keeps smoking cigarettes.

portlandon on March 1, 2013 at 7:22 PM

3-4% of the population, of which only 6% want to get married, and it’s 50% of all political dialog.

CrustyB on March 1, 2013 at 7:24 PM

In other news, gay gay gay gay gay gay, gay gay gay gay gay gay. Gay, gay gay, gay gay gay gay.

And now, the weather.

/HotAir’s future

KingGold on March 1, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Let’s hope the closest he gets to a court causes him to be permanently attired in an orange jumpsuit.

He’ll fit right in with his fellow travelers at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

turfmann on March 1, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Does he really have time to speak to this issue, what with the sky falling and all?

steebo77 on March 1, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Take notes, John Roberts. Make sure you get what Obama wants in your opinion, mmmkay?

SouthernGent on March 1, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Idea for In-Trade: The Dog-Eating Unicorn Princess Divorces Moochelle and Marries Reggie Love — BEFORE or AFTER the end of his second term.

Jeddite on March 1, 2013 at 7:29 PM

What we’ve said is that same-sex couples are a group, a class that deserves heightened scrutiny.

I agree … but I know what the word “scrutiny” means and it’s not what the Indonesian is trying to say. I guess they don’t teach the correct use of words like “scrutiny” in the Ivies … no to their affirmative action pets, at least. This is almost as good as Barky’s semi-illiterate abuse of “on the precipice” to try and give the phrase a good connotation.

The 84 IQ dog-eater strikes again with his pea-brain. And he gets away with showing his utter stupidity in public. People who are this stupid used to be shamed off of the public stage. This dope is proud of his stupidity.

Let’s see those SAT scores. Someone who doesn’t know how to use the word scrutiny could not have done very well on the verbal section. I think Barky scored a 450, tops, on his verbal … which brings his SAT total down to 870, on his best day and with all the luck in the world.

What a friggin imbecile this detestable pr!ck is.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 1, 2013 at 7:29 PM

He evolves faster than anyone I have ever seen…now that his last election is behind him.

d1carter on March 1, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Maybe Ginsburg will retire and Obama will nominate himself.

steebo77 on March 1, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Does he really have time to speak to this issue, what with the sky falling and all?

Yes isn’t it amazing that this seems to be what his focus is on.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 7:29 PM

I have to wonder if the absolute disingenuous nature of the push to impose gay marriage on every state(look at Obama and Huntsman flip flops) will weigh on Kennedy and maybe Roberts…

The Prop 8 trial in California was an absolute kangaroo court… the way the Schwarzenegger and Brown tried to prevent the law from being defended was absolute Bush league… and now we have people like Obama and Huntsman saying just 1 year ago that they supported federalism on the issue now saying it’s a constitutional right.

ninjapirate on March 1, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Take notes, John Roberts. Make sure you get what Obama wants in your opinion, mmmkay?

SouthernGent on March 1, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Gay marriage is okay because its a tax.. :)

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 7:30 PM

This was Obama’s “secret” message to John Roberts. Didja get it, John?

NavyMustang on March 1, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Obama: If I was on the Supreme Court, I’d strike down bans on gay marriage in every state

You would probably have to recuse yourself…

You gay president.

Electrongod on March 1, 2013 at 7:31 PM

An incensed Just-Us Benedict Roberts reminded Ogabe:

“Selling out the Constitution is MY turf…. Capiche?”

viking01 on March 1, 2013 at 7:31 PM

3-4% of the population, of which only 6% want to get married, and it’s 50% of all political dialog.
CrustyB on March 1, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Because it represents a bedrock of the American family, and therefore a pillar of American society, it must be denegrated and rendered moot.

When you consider that Obama’s mission statement is to destroy America it makes perfect sense.

He hates us and everything we stand for.

turfmann on March 1, 2013 at 7:31 PM

How about striking down all the screwing gun bans and buying hurdles.

johnnyU on March 1, 2013 at 7:33 PM

He’s a Harvard-trained former law professor who’s moved, in an astoundingly short period of time, between two (or even three) distinct constitutional views of gay marriage.

Your assumption is that he actually understands what he was supposedly trained to do.

Erich66 on March 1, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Obama lies every time he speaks…the shorter version.

Against my better will/judgment I saw a good part of the presser, incl. this part.

A woman reporter, being sick of his ‘grilling’ on the sequester, gave him an out, then followed up with some more of the same…he hmmm, haaaa, daaa, duhhh’d…evolved…his heart was not into any of it, neither the sequester, nor this topic. It could have been any topic. He was just glad she ‘saved’ him from the “no one died” sequester.

Schadenfreude on March 1, 2013 at 7:37 PM

So the states can’t do their 10th on how their voters decide? Guess roberts will say it is a ‘tax’ and is consitutional to tell the states they must do g/m? No amendment for the states to vote on? Seems bho/team is doing all they can to do away with the 10th with the help of courts?
L

letget on March 1, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Take notes, John Roberts. Make sure you get what Obama wants in your opinion, mmmkay?

SouthernGent on March 1, 2013 at 7:28 PM

It’s probably going to come down 5-4 with deciding deciding. He is after all the one who opened the door to is nonsense in Lawrence v Texas.

jawkneemusic on March 1, 2013 at 7:39 PM

5-4 with Kennedy deciding*

jawkneemusic on March 1, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Gay Dictator -In-Chief!!

canopfor on March 1, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Actually, Huntsman flip-flopped within one week.

Here’s my prediction… Prop 8 is upheld BECAUSE they already had a civil unions law… that the voters could have had perfectly rational reasons to keep marriage 1-man, 1-woman that do not amount to personal animus to gay individuals but to the fear of the state imposing that standard on schools and social services outside associated with churches.

This will effectively legalize civil unions in every state while setting the state for setting religious liberty boundaries in future cases.

ninjapirate on March 1, 2013 at 7:41 PM

In other news, gay gay gay gay gay gay, gay gay gay gay gay gay. Gay, gay gay, gay gay gay gay.

And now, the weather.

/HotAir’s future

KingGold on March 1, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Yeh two gay posts out of almost 50….I see what you mean…
/

CW on March 1, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Yawn…

TX-96 on March 1, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Because it represents a bedrock of the American family, and therefore a pillar of American society, it must be denegrated and rendered moot.

When you consider that Obama’s mission statement is to destroy America it makes perfect sense.

He hates us and everything we stand for.

turfmann on March 1, 2013 at 7:31 PM

If 3-4% of the society can do something that renders a bedrock pillar of American society moot then it’s a pretty weak pillar to begin with.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 7:43 PM

How I wish homosexuality did not exist….. I am absolutely sick of hearing about it. Great, the perverted acts between the same sex is now becoming accepted….. now for the love of pete can we stop talking about them?!?!

And I dont care how accepted the whole gay thing becomes in this country. As long as im alive, I will always view it as strange, gross, odd, abnormal, etc I dont hate gays, but they are not normal and it should not be viewed as cute as to what they do and who they are. It is an outright abnormality and disgusting at that.

bucsox79 on March 1, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Had a busy day today. Let’s just say to Obama I say Kiss my Royal A**…… I will fight this gay marriage thing to my death. And no I am not homophobic…. they don’t scare me one whit…. but if they win…. will they shut up and just live like the rest of us?

MNDavenotPC on March 1, 2013 at 7:43 PM

‘Best’ part of his answer was “..but I’m not a judge, I’m the president”.

If we’d possess 1000 dollars for each time this narcissistic underdeveloped teenager said “I’m the president” we’d all be very rich.

Schadenfreude on March 1, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Gay marriage is okay because its a tax.. :)

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 7:30 PM

I wondered what Bawney Fwank meant when he was all for back taxes?

Now I know. Yeeeech….

viking01 on March 1, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Ok so he’s not a supreme court justice or a dictator, he’s the president..he just has to continue to rub the salt into the wound..ahhhh i can’t stand him

and hellllllo Obama…STATES RIGHTS…VOTES DO COUNT

sadsushi on March 1, 2013 at 7:49 PM

I agree … but I know what the word “scrutiny” means and it’s not what the Indonesian is trying to say.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 1, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Actually I think it’s pretty clear you don’t know what the word “scrutiny” means in this context.

righty45 on March 1, 2013 at 7:50 PM

How I wish homosexuality did not exist….. I am absolutely sick of hearing about it. Great, the perverted acts between the same sex is now becoming accepted….. now for the love of pete can we stop talking about them?!?!

And I dont care how accepted the whole gay thing becomes in this country. As long as im alive, I will always view it as strange, gross, odd, abnormal, etc I dont hate gays, but they are not normal and it should not be viewed as cute as to what they do and who they are. It is an outright abnormality and disgusting at that.

bucsox79 on March 1, 2013 at 7:43 PM

The ascendancy of homosexuality in a society is an indication that God withdrawing His grace and mercy from that society.

tom daschle concerned on March 1, 2013 at 7:51 PM

How I wish homosexuality did not exist….. I am absolutely sick of hearing about it. Great, the perverted acts between the same sex is now becoming accepted….. now for the love of pete can we stop talking about them?!?!

And I dont care how accepted the whole gay thing becomes in this country. As long as im alive, I will always view it as strange, gross, odd, abnormal, etc I dont hate gays, but they are not normal and it should not be viewed as cute as to what they do and who they are. It is an outright abnormality and disgusting at that.

bucsox79 on March 1, 2013 at 7:43 PM

LOL– One of my favorite saying is: ” The love that dare not speak its name now won’t shut the %$*^ up!”

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Obama = pandering turd

Democrats, liberals, militant gay activists and far-Left loons are the reason gay marriage has as much opposition as it does. And of course Obama won’t push congress to oppose marriage restrictions like DOMA…his changing tune is simply tossing a bone to one group or another.

JetBoy on March 1, 2013 at 7:51 PM

I really hate this man. God forgive me.

gophergirl on March 1, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Obama = pandering turd

Democrats, liberals, militant gay activists and far-Left loons are the reason gay marriage has as much opposition as it does. And of course Obama won’t push congress to oppose marriage restrictions like DOMA…his changing tune is simply tossing a bone to one group or another.

JetBoy on March 1, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Bingo!

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 7:53 PM

The Supreme Court needs to ask the state why it’s doing it, and if the state doesn’t have a good reason, it should be struck down. That’s the core principle, as applied to this case.

Maybe because the voters in the state voted that way idiot.

gophergirl on March 1, 2013 at 7:56 PM

OT

Obama and Napolitano released over 2000 illegal alien criminals.

She, with his approval, paid overtime funds to release them in secret, over the weekend, without notifying the locals cops, sherifs and the people.

Obama and Napolitano are national criminals.

Schadenfreude on March 1, 2013 at 7:56 PM

3-4% of the population, of which only 6% want to get married, and it’s 50% of all political dialog.

CrustyB on March 1, 2013 at 7:24 PM

That’s the part that chaps my butt. PC is enabling the tyranny of the minorities. And small minorities at that.

petefrt on March 1, 2013 at 7:56 PM

There’s 3 female Obamas on the court already.

racquetballer on March 1, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Of course he does. Thats why he appointed 2 leftists..one with questionable sexual orientation, to SCOTUS.

Thanks voters, and non voters, and third party voters. Give yourselves a pat on the back.

Mimzey on March 1, 2013 at 7:56 PM

He wanted this left to the states, but only if they decide to allow it.

Now he’s “evolved” so that this is now a federal issue. Well, it is, in one sense, because contracts made in one state must be honored in another. However, nothing has been said about breaking such contracts — divorce, as it were.

There are several rights expressly outlined by the Constitution. Freedom of religion is one of them. Freedom to marry whom you will is not one of them. In fact, marriage (other than as a protected religious expression) is not one of them.

Perhaps it’s time for all governments to get out of the marriage business — or, perhaps, to allow pairings other than those of marriage for the purpose of benefits. I’d pair with one of my children immediately, and my wife would pair with the other, thus allowing our kids the best possible start in life — a social security benefit while they are still in their 20′s.

unclesmrgol on March 1, 2013 at 7:56 PM

especially as prominent Republicans elsewhere emerge as supporters of SSM

You’re still repeating this meme even though you yourself admitted it was a stretch?

When people can’t win on facts and logic, then they turn to propaganda techniques.

INC on March 1, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Actually I think it’s pretty clear you don’t know what the word “scrutiny” means in this context.

righty45 on March 1, 2013 at 7:50 PM

That is “scrutiny” of laws, not of people, you blithering idiot. And “same-sex couples” are not a class.

And “strict scrutiny” as a term of art is not “heightened scrutiny”.

Go blow Barky some more. I think Christie is taking a break.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 1, 2013 at 7:57 PM

There’s 3 female Obamas on the court already.

racquetballer on March 1, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Obama will feel right at home..

Electrongod on March 1, 2013 at 7:58 PM

I have to give AP a star on the observation it is unbelievable that Obama has gone from evolving and not entering the fray on either side in mid 2012 to mandating form the Supreme court that state bans on SSM is what should happen. I would point out something obvious that I have posted here before.

CAN WE JUST FORGET THE IDEA OBAMA SAYS A SINGLE HONEST WORD!

CAN WE JUST ADMIT THAT HE IS AN ALINSKYITE 24/7/365!

A whole lot of idiotic head scratching and wondering goes away ED AND AP if you just start with that opinion and work BACK if you can’t explain his actions THAT way.

It is easy to see how he “evolved” AP if you know he never tells the truth!!

Conan on March 1, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Maybe Ginsburg will retire and Obama will nominate himself.

steebo77 on March 1, 2013 at 7:29 PM

After he appoints himself head of the UN. Maybe he could also make himself Speaker of the House and Senate Majority leader. He’d hold offices in all three branches simultaneously as well as heading up the UN.
Low info voters and the mainstream media would applaud. I can see it now… 40 years into the future, the US is a true banana 3rd world republic with one air craft carrier and 16 speed boats. Obama would have made himself a throne by then in his new palace and still be blaming Bush and the Republicans for all of his problems.

JellyToast on March 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Bingo!

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Of course, that doesn’t make it right.

It’s natural for conservatives to have a knee-jerk response to the Left when they are proponents of any given topic…if liberals want it, it can’t be good. And that’s a big problem, and a high hurdle to overcome.

Same sex marriage won’t get anywhere if it’s always going to be seen as a liberal Leftist ideal.

JetBoy on March 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM

There’s 3 female Obamas on the court already.

racquetballer on March 1, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Obamamamas?

JetBoy on March 1, 2013 at 8:01 PM

There are some events that would singularly put the Union at risk. One is bailout of individual states. Another is the USSC Bogarting this issue, repeating the same mistake it made in Roe v. Wade, when it’s a matter clearly for the elected representatives of states to decide.

petefrt on March 1, 2013 at 8:02 PM

That is “scrutiny” of laws, not of people, you blithering idiot. And “same-sex couples” are not a class.

And “strict scrutiny” as a term of art is not “heightened scrutiny”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 1, 2013 at 7:57 PM

The PrimordialOrderedPair,

You have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about here. Which is fine, of course. But you probably shouldn’t be calling others blithering idiots.

That being said, I’m glad you took the opportunity to read the wikipedia entry.

righty45 on March 1, 2013 at 8:02 PM

“B*lls!” cried the Queen (Obysmal). “If I had two, I would be King!”

onlineanalyst on March 1, 2013 at 8:06 PM

But I’m not a judge, I’m the president.”

Why does Obysmal have to keep reminding himself (and us) of that fact?

onlineanalyst on March 1, 2013 at 8:08 PM

righty45 on March 1, 2013 at 8:02 PM

So, you think that the “class” of same-sex couples deserves heightened scrutiny?

I agree. Any laws against changing the definition of marriage don’t, however.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 1, 2013 at 8:09 PM

There’s 3 female Obamas on the court already.

racquetballer on March 1, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Prove it.

CurtZHP on March 1, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Of course, that doesn’t make it right.

It’s natural for conservatives to have a knee-jerk response to the Left when they are proponents of any given topic…if liberals want it, it can’t be good. And that’s a big problem, and a high hurdle to overcome.

Same sex marriage won’t get anywhere if it’s always going to be seen as a liberal Leftist ideal.

JetBoy on March 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Jetboy it will continue to be seen that way because things that happen under the GLBT banner continue to happen. Lawsuits that aren’t there to challenge the status quo so that you can live your life in peace, but to coerce others to accept your life. Whenever the state tries to coerce acceptance especially of something as controversial as a sexual behavior that is outside the norm; you are going to have continued resistance. And when that coercion takes the form of off the wall lawsuits, you will have unreligious people like me continue to fight the gateway for the coercion.

Do I think that you have a right to love your partner and spend the rest of your life in happiness with your partner to the same extent that I do mine? Sure.. Do I think the state must recognize that. No.. I think the state can select which relationships are logical to recognize. If there is some compromise in there to ensure that you get what you want out of it; I am also for it, but I have yet to find it.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Prove it.

CurtZHP on March 1, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Right after I prove Obama is not an American citizen.
Which is easier?

racquetballer on March 1, 2013 at 8:19 PM

There are some events that would singularly put the Union at risk. One is bailout of individual states. Another is the USSC Bogarting this issue, repeating the same mistake it made in Roe v. Wade, when it’s a matter clearly for the elected representatives of states to decide.

petefrt on March 1, 2013 at 8:02 PM

The Constitution is still the highest law of the land. If the elected representatives of the states or if the people themselves vote for something that was in violation of the Constitution (for example, an approved ballot measure that made all white people slaves) it would be the duty of the courts to step in and strike it down.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Obama would not accept an appointment to the Supreme Court, unless it was to replace John Roberts, the Presidency and congress, so that he would be what he says he is not, a dictator.

Like he would play second fiddle to anyone. nah

el world presidente is his next goal.

can_con on March 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM

3-4% of the population, of which only 6% want to get married, and it’s 50% of all political dialog.

CrustyB on March 1, 2013 at 7:24 PM

PC is enabling the tyranny of the minorities. And small minorities at that.

petefrt on March 1, 2013 at 7:56 PM

The first tipping point was during and after WW2, when the homosexual soldiers rounded up for discharge discovered that they were NOT “the only one like me”; read Coming Out Under Fire for an informative (although biased) view of the situation. Once they demobbed into large urban environments, instead of going back to the small towns, they were able to draw even more men into the fold.
The second tipping point was AIDS, when many well-known actors and entertainers were “outed” by their illness, along with “the guys next door”, “my little brother”, “that nice man at the grocery store”, etc. After the general population learned how many people they knew and liked were homosexual, that orientation and life-style became more and more acceptable (or less and less perverse, take your pick).
The PC “majority” developed from the sympathy-effect, because it seems so mean to beat up on the people you actually know, even if you don’t know them personally (actors) or you only know one or two (and who doesn’t?).
Plus, of course, the confusion over true civil rights (employment in most places, equality under the law, etc.) and the manufactured rights of the Left (abortion, marriage, and the Constitution-lite mandate to never hurt anyone’s feelings unless they are Christians or Conservatives).

AesopFan on March 1, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Same sex marriage won’t get anywhere if it’s always going to be seen as a liberal Leftist ideal.

JetBoy on March 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM

.
Gay marriage won’t get anywhere, because homosexuality will NEVER be accepted as a legitimate, alternate normality.

listens2glenn on March 1, 2013 at 8:31 PM

it is going to go something like this…do the laws of Marriage serve a compelling state interest. Yes they do.

Are they tailored in such a fashion to be properly narrow (not overly broad) and to be as least restrictive as possible

And so there you have it. From a 14th Amendment point of view the marriage laws are overly restrictive, and the restrictions serve NO compelling state interest

or something like that…SCOTUS will buy that, i’m betting..and maybe by more than 5/4

r keller on March 1, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Democrats, liberals, militant gay activists and far-Left loons are the reason gay marriage has as much opposition as it does. And of course Obama won’t push congress to oppose marriage restrictions like DOMA…his changing tune is simply tossing a bone to one group or another.

JetBoy on March 1, 2013 at 7:51 PM

It’s natural for conservatives to have a knee-jerk response to the Left when they are proponents of any given topic…if liberals want it, it can’t be good. And that’s a big problem, and a high hurdle to overcome.
Same sex marriage won’t get anywhere if it’s always going to be seen as a liberal Leftist ideal.

JetBoy on March 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM

SSM is seen as a liberal Leftist ideal, because that’s what it is.
The conservative response is not “knee-jerk” opposition to the Left per se, but a visceral response to the Left’s attempt to change the entire concept of the meaning of marriage.
Attempts to “mainstream” acceptance of their ideal seem to have been short-circuited by the haste with which SSM is now being pursued, which is counter-productive at the moment; however, that could turn around if SSM is validated by the courts, although a core of opposition will always remain.
Nonetheless, considering that the idea went from zero to turbo-charged in less than a decade, SSM is certainly getting somewhere; but is that where we want our civilization to go?

AesopFan on March 1, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Nonetheless, considering that the idea went from zero to turbo-charged in less than a decade, SSM is certainly getting somewhere; but is that where we want our civilization to go?

AesopFan on March 1, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Into the sh!tter. Literally.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 1, 2013 at 8:50 PM

r keller on March 1, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Yep.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 9:03 PM

if liberals want it, it can’t be good.

JetBoy

That’s a pretty good rule to live by.

xblade on March 1, 2013 at 9:03 PM

He swore an oath to defend the Constitution

Oh ha ha! Oh hee hee! Did you write that with a straight face?

John the Libertarian on March 1, 2013 at 9:16 PM

To liberals, only Catholic priests are homosexual pedophiles. All other gays are just normal perverts.

pat on March 1, 2013 at 9:18 PM

He swore an oath to defend the Constitution
Surely you realize only Obama knows what it really means?

pat on March 1, 2013 at 9:19 PM

AesopFan on March 1, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Yes, and as you know, it’s not just gays that PC is making taboo to criticize. It’s also socialists, communists, radical Islam, school teachers, bureaucrats, the rest of the left’s favored constituencies, and anyone else that objects to their agenda.

Ben Carson’s pointing this out shows his intellectual clarity.

petefrt on March 1, 2013 at 9:19 PM

He swore an oath to defend the Constitution

Oh ha ha! Oh hee hee! Did you write that with a straight face?

John the Libertarian on March 1, 2013 at 9:16 PM

Yes, regrettably it is almost laughable.

But why not legislation that criminalizes intentionally lying the oath of public office.

petefrt on March 1, 2013 at 9:23 PM

tom daschle concerned on March 1, 2013 at 7:51 PM

I disagree with your statement. God’s grace and mercy will never leave the Earth, but I agree this nation is headed toward a Romans 1 situation. There is only so many times God can tell you things before he lets you find out the hard way. It’s not God who destroys societies, it’s us.

Conservative Independent on March 1, 2013 at 9:30 PM

So much circus. Low info. I look at past conflagurations and wonder, if you are gay, don’t you have something better to worry about? Like staying alive?

You want common cause, I’ll make you a deal. Quit worrying about stupid sh!t. Nobody is going to recognize your identity when we are worrying about surviving.

What pisses me off about you most is you distracting from real danger with your superflous bullshit.

I mean seriously,, there aren’t more pressing issues?

wolly4321 on March 1, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Gay marriage won’t get anywhere, because homosexuality will NEVER be accepted as a legitimate, alternate normality.

listens2glenn on March 1, 2013 at 8:31 PM

“Never” is a very bold and powerful word, and while that may hold true for you it might not really be the case for the public at large. Amongst born again Christians under age 35 opposition to gay marriage only stands at 44% (it’s only 12% among non-born again Christians in the same age group), and there’s an even split on whether or not it’s a sin.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/mayweb-only/evangelicals-shift-same-sex-marriage.html?start=1

Depending on your age “never” might happen in your lifetime, and if not yours then probably in your kids lifetimes.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Depending on your age “never” might happen in your lifetime, and if not yours then probably in your kids lifetimes.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Not once people realize that gay-sex marriage is not about marriage, but instead is about bigots who are using it as an excuse to punish people for daring to speak freely and to ignore the Constitution.

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.

But it indeed gets even worse.

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.

And then there’s the clear statement of the Barack Obama Party and the gay and lesbian community:

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.”

How long do you think evangelicals will support gay-sex marriage when their churches are forced to perform it by government dictum and their religious liberty is suppressed in the name of sexual liberty?

You have no idea how badly your hand is overplayed at this point.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM

all 57 states?

if marriage is a religious ceremony/ sacrament the state should have nothing to do with saying who can and who cannot get married. the state also has no business telling religions who they may marry or who they have to marry.

i don’t care what this douche offers me or whatever groups i happen to fall into- he’s a tyrant and is destroying the country. there’s no amount of pandering that will make me give up the rights i was endowed with by an authority more powerful, more important than the Puppy Munching Unicorn Messiah.

conversely there’s no amount of disgustingly graphic ignorant rants by conservatives weighing in against ‘perverts’ that will make me support the likes of PaPa Doc Soetoro.

mittens on March 1, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Gay marriage won’t get anywhere, because homosexuality will NEVER be accepted as a legitimate, alternate normality.

listens2glenn on March 1, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Dude, I doubt that there is a large urban area left in America which doesn’t support gay marriage and most by wide margins. Even as gay marriage lost in North Carolina, the pro-gay marriage votes carried in the three biggest cities and other places. The votes in the rural areas were at levels that they would have in the urban ten years ago. The obvious conclusion is that you are wrong.

thuja on March 1, 2013 at 10:16 PM

But I’m not a judge, I’m the president.”

And a piss poor one at that.

GarandFan on March 1, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Gay marriage? No such thing. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Period. Claiming it can be anything else (short of a metaphorically deal — “He’s married to his work”) is akin to pushing newspeak. Bug off, Orwellian hacks. You want the law to not give preferential treatment to married people? Argue that. But don’t push your oxymoronic perversion of language on those of us who still have a shred of intellectual honesty.

CanofSand on March 1, 2013 at 10:29 PM

Gay marriage won’t get anywhere, because homosexuality will NEVER be accepted as a legitimate, alternate normality.

listens2glenn on March 1, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Some of the Founding Fathers outright said slavery would die out on its own. It took a civil war to end it.

55 million and counting with Roe. We lost our only chance at a SCOTUS repeal.

Leftards like thuja are rubbing their hands in wicked glee because they know time is on their side.

MelonCollie on March 1, 2013 at 10:31 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 1, 2013 at 7:57 PM

To answer your questions:

1) Yes, same sex couples deserve heightened judicial scrutiny, i.e. laws discriminating against them should be subject to strict scrutiny rather than the default rational basis review. The way Obama phrased it is perfectly fine.

2) Homosexuals, of which same sex coupled are a subset, can certainly be considered a “class” for purposes of equal protection analysis.

3) Heightened scrutiny (like strict scrutiny) is a term of art in constitutional law and Obama used it correctly.

Anything else you’d like cleared up?

righty45 on March 1, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Apologies for the typo; I’m on a mobile phone.

righty45 on March 1, 2013 at 10:36 PM

righty45 on March 1, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Homosexuality is a sexual preference, not a race.

kingsjester on March 1, 2013 at 10:42 PM

The obvious conclusion is that you are wrong.
thuja on March 1, 2013 at 10:16 PM

In your mind.

kingsjester on March 1, 2013 at 10:48 PM

And the media, oddly, seems incurious about it even though legalizing gay marriage is one of their ultimate pet issues. Go figure.
posted at 7:21 pm on March 1, 2013 by Allahpundit

This is odd…Really?

I don’t find it odd at all…Not after 4 years

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 10:48 PM

Still all the wrong questions to an issue.

Plus, why all the tap-dancing? You know exactly why this has occurred; you also know the reasons why it is pushed by certain persons and associations. Are you trying to not “lead the witness” via questioning? I wish you would create an article for public introspection, just so I, and others, may see how you get to your belief. I do this with myself in order to understand the consequences of my ideals. It is the easiest way to defeat left-wing thought; make them expound on reasoning.

Irregardless, this should begin with “what is marriage” and “what role for government”. If government was not involved, there would be less marriages, more successful ones, personal responsibility, and less overlording by courts/tax code.

John Kettlewell on March 1, 2013 at 10:55 PM

Leftards like thuja are rubbing their hands in wicked glee because they know time is on their side.

MelonCollie on March 1, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Leftard, moi? Be real dude. That I’m not a socon doesn’t make me any less Tea Party, and I think you know it.

Anyway, let’s remember why normalization of gays is winning. It’s because it is just and kind. The best excuse not to have gay marriage is someway somehow heterosexuals won’t understand marriage as something special, and won’t get married. If you think you can state their argument better than this, I am all ears. I am trying to be fair in stating their argument, but their argument just doesn’t seem persuasive to me.

The pro-gay case is that you a need a good reason to condemn people, and sexual desire for members of the same sex simply isn’t a good reason. Furthermore, the barbaric cruelties of the past that SoCons implicitly endorse are so disgusting that your own conscience should bother you in endorsing their arguments. “Why do you persecute me?”

It’s tough for me to argue here, because I somewhat enjoy being obnoxious, but the actual argument requires I be open and friendly. I will try.

thuja on March 1, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Leftard, moi? Be real dude. That I’m not a socon doesn’t make me any less Tea Party, and I think you know it.

Anyway, let’s remember why normalization of gays is winning. It’s because it is just and kind.

thuja on March 1, 2013 at 10:56 PM

You’re a teapartier like Mitt Romney is a conservative. You used left-wing propaganda in the next sentence after your laughably lame claim.

MelonCollie on March 1, 2013 at 10:58 PM

You’re a teapartier like Mitt Romney is a conservative. You used left-wing propaganda in the next sentence after your laughably lame claim.

MelonCollie on March 1, 2013 at 10:58 PM

F*** trying to be nice and reasonable with the likes of you. You’re just an idiot.

thuja on March 1, 2013 at 11:09 PM

Anyway, let’s remember why normalization of gays is winning. It’s because it is just and kind. The best excuse not to have gay marriage is someway somehow heterosexuals won’t understand marriage as something special, and won’t get married. If you think you can state their argument better than this, I am all ears. I am trying to be fair in stating their argument, but their argument just doesn’t seem persuasive to me.

Well, of course not, because your thinking on this isn’t rational; you just loathe social conservatives and use gay people as a socially-acceptable excuse to act out your hate and bigotry toward them.

The argument is very straightforward. Marriage exists to provide a legal structure and protection for the children that are the inevitable result of opposite-sex coupling and to provide benefits to parents to offset the costs and restrictions of raising the children they produce.

Gay-sex couplings produce no children and therefore need none of these. Gays and lesbians are adults and presumably can pay for and take care of themselves, so society need not waste resources that would and should be better spent on the children that need them.

The pro-gay case is that you a need a good reason to condemn people, and sexual desire for members of the same sex simply isn’t a good reason.

The lack of marriage does not in any way represent or equal “condemnation”. Once again, you attempt to use other peoples’ sexual orientation to carry out your irrational hatred of and bigotry toward social conservatives, which makes you an exploiter and a homophobe.

Furthermore, the barbaric cruelties of the past that SoCons implicitly endorse are so disgusting that your own conscience should bother you in endorsing their arguments. “Why do you persecute me?”

Opposition to gay marriage is not “cruelty”. Once again, you attempt to use other peoples’ sexual orientation to carry out your irrational hatred of and bigotry toward social conservatives, which makes you an exploiter and a homophobe.

It’s tough for me to argue here, because I somewhat enjoy being obnoxious, but the actual argument requires I be open and friendly. I will try.

thuja on March 1, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Don’t waste your effort. You already insult and act obnoxious towards gay people like myself by your condescension and your attempting to speak on our behalf to push your petty and irrational bigotry.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2013 at 11:17 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 1, 2013 at 7:57 PM

To answer your questions:

1) Yes, same sex couples deserve heightened judicial scrutiny, i.e. laws discriminating against them should be subject to strict scrutiny rather than the default rational basis review. The way Obama phrased it is perfectly fine.

2) Homosexuals, of which same sex coupled are a subset, can certainly be considered a “class” for purposes of equal protection analysis.

3) Heightened scrutiny (like strict scrutiny) is a term of art in constitutional law and Obama used it correctly.

Anything else you’d like cleared up?

righty45 on March 1, 2013 at 10:33 PM

The second very interesting brief was submitted by Professor Gerard Bradley of Notre Dame Law School on behalf of Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins University.
Dr. McHugh is a remarkable man. For 26 years he headed the Johns Hopkins Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science. You may recall that this department was the place in America that initiated sex change operations under the notorious and now discredited Dr. John Money. One of McHugh’s first acts was to close down Money’s sex change unit.

Their brief is also about definitions, in this case the definition of homosexuality and sexual orientation.

Bradley and McHugh want to convince the court that homosexuals do not rise to the level of a “suspect class” deserving of “heighted scrutiny” protection. Those in support of traditional marriage believe the people of California in the Proposition 8 case and that Congress in the Defense of Marriage Act all had “rational” reasons for their claims. It is a lower and much easier claim to defend. Prop 8 and DOMA plaintiffs want to claim “suspect class” which would force the defendants to make the much harder case that the state has a “compelling interest” in maintaining man-woman marriage.

In order to become a suspect class, however, homosexuals have to make the case that there is a history of discrimination against them, that they are politically powerless to fight back, and that theirs is a “discrete group” with “immutable characteristics.” This is not easy.

Bradley and McHugh make the case abundantly and perhaps surprisingly that the plaintiffs fail on the questions of both discreteness and immutability.

The definition of a suspect class requires the group be “discrete” or distinct and definable. Race is an accepted category, for instance, but the Court has rejected age and poverty as suspect classes. Bradley and McHugh assert that sexual orientation fails, too, because it “may characterize points along a continuum of sexual attraction, sexual behavior, and sexual identity where individual categories are anything but distinct.

They cite the Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, “There is currently no scientific or popular consensus…that definitely ‘qualify’ an individual as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.”

The authors cite more than a dozen such quotations from equally authoritative sources.

In fact, the authors go on for 28 pages showing there is no agreed upon definition of sexual orientation, that sexual orientation—at least among those who claim some sort of same sex attraction—far from being immutable is in fact plastic. Citing a plethora of social science research, they show that degrees of homosexuality change consistently through the life of most who claim same-sex attraction, particularly among women.

The authors also demonstrate that there is not a single repeated scientific study showing that homosexuality is genetic.

The First Brief:
Professor Robert George of Princeton and his talented young collaborators Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation and Sherif Girgis who is toiling on a law degree at Yale and a Ph.D in Philosophy at Princeton.

In a Harvard Law Review article, a book and now this brief, George, Ryan, and Girgis answer the question “what is marriage?” They describe two competing views; one they call “conjugal”, and the other “revisionist.” Allowing for the revisionist view “can cause corresponding social harms.

It weakens the rational foundation (and hence social practice) of stabilizing marital norms on which social order depends: norms such as permanence, exclusivity, monogamy.”

George and his colleagues argue that marriage can only be “conjugal”, that is, a “comprehensive union joining spouses in body as well as in mind, it is begun by commitment and sealed by sexual intercourse. So completed in the acts by which new life is made, it is especially apt for and deepened by procreation and calls for that broad sharing uniquely fit for family life.” Such a comprehensive view of marriage is still available to sterile couples but not for homosexuals.

The authors explain that what they call the “revisionist” understanding of marriage “is essentially an emotional union, accompanied by any consensual activity. Such romantic unions are seen as valuable while the emotion lasts.” Men and women can have such “unions” just as same-sex couples can, “both involve intense emotional bonding, so both can (on this view) make a marriage. But comprehensive union is something only a man and woman can form.”

George says, “enacting same-sex marriage would not expand the institution of marriage” as proponents claim, but would redefine it. Such a redefinition would permanently harm the notion of marriage and sully the goods that come from marriage properly understood.

As the George brief makes clear, this would signal the end of any kind of marriage culture in the United States.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/on-two-compelling-legal-briefs-that-challenge-same-sex-marriage?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CrisisMagazine+%28Crisis+Magazine%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Since Same Sex Marriage was enacted in European countries the data corresponds to rapid decline of the marriage culture in those European Countries.

Studies in the Netherlands where gay marriage was first legalized, show a subsequent decline in the number of traditional heterosexual marriages. This has also occurred in other Scandinavian countries where same-sex unions have been legalized (see “Dutch Debate Despite a challenge, the evidence stands: Marriage is in decline in the Netherlands“ by Stanley Kurtz;

Kurtz:
Why would a country with a notably traditional attitude toward marriage and parenthood all of a sudden experience such a remarkable and long-lasting spike in its out-of-wedlock birthrate? The answer is that, once marriage stops being about binding mothers and fathers together for the sake of their children, the need to get married gradually disappears. That’s why I’ve argued that the soaring Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate has everything to do with gay marriage.

http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602230800.asp

and see also Joop Garssen, Dutch demographer in http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol7/12/7-12.pdf)

If polygamy becomes legal in one jurisdiction, it can predictably occur elsewhere as has been the case with gay marriage. As this occurs among heterosexual groups of one man having multiple wives, the precedent will be established to include the legal recognition of group marriage among homosexuals.

As marriage is legally defined, the secular society will no longer have a unique definition of marriage, and the traditional institution and definition of marriage will pass into extinction as has been the case increasingly in countries that recognize gay marriage.

What will happen to society as traditional marriage is diluted and fades from the culture? The breakdown of the traditional family has historically resulted in mental illness, unemployment, homelessness, and poverty. It is our view that the deconstruction of traditional marriage will predictably further accelerate the decline of Western society.

http://www.prlog.org/11560977-mental-health-news-social-impact-of-gay-marriage-equality.html

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 11:24 PM

Furthermore, the barbaric cruelties of the past that SoCons implicitly endorse are so disgusting that your own conscience should bother you in endorsing their arguments. “Why do you persecute me?”

thuja on March 1, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Oh, that’s a good one.

In fact, I know exactly where I’ve seen it before: dripping from the mouth of your Obama and his Congressional Racist Caucus as they scream that criticizing a black person and not giving them exactly what they want means you implicitly endorse slavery and persecute African-Americans.

So you can go do anatomically-impossible things to yourself, you stinking leftist bigot.

You don’t give a damn about gay people. All we are to you is excuses for your own filthy hatemongering and bigotry. You’re a disgusting homophobe of the worst kind, just another Obama racist wannabe.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2013 at 11:25 PM

“Marriage in the Netherlands is in serious trouble. You don’t have to take my word for it, because even the Netherlands’ own statistical agency is making the same point. In this 2004 report “Trends in samenwonon en trouwen” (“Trends in cohabitation and marriage”), Jan Latten of the Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics paints a picture of radical institutional decline. And the most recent data from the Netherlands is fully consistent with this picture. At a minimum, this means that the “conservative case” for same-sex marriage has been refuted in the Dutch case. More than that, I argue, all signs point to same-sex marriage as a significant causal factor in Dutch marital decline…

How can we account for the fact that a stable and prosperous Western European country like The Netherlands is experiencing marital decline at a rate matched only by countries which have suffered severe social, political, and economic dislocation? Why would a country with a notably traditional attitude toward marriage and parenthood all of a sudden experience such a remarkable and long-lasting spike in its out-of-wedlock birthrate? The answer is that, once marriage stops being about binding mothers and fathers together for the sake of their children, the need to get married gradually disappears. That’s why I’ve argued that the soaring Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate has everything to do with gay marriage…

http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602230800.asp

workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 11:28 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 1, 2013 at 7:57 PM

To answer your questions:

1) Yes, same sex couples deserve heightened judicial scrutiny, i.e. laws discriminating against them should be subject to strict scrutiny rather than the default rational basis review. The way Obama phrased it is perfectly fine.

2) Homosexuals, of which same sex coupled are a subset, can certainly be considered a “class” for purposes of equal protection analysis.

3) Heightened scrutiny (like strict scrutiny) is a term of art in constitutional law and Obama used it correctly.

Anything else you’d like cleared up?

righty45 on March 1, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Nope.

In order to become a suspect class, however, homosexuals have to make the case that there is a history of discrimination against them, that they are politically powerless to fight back, and that theirs is a “discrete group” with “immutable characteristics.” This is not easy.

Bradley and McHugh make the case abundantly and perhaps surprisingly that the plaintiffs fail on the questions of both discreteness and immutability.

The definition of a suspect class requires the group be “discrete” or distinct and definable. Race is an accepted category, for instance, but the Court has rejected age and poverty as suspect classes. Bradley and McHugh assert that sexual orientation fails, too, because it “may characterize points along a continuum of sexual attraction, sexual behavior, and sexual identity where individual categories are anything but distinct. They cite the Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, “There is currently no scientific or popular consensus…that definitely ‘qualify’ an individual as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.” The authors cite more than a dozen such quotations from equally authoritative sources.

In fact, the authors go on for 28 pages showing there is no agreed upon definition of sexual orientation, that sexual orientation—at least among those who claim some sort of same sex attraction—far from being immutable is in fact plastic. Citing a plethora of social science research, they show that degrees of homosexuality change consistently through the life of most who claim same-sex attraction, particularly among women.

The authors also demonstrate that there is not a single repeated scientific study showing that homosexuality is genetic.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/on-two-compelling-legal-briefs-that-challenge-same-sex-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 11:33 PM

1) Yes, same sex couples deserve heightened judicial scrutiny, i.e. laws discriminating against them should be subject to strict scrutiny rather than the default rational basis review. The way Obama phrased it is perfectly fine.

So, you’ve already determined that the laws are “discriminating” against them (even though marriage has always been a man and woman or a man and many women – and never anything else … EVER) and then you are going to impartially decide if this “discrimination” (of which Nature is responsible) is allowed for your pet “class”? Okey doke.

Laws concerning the definition of marriage are not discriminating against homosexuals. Marriage is an institution that has never applied to homosexual couples any more than it’s applied to four friends who decide they want to live together and be considered a “family unit” by the government, including immigration rights and the rest.

2) Homosexuals, of which same sex coupled are a subset, can certainly be considered a “class” for purposes of equal protection analysis.

So, you say here that homosexuals are a class, not that “same sex couples” are a class. And why do you think that “same sex couples” have to be homosexual? Why aren’t any two people who decide they want whatever benefits or certification the various governments bestow on “couples” (right to adopt, immigration rights, social security – old people might want to become a “couple” with some young people to pass on their social security after they die) also considered in this “same sex couple” class?

I can see that you really haven’t thought this through much.

3) Heightened scrutiny (like strict scrutiny) is a term of art in constitutional law and Obama used it correctly.

No, he didn’t.

Anything else you’d like cleared up?

righty45 on March 1, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Nope. You answered pretty much as I figured you would. Now, get back to licking Barky.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 1, 2013 at 11:39 PM

The state has a compelling interest to support traditional marriage and families.

The data of European countries that redefined marriage and legislated same sex marriage reveals instability due to the rapid decline of the culture of marriage.

Homosexuals are not a distinct class with immutable characteristics that meet the requirements for civil protections as a “suspect Class” as racial groups do.

Religions are protected under the US Constitution from coercion by the State to alter doctrine and the Free Speech of Pastors are protected at the Pulpit.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 12:09 AM

Comment pages: 1 2