Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on March 25, 2013 by Allahpundit

Despite Washington’s frigid temperatures and freezing rain Monday, a virtual tent city of activists both for and against same-sex marriage braved the elements together, holding a spot and a hope to see history unfold.

Supreme Court oral arguments challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8 are set to take place on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week

Oppman recognized the potentially “historic impact” of these Supreme Court decisions.

He said he believes a ruling in favor of same-sex couples, “could do long term damage to our historic understanding of rights and also to the family, the fabric of America.”

***

I doubt that Justice Anthony Kennedy suffers from insomnia. But if he ever does, this would be the week. At the Justices’ conference Friday, Kennedy may have to choose between his two great legal loves–the sovereignty of the states on the one hand and the dignity and rights of gay men and lesbians on the other…

I have little doubt that his heart is telling Kennedy to strike down DOMA and leave Prop 8 alone–to say, in effect, that marriage policy belongs to the states, and whether a state recognizes gay marriage or not, federal legislators and judges should keep hands off.

But it’s possible that that opinion, as the Justices say, “won’t write”–meaning that there’s no way for Kennedy to embrace state authority over marriage without saying something bad about gays–and that he has always been unwilling to do…

Kennedy’s jurisprudence, and I think his heart, say what many of us say: nothing is wrong with [gays]. They are just like everybody else and deserve equal respect.

***

The marriage debate has often been difficult, but it also affirms America’s political tolerance and adaptability. The best tradition of U.S. democracy is to mediate controversies, giving all sides a fair hearing. Not everyone will like the results at the ballot box, but at least they can accept them as legitimate.

A same-sex marriage ukase would achieve that rare thing, harming advocates and opponents and everyone in between. Since marriage is more than an intimate relationship but an expression of legitimacy in the eyes of society, Supreme Court-mandated marriages would confer fewer benefits on gays and lesbians than would popular acceptance. Meanwhile, the Court would tell millions of Americans that their deep moral convictions are artifacts of invidious bigotry.

The Supreme Court does not have a good record legislating cultural change. A ruling on behalf of same-sex marriage could enshrine Hollingsworth and Windsor with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision that imposed a judicial diktat even as laws in many states were liberalizing. Instead of finding a rough consensus inside the political mainstream, abortion became an all-or-nothing combat that still rages.

The same-sex marriage cases are an opportunity for the Court to show it has learned from that mistake. Justice Kennedy and his colleagues can incite another Forty Years War or they can return their social jurisprudence to the measured, incremental approaches the Constitution intends.

***

“We learned from Roe v. Wade that the Supreme Court endangers its own legitimacy and exacerbates social conflict when it seeks to resolve moral-legal questions on which the country is deeply divided without a strong basis in the text of the Constitution,” McConnell wrote.

Others argue that it is abortion that is controversial, not the court’s ruling, and Boutrous contends the analogy “completely falls apart if you look at it closely.”

Roe, he told reporters in a conference call last week, “in essence came like a bolt out of the blue to the American people.” The notion of same-sex marriage, despite its brief existence, has been thoroughly debated, he said…

Two justices will get the most attention in this week’s oral arguments. Kennedy is the court’s most outspoken advocate of states’ rights. But he also provided the critical vote and employed soaring rhetoric in writing the opinions striking down a Colorado initiative that would have denied discrimination protection to gays and objecting to state sodomy laws that targeted homosexuals.

The other is Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. His conservatism would seem to weigh against same-sex marriage, but as chief justice he also worries about the long-term influence of the court on a subject in which the public mood is clearly in flux. “He particularly may look for a way to avoid ruling against gay marriage in these cases, ” Friedman said, “even if he is not prepared to rule for it.”

***

Podrasky lives in San Francisco and usually sees Roberts only on family occasions. His mother is her godmother, whom she adores. She said Roberts knows she is gay and introduced her along with other relatives during his Senate confirmation hearing. She hopes he will meet her partner of four years, Grace Fasano, during their Washington visit. The couple flew to Washington on Sunday.

“He is a smart man,” she said. “He is a good man. I believe he sees where the tide is going. I do trust him. I absolutely trust that he will go in a good direction.”…

Although Podrasky has no personal knowledge of her cousin’s views on same-sex marriage, she expects the court will overturn the 2008 ballot initiative, leaving her free to marry Fasano…

“Everybody knows somebody” who is gay, she said. “It probably impacts everybody.”

***

A ruling upholding Proposition 8 would provide the most culturally conservative wing of the GOP a huge shot of momentum for its goal of keeping the party the bulwark against attacks on marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. It would also stand to trigger a wave of ballot initiatives on both sides of that issue, complicating the lives of dozens of congressional candidates — especially in California, where advocates of lifting the ban will be counted on to ask voters to do what the court did not.

That would make life particularly difficult for the state’s 15 GOP House members. If they followed the polls and supported gay marriage, they’d run the risk of sustained challenges from fellow Republicans benefiting from the state’s new jungle primary system. If they continued opposing gay marriage, their general elections might be just as problematic.

If the opposite happens and the court strikes down Proposition 8, the political momentum surge would of course be with the politicians supporting marriage equality, a steadily expanding circle in the GOP and an overwhelming majority of Democrats. Whether Republicans follow the lead of their constituents in a wave or a trickle before the 2014 voting would depend on the breadth of the court’s ruling.

A sweeping decision that all same-sex marriage prohibitions are unconstitutional would provide serious political cover for elected Republicans everywhere; they could stop talking about the party’s backing of “traditional family values” and focus instead on their support for the old-fashioned notions of the GOP as the party of individual liberties and equal protection.

***

When asked if he believes the Republican Party will change its position and support gay marriage in a Wednesday Newsmax interview, Huckabee remarked, “They might, and if they do, they’re going to lose a large part of their base because evangelicals will take a walk.”…

“If we have subjective standards, that means that we’re willing to move our standards based on the prevailing whims of culture,” he said. “I think politicians have an obligation to be thermostats, not just thermometers. They’re not simply to reflect the temperature of the room, or the culture, as it were. They’re to set the standards for law, for what’s right, for what’s wrong, understanding that not everybody’s going to agree with it, not everybody’s going to accept it.”

***

[W]hile straight young Americans support marriage for gays, increasingly they opt against marriage for themselves. Nearly half of American children, 48%, are now born to unmarried women. Among women without college degrees, and of all races, unwed motherhood has become the norm.

This is the crisis of the American family. Whether same-sex marriage proceeds fast or slow, whether it extends to all 50 states or stops with the current nine plus the District of Columbia, the crisis will be the same…

[There is] a widening divergence between the family patterns of the college-educated top one-third, where family life is increasingly stable, and those of the non-college-educated bottom two-thirds, where family life is increasingly disrupted.

It’s the family life of the bottom two-thirds that is the family policy challenge of the 21st century. The debate over same-sex marriage is yesteryear’s issue. It’s settled, whether the Supreme Court knows it or not. But how to ensure that the next generation of American children enjoys the more equal chance and the wider opportunities from a more universal commitment to marriage — that debate needs to begin.

***

Marriage is many things, all at once—much more than a simple mechanism for stability between husband and wife. The institution that social science has been studying so exhaustively for so many years is of a singular kind, with singular features. It is an ancient practice grooved by tradition and myth, shaped by social expectations as old as civilization. It arises from the natural sexual complementarity of woman and man, and formalizes the possibility of procreation and the renewal of life.

There’s no way of knowing what combination of these singular features of marriage confers which of its demonstrated advantages, culturally and psychologically. We do know, however, that if the state suddenly creates the institution of gay marriage by fiat, the result will lack most of the features that make marriage unique—and uniquely beneficial. It will not be the same institution that has won the unanimous endorsement of social scientists. It will be a novel and revolutionary institution owing its existence to the devaluation of an old and settled one. Should we assume that the former will confer the same social and personal benefits as the latter, the two being different in such fundamental ways? The only honest answer—the only intellectually respectable answer—is, Who knows?

Which brings us back to the central point that Mansfield and Kass make in their compelling brief: We don’t know what the consequences of gay marriage will be. (We do suspect that such a thing will be less socially divisive if enacted by popular will than by the say-so of judges.) Social science is all but mute on the subject and will have nothing useful to tell us for decades. Lacking objective evidence, suspicious of a rising political hysteria, wary of hidden motives, and unmoved by social blackmail, we would do well to submit to humility, deference, discretion, modesty—all those virtues that conservatives are said to prize. If nothing else, these should be sufficient to stay the judges’ hand, and to let the people themselves decide, if a decision must be made, when or whether tradition is to be disowned.

***

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

***

Via Mediaite.

***

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Sunday warned of the dangers of the Supreme Court making too sweeping of a decision on the Defense of Marriage Act.

“One of the lessons of Roe vs. Wade is when the court goes too far, it actually weakens our respect for judicial institutions,” Gingrich said on “Fox News Sunday.”

“They’d be far better off to decide these two cases on the narrowest possible grounds. There’s no constitutional right invented, magically, you know, 150 years after an amendment.”

Skip to 5:40.



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 3 4 5

cmsinaz on March 26, 2013 at 7:08 AM

They probably polled them in New York City, or parts thereabout. It sure wasn’t Dixie.

kingsjester on March 26, 2013 at 7:09 AM

Axe on March 26, 2013 at 7:06 AM

hang in there axe :)

kingsjester on March 26, 2013 at 7:08 AM

i hear ya, but that doesn’t mean squat to the lsm and low information voters…it’s infuriating…

cmsinaz on March 26, 2013 at 7:10 AM

kingsjester on March 26, 2013 at 7:09 AM

amen KJ

cmsinaz on March 26, 2013 at 7:11 AM

The first legal same sex ‘marriage’ in NY lasted eight months. I guess things like that are more fun when they’re illegal, much the same way it’s cool to sneak booze from dad’s liquor cabinet when you’re fourteen.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:12 AM

This is the wildest Easter/Passover Week I can ever remember in America. My take.

kingsjester on March 26, 2013 at 6:33 AM

We really are living in Orwellian times, KJ.

Cleombrotus on March 26, 2013 at 7:16 AM

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:12 AM

One can only imagine what further outrages this politically powerful minority special interest group will subject this society to when their long sought after peace fails to materialize through their sham “marriages”.

Cleombrotus on March 26, 2013 at 7:20 AM

Cleombrotus on March 26, 2013 at 7:16 AM

I am afraid that we are getting closer and closer to finding out why America is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

kingsjester on March 26, 2013 at 7:22 AM

The first legal same sex ‘marriage’ in NY lasted eight months. I guess things like that are more fun when they’re illegal, much the same way it’s cool to sneak booze from dad’s liquor cabinet when you’re fourteen.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:12 AM

But of course sodomite divorce laws have not even been discussed. It is’t part of the narrative that the only gays that get married are individuals in loving long-term relationships who would never ever get a divorce. And wait until the custody fights start over the babies adopted really begins to kick in.

I’m not saying there isn’t a way to get through the legal minefields of sodomite relationships but we won’t get there by pushing through bad public policy so Adam can marry Bruce without thinking about the fact that “happily ever after” doesn’t always happen in real life even if queens are involved.

Happy Nomad on March 26, 2013 at 7:22 AM

Happy Nomad on March 26, 2013 at 7:22 AM

And to add one more aspect. What happens under immigration policy when a “married” sodomite couple divorce and one has resident alien status? Do our immigration laws account for same-sex couples? I don’t know and neither does anybody else. You can’t take laws written for normal marriage and automatically apply them to sodomy. But nobody wants to talk about that. They just want the optics of two dudes in tuxes kissing in some faux religious rite as if gay love is purer than the normal kind.

Happy Nomad on March 26, 2013 at 7:26 AM

One can only imagine what further outrages this politically powerful minority special interest group will subject this society to when their long sought after peace fails to materialize through their sham “marriages”.

Cleombrotus on March 26, 2013 at 7:20 AM

That’s easy to foresee. Next up will be ‘special’ privileges, to ‘make up for past injustices’. Maybe not hiring or housing quotas right away, but there will be government-sanctioned pushes to keep SSM in everyone’s face. And if you object in any way to seeing two guys tonsil-boxing in a mall, expect to be thrown out of the mall.

It’ll all be subtle at first.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:27 AM

I am afraid that we are getting closer and closer to finding out why America is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

kingsjester on March 26, 2013 at 7:22 AM

In Late Great Planet Earth, Hal Lindsey postulated that America would have to be crippled to bring about the prophesies of Revelation.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:29 AM

kingsjester on March 26, 2013 at 7:22 AM

Yes, I’m afraid so, as well.

I really wish our conservative friends and allies who are not yet believers would wake up and smell the coffee. I’ve just about given up on my Liberal friends. Just about.

Cleombrotus on March 26, 2013 at 7:29 AM

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:27 AM

guaranteed…

cmsinaz on March 26, 2013 at 7:33 AM

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:29 AM
Cleombrotus on March 26, 2013 at 7:29 AM

We are living in a very selfish time in American History. We have those who claim to be “fiscally Conservative” and “socially Liberal”, whozs “I am my own God, self-absorbed natures” are actually unwitting tools of those who are destroying this God-given nation.

kingsjester on March 26, 2013 at 7:34 AM

Happy Nomad on March 26, 2013 at 7:26 AM

It’s common and typical that liberals never think things through. I’d hate being a lawyer trying to muddle through a same-sex divorce, what with alimony and custody of children and/or property. I mean, would it be considered somehow ‘anti-gay’ if I fought for my client? Imagine that–the lawyers are considered bigots in such a proceeding.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:35 AM

kingsjester on March 26, 2013 at 7:34 AM

+1

cmsinaz on March 26, 2013 at 7:35 AM

That’s easy to foresee. Next up will be ‘special’ privileges, to ‘make up for past injustices’.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:27 AM

I’ve posted this before. This discussion isn’t about legalizing sodomite relationships under the law. That is fully possible now. This is about doing and end-run around those who object and make it a legitimate lifestyle choice. Just as normal as traditional relationships. But don’t think it stops there. This is all about vengence.

Next up, the government withdraws tax-exempt status from religious denominations that do not embrace sodomy as part of their faith. If a church does not ordain practicing sodomites, perform sacraments and rites like marriage for sodomites, or offer benefits to sodomite couples- they will be punished by the state on behalf of the homosexuals. And the gays are just chomping at the bit to be in-your-face with their depravity. It will be like a gay pride day parade everyday but don’t you dare object if you don’t want to be punished for your intolerance.

Happy Nomad on March 26, 2013 at 7:38 AM

Happy Nomad on March 26, 2013 at 7:38 AM

I can totally foresee everything you wrote.

In addition, in cases of same-sex divorce, both lawyers would need to also be sodomites. Otherwise, it could be construed as ‘inadequate representation’.

The possibilities are endless with this entire matter.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:41 AM

I am afraid that we are getting closer and closer to finding out why America is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

kingsjester on March 26, 2013 at 7:22 AM
In Late Great Planet Earth, Hal Lindsey postulated that America would have to be crippled to bring about the prophesies of Revelation.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:29 AM

We are irrelevant-ing ourselves out of the future.

Next up… polygamy. Oh, yah, we’ll screw that one up two.

Mojave Mark on March 26, 2013 at 7:41 AM

kingsjester on March 26, 2013 at 7:34 AM

I have to think that, at some point, a true conservative who is not yet a believer is going to be faced with a real choice as to which side he or she is on. I have to believe they will be given that opportunity to see the connections between their political views and spiritual reality.

Cleombrotus on March 26, 2013 at 7:42 AM

feeling eeyorish about scotus…all the hype before hand was obamacare is DOA and lo and behold, roberts turned on us…

cmsinaz on March 26, 2013 at 7:42 AM

Imagine that–the lawyers are considered bigots in such a proceeding.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:35 AM

I can’t muster a whole lot of sympathy for divorce lawyers. ;0

What I’m really concerned about is all these bullying tactics and propaganda that engenders feel-good legislation that doesn’t think the whole issue through before declaring sodomy is normal.

Happy Nomad on March 26, 2013 at 7:42 AM

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:29 AM

If you can get a copy of it (it’s not available online) but in this months The American Conservative, Rod Dreher does an interesting article on the rise of homosexuality and the decline of Christianity in America.

Cleombrotus on March 26, 2013 at 7:45 AM

Next up… polygamy. Oh, yah, we’ll screw that one up two.

Mojave Mark on March 26, 2013 at 7:41 AM

Once the dam has broken over sodomy there isn’t a “next up.” The general principle will have been established the relationship between one man and one woman is not the societal norm. Sodomy, polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia…..

If you can’t judge two dudes doing things with no biological purpose who are you to judge the love a man shows for his goat? And the quick retort is that it isn’t a fair comparison because the goat is not able to requite that love. To which I say, if we can’t judge sodomites who is anybody to say that the goat doesn’t like it?

Happy Nomad on March 26, 2013 at 7:46 AM

I mean, would it be considered somehow ‘anti-gay’ if I fought for my client? Imagine that–the lawyers are considered bigots in such a proceeding.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:35 AM

You are clearly NOT a domestic lawyer. I think you should call around until you find one bored enough to discuss the real nature of what they do.

One can only imagine what further outrages this politically powerful minority special interest group will subject this society to when their long sought after peace fails to materialize through their sham “marriages”.

Cleombrotus on March 26, 2013 at 7:20 AM

I wish people of “faith” weren’t so mealy mouthed. If you mean gays “cruise” or are unstable or will not be happy, I tend to agree, bu I don’t know.

If you mean that the relationships will not last, well, it looks that way, now.

I think parts of the Bar believe same sex marriage will be the greatest thing for the gross revenue of divorce lawyers in history. Don’t expect any to admit that.

In Late Great Planet Earth, Hal Lindsey postulated that America would have to be crippled to bring about the prophesies of Revelation.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:29 AM

Ain’t it great how disaster sells books?

IlikedAUH2O on March 26, 2013 at 7:47 AM

Mojave Mark on March 26, 2013 at 7:41 AM

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”

–Kipling

Something you said made me think of it. :)

Axe on March 26, 2013 at 7:49 AM

We are irrelevant-ing ourselves out of the future.

Next up… polygamy. Oh, yah, we’ll screw that one up two.

Mojave Mark on March 26, 2013 at 7:41 AM

Having one wife was bad enough for me. I can’t imagine having two or more of them. I can picture it: One wife is nagging me to mow the lawn, and the other is nagging me to take out the garbage.

I’ll pass.

I don’t think polygamy will be first up, because that smacks too much of Mormonism, and liberals aren’t too fond of Mormons. What I think might happen first is lowering the age of consent, so NAMBLA types can play without fear of going to prison.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:51 AM

Cleombrotus on March 26, 2013 at 7:45 AM

You are right. I NEVER heard one positive thing about homosexual activity in the Bible but there is clear condemnation of it in the Old Testament.

Of course, don’t look for a support for our Bill of Rights or a condemnation of slavery, either.

IlikedAUH2O on March 26, 2013 at 7:54 AM

You are clearly NOT a domestic lawyer. I think you should call around until you find one bored enough to discuss the real nature of what they do.

IlikedAUH2O on March 26, 2013 at 7:47 AM

True, and I know it shows. I can’t see how anyone would want to make a living by arguing all the time. I once presented a pro se case against a contractor who had a lawyer, and those were the longest 90 minutes of my life (I won, BTW). It’s much the same as I would never want to be an actor. I’d hate making a living by always having to be someone else.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:57 AM

I don’t think polygamy will be first up, because that smacks too much of Mormonism, and liberals aren’t too fond of Mormons. What I think might happen first is lowering the age of consent, so NAMBLA types can play without fear of going to prison.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:51 AM

For some reason, polygamy is related to a male dominated culture.

The Mormons used to do a good job defending it.

Our media and pop culture will probably mess with age of consent since creative types have a history of messing with the young. It may be the only way to get a virgin on the west coast.

IlikedAUH2O on March 26, 2013 at 7:58 AM

If you mean that the relationships will not last, well, it looks that way, now.

IlikedAUH2O on March 26, 2013 at 7:47 AM

No, what I mean is that, this has never been about marriage. This has always been about destroying any and all references to normality, health, beauty, and stability and order.

This is the point of the spear.

Cleombrotus on March 26, 2013 at 7:58 AM

Don’t worry about the Polygamy issue. Our women lose it at the very thought. Polygamy had advantages but the media will freak the whole population out with it.

I am not close to being a Mormon but I respect them.

IlikedAUH2O on March 26, 2013 at 8:04 AM

Our media and pop culture will probably mess with age of consent since creative types have a history of messing with the young. It may be the only way to get a virgin on the west coast.

IlikedAUH2O on March 26, 2013 at 7:58 AM

Ouch, on that last! *L*

Some places have had for sale thongs for toddlers. That was some years ago, but I don’t know if that ‘clothing’ line ever got pulled after the outrage over it. But the culture — in fashion, modeling, and Hollywood — does sexualize children.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 8:05 AM

This is the point of the spear.

Cleombrotus on March 26, 2013 at 7:58 AM

Never thought of that but, ok. Yes.

IlikedAUH2O on March 26, 2013 at 8:06 AM

in fashion, modeling, and Hollywood — does sexualize children.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 8:05 AM

I did a post on Hollywood types and sex with kids in history. There have been several examples.

And you know that you only hear of so many. Tip of the iceberg.

Two women in my life lost their flower at age 10 and 13.

And no, I didn’t do it.

IlikedAUH2O on March 26, 2013 at 8:09 AM

I know Clarence Thomas is usually silent during oral arguments, but it really would be awesome if he took the lead here. If the left is arguing that same sex marriage is just like interracial marriage…Thomas, who has a white wife, is in the perfect position to ask HOW?

How does marriage as defined by gender discriminate against anyone? Where is the civil right issue?

monalisa on March 26, 2013 at 8:10 AM

IlikedAUH2O on March 26, 2013 at 8:06 AM

You have to see ALL this stuff – what we discuss here on HotAir, for example – as a continuum; all interconnected.

Ayn Rand, although an ardent non-believer, put it this way, “Today’s mawkish concern with and compassion for the feeble, the flawed, the suffering, the guilty, is a cover for the profoundly Kantian hatred of the innocent, the strong, the able, the successful, the virtuous, the confident, the happy. A philosophy out to destroy man’s mind is necessarily a philosophy of hatred for man, for man’s life, and for every human value. Hatred of the good for being the good, is the hallmark of the twentieth century. This is the enemy you are facing. ”

That, believe it or not, is the message of Bible, and until you get that, it doesn’t seem relevant.

Cleombrotus on March 26, 2013 at 8:13 AM

I spent some time in Hollywood and the west coast and concluded that they have a diseased culture.

I was at a party one night and ask my date an interesting question in the car on the way home.

“Do they have lead in the pipes like they did in ancient Rome, or has anyone checked the compounds in the dope they smoke?”

She cracked up.

IlikedAUH2O on March 26, 2013 at 8:15 AM

How does marriage as defined by gender discriminate against anyone? Where is the civil right issue?

monalisa on March 26, 2013 at 8:10 AM

Civil rights can be made into anything a liberal wants. Some years a go, some blacks were very annoyed that liberal feminists ‘hijacked’ the civil rights movement. Now, it’s gays.

You can be sure NAMBLA types are watching this closely, because some of them have already put out there the idea they’re born that way, and deserve some kind of special consideration.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 8:15 AM

By the same token, I write a post on the great acting job by George Clooney in a film or two and I get whipped on threads by conservatives.

I don’t support his politics.

You do support their politics by getting in a lather without being as smart and slick as they are.

IlikedAUH2O on March 26, 2013 at 8:23 AM

You can be sure NAMBLA types are watching this closely, because some of them have already put out there the idea they’re born that way, and deserve some kind of special consideration.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 8:15 AM

Yes. I know you are smart enough to know how this case will be framed.

The left will just define the change as applying to only two adults who are nuts about one another.

IlikedAUH2O on March 26, 2013 at 8:25 AM

IlikedAUH2O on March 26, 2013 at 8:25 AM

You guys worry about goats and sex with kids…SCOTUS will be steered away from that.

Senator Goldwater opposed the civil rights act because he said it would lead to quotas, affirmative action, messing with voting standards, divisive categories in other areas of life…

And we all know none of that stuff happened/ sarc.

IlikedAUH2O on March 26, 2013 at 8:28 AM

The left will just define the change as applying to only two adults who are nuts about one another.

IlikedAUH2O on March 26, 2013 at 8:25 AM

I know, and the pressure is on. The CA judge who ruled the state’s constitutional amendment unconstitutional wants to be there, as does the lesbian relative of one of the SC Justices.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 8:32 AM

State’s rights.
If SCOTUS finds another ‘right’ Federally that trumps the 10th Amendment, it’s closer to he!! we roll.
If one state wants homosexuals to marry as voted by the citizens, then it should happen. And if that same homosexual couple moves to another state where the marriage is illegal, then they need to deal with it.
Not force the issue Federally & make everyone in the US bow to the wishes of a small minority.
This is how widespread tyranny gets a hold.

Don’t worry about the Polygamy issue. Our women lose it at the very thought. Polygamy had advantages but the media will freak the whole population out with it.

I am not close to being a Mormon but I respect them.

IlikedAUH2O on March 26, 2013 at 8:04 AM

News flash: Mormons in the LDS church do not practice this & it is illegal. They follow state laws.

Badger40 on March 26, 2013 at 8:47 AM

The case against gay marriage is that there is no case for gay marriage. We recognize marriage because the raising of children in the best possible environment is vital to our society and we acknowledge that raising children involves tremendous sacrifice. We laud and encourage this sacrifice by recognizing marriage.

Every other argument against gay marriage is a distraction which undermines a policy position which is fundamentally correct.

Basilsbest on March 26, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Marriage is between a man and a women, and a man and a women only, anything else is a sick and twisted joke. I find it very interesting that the left normally hates and despises marriage, and they often call it a out dated and unnecessary concept, the left normally sees marriage a form of control, which does not mix with their self appointed elitist world view/lifestyles. But when it now comes to homosexual marriages, the left suddenly sees marriage as the best thing to come about since sliced bread. So let’s review here: in the world view of the left, marriage between a man and a women equals out dated and unnecessary concept, and a form of control, but marriage between a man and man or a women and a women, equals the greatest thing to ever come about. We are living in the 1984/animal farm world. Giving the left power and control is like giving a child gasoline and a lighter, and them foolishly wondering why your house is now on fire.

Beastdogs on March 26, 2013 at 9:01 AM

The Supreme Court does not have a good record legislating cultural change.

A fellow named Dred Scott would most certainly agree

Herb on March 26, 2013 at 9:09 AM

I am afraid that we are getting closer and closer to finding out why America is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation. kingsjester on March 26, 2013 at 7:22 AM

There are about 190 nations not mentioned in Revelation. Here’s why: “The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place,” Rev. 1:1.

Akzed on March 26, 2013 at 9:10 AM

News flash: Mormons in the LDS church do not practice this & it is illegal. They follow state laws. Badger40 on March 26, 2013 at 8:47 AM

And here’s why: polygamy “…is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the western world.” 136 U.S. 1, LATE CORPORATION OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS et al. v. UNITED STATES, May 19, 1890.

Ya think SCOTUS will return to that precedent on the sodomarriage issue?

Akzed on March 26, 2013 at 9:14 AM

I am afraid that we are getting closer and closer to finding out why America is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

kingsjester on March 26, 2013 at 7:22 AM

*facepalm*

JetBoy on March 26, 2013 at 9:16 AM

I find it very interesting that the left normally hates and despises marriage

The left uses marriage as a means to whatever end they are want to achieve. In the case of Terry Schiavo, the left argued that her “husband” had the right to make her health decisions, even if it meant starving her to death, because the “right to die” was the goal. That “husband” had abandoned his “wife” and had two children with another woman who he was living with. At some point that marriage was over.

Here, if the family petitioned the Catholic Church to simply annul the marriage on the grounds of abandonment, the “husband” would not have been involved at all.

Now we see the left saying that children do better if their parents are “married”…never acknowledging that children do best if those parents are a married mother and father.

monalisa on March 26, 2013 at 9:20 AM

*facepalm* JetBoy on March 26, 2013 at 9:16 AM

But we know what is mentioned in Romans 1: “24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. ~

I mean, if you think I’m a theocrat, read the decision I quoted above and tell us what the court’s basis for it was if not the obvious.

Akzed on March 26, 2013 at 9:20 AM

RINO in Name Only on March 26, 2013 at 1:45 AM

.
I think L2G is probably right, if I’m reading all that correctly. At least so far as it’s better for people to be governed by governors constrained by Christian ethics rather than secular ethics. In some measure, even just public comportment.

I don’t think he’s saying they need to provide the moral guidance, but rather take it.

I think.

Axe on March 26, 2013 at 1:57 AM

.
Thanks Axe, I couldn’t stay awake past that last comment, last night.

That’s it. But what are secular ethics ? … Strictly speaking, it varies from person to person, so there’s no “standard”.

When the Biblical standards of “right and wrong” are accepted as the societal norm, then there’s no room for “private interpretation”. The Bible provides a “constant, uniform standard”, even for atheists !

listens2glenn on March 26, 2013 at 10:04 AM

When the Biblical standards of “right and wrong” are accepted as the societal norm, then there’s no room for “private interpretation”. The Bible provides a “constant, uniform standard”, even for atheists !
listens2glenn on March 26, 2013 at 10:04 AM

BINGO!

And THAT , or at least the removal or the undermining of that, is what this is all about.
And has been for some time now.
And I do mean ALL.

Cleombrotus on March 26, 2013 at 10:45 AM

I don’t think he’s saying they need to provide the moral guidance, but rather take it.

I think.

Axe on March 26, 2013 at 1:57 AM

.
Fair enough, but honestly, I’d rather they just shut up and keep their greasy hands away from moral issues altogether, except to the limited extent that they involve conflicts between rights of different individuals, e. g., protecting the rights of the unborn.

RINO in Name Only on March 26, 2013 at 2:17 AM

.
What should be stable societal structure is undermined … (that means everyone is affected) … when fornication, adultery, and homosexuality are openly tolerated.
.

Many people DO need guidance from society – I’m not some radical individualist. But that guidance needs to be disassociated as much as possible from the state. Religious leaders who wish to lead people in the right direction should earn the respect of the community and provide guidance to those who seek it, and have faith that if they are teaching the right thing, people of good conscience will come around.
The government are is not to lead on this issue, nor on any other.
They are not our leaders, we are their leaders. They are our servants. They are “the help”. The very replaceable help.

RINO in Name Only on March 26, 2013 at 2:17 AM

.
That guidance needs to be associated … with ALL OF SOCIETY. That includes government, but it starts with adults accepting those Biblical standards on their own accord. Then children being guided by parents, and so on.
Government is not supposed to be “first and foremost”, but they’re not to be excluded, either.

But we do agree on your last four “short” sentences, above.

But then, that begs a question; who (or what) is your “leader”?

listens2glenn on March 26, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Nicole Wallace praising a poll that a majority of young christian evangelicals support SSM…I have a hard time believing that…

cmsinaz on March 26, 2013 at 7:08 AM

.
CYNIC ! … (actually me too, but don’t tell anyone)
.
The pollster’s and/or Nicole Wallace’s definition of “Christian evangelical” probably doesn’t jive with ours.

listens2glenn on March 26, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Cleombrotus on March 26, 2013 at 7:16 AM

.
I am afraid that we are getting closer and closer to finding out why America is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

kingsjester on March 26, 2013 at 7:22 AM

.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
.
I don’t believe any of the future prophecies concerning the “Seven Year Tribulation” are going to happen on this side of the Rapture.

It should be a foregone conclusion that the U.S. will “dissolve”, once the Christians are all yanked outta’ here. But suit yourself.

listens2glenn on March 26, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Forgive if this has been posted previously, but this is the link making the rounds in our FB world, today …

http://www.afer.org/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-marriage-equality-at-the-supreme-court/

pambi on March 26, 2013 at 11:10 AM

In Late Great Planet Earth, Hal Lindsey postulated that America would have to be crippled to bring about the prophesies of Revelation.

Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:29 AM

.
What I said, at 11:09 AM.

listens2glenn on March 26, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Why should states be allowed to destroy the meaning of marriage?

Once the traditional view is erased all bets are off and all comers are game.

Polygamy/polyandry will have to be legalized to show the binary bigots that love is not limited by mere numbers.

Then pederasty will need to be legalized to trump the throwback age-ists.

You screw with a fundamental building block of civilization and you risk it all.

profitsbeard on March 26, 2013 at 11:25 AM

In Late Great Planet Earth, Hal Lindsey postulated that America would have to be crippled to bring about the prophesies of Revelation. Liam on March 26, 2013 at 7:29 AM

Yeah but the Bible says no such thing. Hal Lindsey is a complete fraud and wholly unsuited to comment on the Bible. Period. You people can’t get past Rev. 1:1 without denying it’s plain meaning.

Plus, stay on topic!

Akzed on March 26, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5