New Mexico Supreme Court says state must recognize gay marriages as a matter of equal protection

posted at 4:11 pm on December 19, 2013 by Allahpundit

I almost wrote that headline as “New Mexico legalizes gay marriage,” but since there actually are states where the legislature has made this move instead of having had it imposed on them by the courts, it’s worth being precise.

The opinion’s only 31 pages long and a chunk of that is devoted to skippable procedural blather, but if you’re pressed for time you’ll do fine with the summary on page 8. As usual, SSM opponents argued that marriage is an institution built around procreation, which is why it should be exclusive to straights. And as usual, the court ruled against them because no state anywhere makes procreation a condition of marriage between men and women and no state forbids divorce between a married couple simply because they might have children. Many states permit gays to adopt, in fact, further weakening the theory that childrearing is the province of straights only. Marriage is about commitment between the participants, says the court, not about children that that commitment may or may not produce.

With that argument having failed, opponents made another traditional argument: Even if there’s no compelling state interest in limiting marriage to straights, courts usually don’t demand that the state offer a “compelling” reason to justify discriminating among different classes of people. The state could raise taxes on millionaires tomorrow by 50 percent and defend itself by saying “just because” and a court would probably rubber-stamp it. In an equal protection analysis, virtually everything turns on the court first deciding whether the group that’s targeted by the discrimination is a “suspect class” or not. There are a bunch of factors involved in that — whether they’ve suffered a history of discrimination, whether the trait that’s being targeted by the discrimination is core to their identity like race or religion, and whether the group is so politically powerless that the courts need to take extra care to protect their rights because they don’t have the numbers to do it themselves. The last factor is the interesting one here, especially coming a day after A&E bounced the star of one of the most popular shows on American television in sheer terror of the boycott that might ensue if they didn’t. Are gays, a small part of the population, still politically powerless in an age when 17 states now allow gay marriage and the president of the United States boasts that he supports legalizing the practice coast to coast?

Yeah, sort of, says the court. Skip to paragraph 49 on page 22.

Refocusing on the contention that the LGBT community is not politically powerless, we recognize that they have had some recent political success regarding legislation prohibiting discrimination against them. However, we also conclude that effective advocacy for the LGBT community is seriously hindered by their continuing need to overcome the already deep-rooted prejudice against their integration into society, which warrants our application of intermediate scrutiny in this case… The political advocacy of the LGBT community continues to be seriously hindered, as evidenced by the uncontroverted difficulty in determining whether LGBTs are under-represented in positions of political power, because many of them keep their sexual orientation private to avoid hostility, discrimination, and ongoing acts of violence… FBI statistics show that the rates of hate crimes committed against individuals based on sexual orientation have remained relatively constant over the past two decades, although they have risen slightly in the past few years, both in absolute numbers and expressed as a percentage of all types of hate crimes… It is reasonable to expect that the need of LGBTs to keep their sexual orientation private also hinders or suppresses their political activity…

Although the LGBT community has had political success, they have also seen their gains repealed by popular referendums…

At the time this case was argued in October, 2013, only a minority of states had enacted laws identifying “sexual orientation” as a protected class for purposes of antidiscrimination laws. Only six states had recognized the validity of and enacted legislation permitting same-gender marriages, or civil unions, at the time this opinion was filed… Four states, Massachusetts, California, Iowa, and Connecticut, interpreted their respective constitutions to require same-gender marriages… In three states, Maine, Maryland, and Washington, the electorate voted in favor of same-gender marriages… Finally, three states, New Jersey, Illinois, and Colorado, have legislation that grants samegender couples an alternative to civil marriage and makes available to them many of the benefits granted to married couples… The history we have just recounted demonstrates that the members of the LGBT community do not have sufficient political strength to protect themselves from purposeful discrimination.

They’ve gained some political power, in other words, but not enough to disqualify them from “suspect class” status for equal-protection purposes. Once the court makes that move, it’s an easy transition to deciding that no, the state’s “procreation” theory isn’t nearly “compelling” enough to justify limiting marriage to straights only. An obvious question, then: What sort of political gains would the court need to see to conclude that gays are no longer powerless and therefore can fight discriminatory laws on their own through the political process? If half the states end up legalizing gay marriage, is that sufficient? Three quarters? Effectively, I think, there’s no way to lose “suspect class” status once you’ve got it, no matter how much progress you make in convincing the electorate to protect your interests. Legal eagles are invited to correct me, but I don’t think there’s ever been a case of a “suspect class” in America, whether at the state or federal level, being downgraded by a court to non-suspect status because they’ve succeeded so wildly at vindicating their rights in the court of public opinion and at the ballot box. It could happen, I guess — theoretically, the “suspect class” calculus is in part a moving target based on how tolerant society at large is of a particular minority’s rights — but it’s impossible to imagine it happening in practice. The U.S. Supreme Court will long since have ruled that all 50 states must recognize same-sex marriage as a matter of Fourteenth Amendment equal protection before the question of whether gays no longer deserve special judicial protection lands on America’s political radar.


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 4 5 6 7 8

Socons need to denounce their abuse of children. Purge their institutions, then they might have a little credibility.
Panther on December 19, 2013 at 9:22 PM

Lol. They don’t have any institutions.

happytobehere on December 19, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Agreed,

No religion should excuse the abuse that homosexuals do to children.

sentinelrules on December 19, 2013 at 9:21 PM

Yeah, the religious pervs never abused girls:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/catholic-priest-ran-cultlike-charlie-brown-group-to-sexually-abuse-young-girls-royal-commission-hears/story-fni0cx4q-1226778813498

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Good. Better late than never, but I will most certainly make them ashamed of their hypocritical bigotry when the time comes.

blink on December 19, 2013 at 9:22 PM

Of course, when they do, it won’t be the FLDS they pull for, it will be some Hollywood arrangement (potentially a single sex one).

Count to 10 on December 19, 2013 at 9:26 PM

Where will Americas Huguenots flee to when the sodomites, in zachv’s five year timeline erect their anosocracy utopia?

Murphy9 on December 19, 2013 at 9:26 PM

I’m sure you didn’t.

… anyhow the whole US public is now something like 55-45 support and my generation supports gay marriage to a tune of 70% now. In five years time this probably won’t even be a debate, which is nice.

ZachV on December 19, 2013 at 9:14 PM

In five years I expect SCOTUS will have resolved this matter, gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states and the issue will turn out to be a giant cultural nothingburger. Just as it’s been in all the states where gay people can get married right now when this is finally settled heterosexuals will still get married and have kids, no church or clergy will be compelled to perform any ceremony they don’t want to, life will go on and the hellfire and brimstone will be conspicuous by their absence.

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 9:28 PM

Here is the perversion of your religion:

http://www.northjersey.com/news/Passaic_priest_faces_charges_related_to_sexual_abuse_of_girl_14.html

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Isolated you say:

Priest sent e-mails expressing love to girl who says he abused her

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Good questions, blink.

Panther, don’t be a coward. Answer blink’s questions.

22044 on December 19, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Socons need to climb down off their moral soapbox and admit they are the worst violators of sexual abuse.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Homosexual marriage is and will always be a novelty. It will never be legitimate, not by nature and not in the minds of those that seek to have it. You can right as many laws as you like, you can persecute as many religious groups as you can stomache, but there will always be a nagging hole where you thought you’d find decency and normalcy.

spmat on December 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog 23h

A&E should be free to choose their clientele as they see fit. The same rule should apply to people who bake wedding cakes.

davidk on December 19, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Socons never want to talk about the abuses in the church but it is there for all to see. Harming children is much worse than consenting adults.

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_24673408/2-priests-accused-child-sex-abuse-say-it

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 9:37 PM

Here is the perversion of your religion:
……

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 9:29 PM

OH please you simplistic bigot.

The propensity for homosexuals to abuse children is far higher than the general population….oh and most of the Church abuse…by homosexuals.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 19, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Where will Americas Huguenots flee to when the sodomites, in zachv’s five year timeline erect their anosocracy utopia?

Murphy9 on December 19, 2013 at 9:26 PM

If you flee the country because the remaining 33 states who have yet to do so end up permitting homosexuals to marry each other then your priorities are a mess.

Where exactly will you go anyway? There’s not a whole lot of places left in the Western world that aren’t on a similar path if they’re not there already. Iran of course is always an option; I hear from their former president that there aren’t even any homosexuals there, let alone marriage rights for them.

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 9:39 PM

Panther has decided to simply lie.

Not surprisingly, as you’re one of the most dishonest trolls we have. Most are just stupid…you’re both.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 19, 2013 at 9:39 PM

The propensity for homosexuals to abuse children is far higher than the general population….oh and most of the Church abuse…by homosexuals.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 19, 2013 at 9:38 PM

The reports I’ve been linking are male priests with little girls. Glad to see you defend it.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 9:39 PM

The Los Angeles Times (6) surveyed 2,628 adults across the U.S. in 1985. 27% of the women and 16% of the men claimed to have been sexually molested. Since 7% of the molestations of girls and 93% of the molestations of boys were by adults of the same sex, about 4 of every 10 molestations in this survey were homosexual.

In a random survey of British 15-to-19 yr olds, 35% of the boys and 9% of the girls claimed to have been approached for sex by adult homosexuals and 2% of the boys and 1% of the girls admitted to succumbing. (7)

Homosexuals are far more likely to abuse kids.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 19, 2013 at 9:40 PM

Panther has decided to simply lie.

Not surprisingly, as you’re one of the most dishonest trolls we have. Most are just stupid…you’re both.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 19, 2013 at 9:39 PM

How have I lied?

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 9:40 PM

From the Robertsons:

We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E’s decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Phil would never incite or encourage hate.We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.

davidk on December 19, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Dr. C. H. McGaghy (11) estimated that “homosexual offenders probably constitute about half of molesters who work with children.”

Scary shit.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM

How much more proof do you need?

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2010/04/14/not-just-boys-catholic-church-abuse-of-women-girls/

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Glad to see you defend it.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 9:39 PM

Who defended it you freak? You’re pathetic. Yes you lie and you lie often. No character. None.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 19, 2013 at 9:43 PM

davidk on December 19, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Classy statement.

kcewa on December 19, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Who defended it you freak? You’re pathetic. Yes you lie and you lie often. No character. None.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 19, 2013 at 9:43 PM

If you are okay with abuse of little girls by the church, that is on you. I just wanted it noted for the record you said it never happened. Sicko.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 9:46 PM

I’m waiting for the “Ernest Rohm” moment again.

You know, where the leftist fascists murder all the gays that were supporting them.

Vanceone on December 19, 2013 at 9:47 PM

Panther doesn’t answer questions. She’s actually only trolling in this thread.

blink on December 19, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Yep. :)

22044 on December 19, 2013 at 9:49 PM

How much more proof do you need?

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2010/04/14/not-just-boys-catholic-church-abuse-of-women-girls/

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM

.
What exactly is it, that Christians are supposed to be “in denial” about?

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Homosexuals are far more likely to abuse kids.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 19, 2013 at 9:40 PM

Ha! The author of that piece has been thoroughly discredited.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Check the veracity of your sources before you post them. It will help prevent you looking like an idiot.

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 9:52 PM

The church has been responsible for so much inhumanity, abuse and bloodshed it is a wonder the entire institution hasn’t been condemned.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 9:53 PM

What exactly is it, that Christians are supposed to be “in denial” about?

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Your abuse of innocents.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 9:54 PM

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 9:52 PM

.
You’re back . . . . . . . . sorry, I had to step away to spend time with wife, earlier.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 9:54 PM

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 9:39 PM

Assuming we will actual be allowed to travel around or out of your peropticon anusocracy utopia, who knows where we will go. Thanks for your honesty re:

There’s not a whole lot
of places left in the Western world that aren’t on a similar
path if they’re not there already

Iran is closer to your anusocracy utopia. sorry. :(

Murphy9 on December 19, 2013 at 9:55 PM

You advocate letting the state pass out the ice cream, choosing the winners and losers. How about we take that power away from the government? Equal liberty. Can you be so against that?

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 6:16 PM

You think arbitrarily removing some power from the state (when you obviously don’t even understand why that power was invested in the state in the first place) will magically and automatically result in “Equal Liberty!” Is that the Underpants Gnome Theory of Political Anarchy?

You’re advocating no kids should get ice cream for doing homework, because some kids really don’t like homework, or alternatively ice cream for everyone for no reason whatsoever! Propose that to a teacher, see how they react.

I’ll give you a hint: it’s not about the ice cream. It’s about encouraging an entire academic culture of success. Can you be so against that? When you make it about appeasing a few kids throwing tantrums because, hey, they REALLY want ice cream, then you can disabuse yourself of the notion you’re not “picking winners and losers” yourself. Encouraging success or capitulating to jealousy; these are not morally nor practically equivalent.

CapnObvious on December 19, 2013 at 9:59 PM

Seems the heterosexual predators in the church are pretty bad:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/catholic-priest-finian-egan-confronted-by-sexabuse-victims-in-court-20131216-2zgd1.html

Of course that doesn’t fit you meme so ignore.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 10:01 PM

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 9:54 PM

Nothing at all wrong with that. :)

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 10:03 PM

You think arbitrarily removing some power from the state

Arbitrary? I advocate near total removal of power from the government, Statist. You are a government stooge, try to break your chains of dependence.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 10:04 PM

You’re back . . . . . . . . sorry, I had to step away to spend time with wife, earlier.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 9:54 PM

Glenda claims to be a christian, but listens to Beck, a polytheist. Of course, Glenda, like the good christian he is, doesn’t want to believe this and refuses to take any ownership in learning the beliefs of Mormonism himself. Are you equally ignorant an all other subjects as well?

Bandit13 on December 19, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Assuming we will actual be allowed to travel around or out of your peropticon anusocracy utopia, who knows where we will go.

I think if you really really wanted to leave the country over this (and I’ve heard enough people threaten to do so and back out that I won’t believe it I see it) that there would be very little desire for you to stick around. I would even hold the door just to make sure it didn’t hit you on the way out.

Thanks for your honesty re:

There’s not a whole lot
of places left in the Western world that aren’t on a similar
path if they’re not there already

Iran is closer to your anusocracy utopia. sorry. :(

Murphy9 on December 19, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Your obsession with the anus is… peculiar. Are you Marcus Bachmann?

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 10:05 PM

I believe this was your last reply that I didn’t respond to earlier:
.

You will never be able to divorce (no pun intended) the subject of normalizing homosexual relationships within a society from the subject of the “existence of God.”

The existence of God is “self evident.” You have to be deliberately evasive of God, to not recognize the astronomical intelligence it took to incorporate the exponential amount of genetic information that is contained within one cell of any living organism.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 6:12 PM

.
When it comes to making and enforcing laws the government is totally divorced from the existence of God. You personally might not be but the government is.

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 6:18 PM

.
That’s NOT what the First Amendment says.

There is only an intent that individual citizens not be required to worship God a certain “state approved” way (Church Of England), or even that they have to believe in the existence of God.

But government on all levels absolutely gave public recognition to God at the founding of the U.S., and it continued up until the ‘Warren Court.’

This business of government being “divorced from the existence of God in lawmaking and enforcement” is the “johnny come lately.”

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:10 PM

socons ignore their negative message and low public ratings. The movement’s hypocrisy and dismal polling speaks volumes. They need to join the liberals for government enforcement of their beliefs.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Took awhile but you got round to the latent accusation.

And here i thought you were sincere. :(

Murphy9 on December 19, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Bandit13 on December 19, 2013 at 10:05 PM

.
I asked you to explain on what ‘grounds/basis’ you made that claim against the Mormon Church, and you never explained it.

Are you up to trying, now?

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:14 PM

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Even if everything you say is true (I’m not saying it is or it isn’t) it’s immaterial. The way the law is currently interpreted by the courts from SCOTUS on down is that invoking any god is a violation of the Establishment Clause. We’re free to disagree on whether or not that’s the wise thing to do, and I suspect we would disagree on it, but that doesn’t change the fact of how the law and Constitution are at present understood.

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 10:20 PM

socons ignore their negative message and low public ratings. The movement’s hypocrisy and dismal polling speaks volumes. They need to join the liberals for government enforcement of their beliefs.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 10:11 PM

.
Standards of morality don’t have an “expiration date.”

I don’t agree that any part of Christian, New Testament standards of morality are negative in any way, or that the “approval ratings” of said standards by the American public at large, is low.

But … so what if they are ?

Those ‘standards of morality’ still make a better society, even if God didn’t exist.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:21 PM

Took awhile but you got round to the latent accusation.

And here i thought you were sincere. :(

Murphy9 on December 19, 2013 at 10:11 PM

I tend to get back what I’m given and when I see “anusocracy” it’s hard to take anything seriously.

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Standards of morality don’t have an “expiration date.”

I don’t agree that any part of Christian, New Testament standards of morality are negative in any way, or that the “approval ratings” of said standards by the American public at large, is low.

But … so what if they are ?

Those ‘standards of morality’ still make a better society, even if God didn’t exist.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:21 PM

Your agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with facts. People don’t like you or your rantings.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 10:26 PM

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 10:26 PM

Speak for yourself. I actually enjoy listens2glenn

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 10:34 PM

This should be a jolly good thread.

Bishop on December 19, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Did I call it or what?

Bishop on December 19, 2013 at 10:37 PM

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:10 PM

.
Even if everything you say is true (I’m not saying it is or it isn’t) it’s immaterial. The way the law is currently interpreted by the courts from SCOTUS on down is that invoking any god is a violation of the Establishment Clause. We’re free to disagree on whether or not that’s the wise thing to do, and I suspect we would disagree on it, but that doesn’t change the fact of how the law and Constitution are at present understood.

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 10:20 PM

.
The interpretation by SCOTUS is not the “final say.”

I’m hoping that “government enforcement of societal acceptance of homosexuality” doesn’t lead to wholesale bloodshed. But I simultaneously believe that “government enforcement of societal acceptance of homosexuality” is worth going to civil war over.

Theres no other way to end this debate.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:37 PM

This should be a jolly good thread.

Bishop on December 19, 2013 at 4:17 PM

.
Did I call it or what?

Bishop on December 19, 2013 at 10:37 PM

.
Yeah … “shooting fish in a barrel”, and all that.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:38 PM

Speak for yourself. I actually enjoy listens2glenn

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 10:34 PM

Who said I didn’t speak for myself?

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 10:39 PM

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 10:26 PM

.
Speak for yourself. I actually enjoy listens2glenn

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 10:34 PM

.
( . . . B L U S H . . . )

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:40 PM

( . . . B L U S H . . . )

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:40 PM

I’m going to avoid a gay comment.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 10:42 PM

Standards of morality don’t have an “expiration date.”

I don’t agree that any part of Christian, New Testament standards of morality are negative in any way, or that the “approval ratings” of said standards by the American public at large, is low.

But … so what if they are ?

Those ‘standards of morality’ still make a better society, even if God didn’t exist.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:21 PM

.
Your agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with facts. People don’t like you or your rantings.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 10:26 PM

.
Repeating:

“Those ‘standards of morality’ still make a better society, even if God didn’t exist.”

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:21 PM

.
I believe that’s a fact.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Socons need to climb down off their moral soapbox and admit they are the worst violators of sexual abuse.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM

First off, what does that even mean? How do you violate an abstract concept? And if you could “violate sexual abuse”, wouldn’t that be a good thing?

More to the point, how does saying “X is bad and should be discouraged” constitute being on a moral soapbox?

Everyone sins, and no serious Christian would deny that. Everyone on this planet is occasionally lazy and/or greedy and/or dishonest and/or unkind, and/or any of an assortment of sins. By your logic, no one should ever express the point of view that laziness, greed, dishonesty, unkindness, or anything else that they’ve ever been guilty of, is bad.

RINO in Name Only on December 19, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Here are the people who don’t support socons, despite alchemist’s arrogance that all comments relate to him:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/01/poll-supreme-court-gay-marriage-affirmative-action-voting-rights/2479541/

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 10:48 PM

( . . . B L U S H . . . )

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:40 PM

.
I’m going to avoid a gay comment.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 10:42 PM

.
? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

This is a “gay” thread, for the love of Pete.

Why avoid it?

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:48 PM

The interpretation by SCOTUS is not the “final say.”

It is for now, for all intents and purposes.

I’m hoping that “government enforcement of societal acceptance of homosexuality” doesn’t lead to wholesale bloodshed.

I hope that it doesn’t happen either, and I think it’s highly unlikely that it would.

But I simultaneously believe that “government enforcement of societal acceptance of homosexuality” is worth going to civil war over.

Theres no other way to end this debate.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:37 PM

Depends on what you mean by “force” and what you think they might force you or others to do. No one can force a person out of any of their personal beliefs; if we could then they would have outlawed racism a long time ago and the Jacksons and Sharptons of the world would be out of a job.

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 10:49 PM

Homos abuse children far more often than normal folks.
Never let your kids be alone with known homos.
Best to have them share a cell with Spike and Bubba for a bit of “payback”; I hear she’s a b*tch.

Someone said this earlier either on this thread or another or maybe even on another website, I cannot remember but it bears repeating:

Homosexuals cannot change marriage; they can only destroy it.

The church has been responsible for so much inhumanity, abuse and bloodshed it is a wonder the entire institution hasn’t been condemned.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 9:53 PM

The Church is made up men and women, all flawed and all fall short of the glory of God. And all know that through faith in Jesus Christ their sins are forgiven and forgotten by God and thus they should act out their faith using Jesus as example. Underpinning this is the belief that ultimately we will all be judged fairly and individually by God for our actions. The Church is, in short, a mission field.

Oh, by the way, any ideas on who would do the condemning?
What is that little proverb about people who live in glass houses?
You as pure as the wind driven snow there Panther?
Cast the first stone then.

Bubba Redneck on December 19, 2013 at 10:49 PM

( . . . B L U S H . . . )

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:40 PM

We obviously strongly disagree on a couple things where we’re not ever likely to see eye-to-eye but I think you try to argue in good faith and I do really appreciate that.

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 10:51 PM

And if you could “violate sexual abuse”, wouldn’t that be a good thing?

RINO in Name Only on December 19, 2013 at 10:46 PM

You apparently don’t understand the difference between violators and violate. Google it.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 10:51 PM

Did I call it or what?

Bishop on December 19, 2013 at 10:37 PM

For your next trick you should predict that Jug Ears will go out and say something stupid. :)

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 10:52 PM

You fanatics itching for social experimentation –and the demand to have SSM right now is certainly fanaticism — just want what you want immediately, consequences be damned.

SSM is new to all those countries you reference, and there already appears to be a further decline in marriage among many of them.

Let’s suppose for a second that this is true. I’m not agreeing that it is, we’re just going to pretend.

Can you prove that the decline (whatever that decline is) is attributable to homosexuals being allowed to marry each other?

I think I’ll take your tactic, instead. Make an assertion, pretend it’s a fact, and demand you prove otherwise.

I mean, since it’s not really susceptible of proof — people not being quite that predictable — it’s easier to just demand someone else prove my statement is not true.

Wrong. There is no conclusive evidence that sexual orientation is inborn. The evidence is at least as strong going the other way.

This oughta be good! Do you have evidence that sexual orientation is a choice? If so I would like to see it.

A study of identical twins showed that it was not unusual for one twin to be gay and one to be straight. That is evidence that homosexuality is not necessarily linked to genetics. If it were inborn, you would expect both to be gay, or neither.

The contrary evidence most often cited in support of sexual orientation being inborn is based on biological differences between the brains of homosexuals and normal people. Even those doing the studies couldn’t say whether the brain differences caused the different behavior, or the different behavior caused the differences in the brain.

Assumption without evidentiary backing.

I’ve never seen any evidence that homosexuality is harmful in and of itself. I’m open to there being evidence that there is but so far I’ve not seen it. If you’ve got it then I’m listening.

Trying to change the subject again from your own statements without evidence.

Obviously, you’re first going to have to define “harmful.” Homosexuality seems to make people quite unhappy, so I suppose that could be considered “harmful.” It’s unhealthy, so harmful in that sense. It seems to also be linked with other psychological problems.

Equal protection and due process do not apply. When the 14th Amendment was passed, absolutely no one understood it to apply to homosexuals. You can’t take something that existed for over a hundred years with a simple and widely understood meaning, and suddenly claim it means something else entirely.

Unless, of course, you’re a liberal who doesn’t care what anything means as long as they get their way.

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 19, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Equal protection and due process do indeed apply. I will totally agree that the people who passed the Fourteenth Amendment didn’t have anything related to gay people in mind when they put that in the Constitution but the amendment still says what is says so we’re stuck with it. Let that be a lesson for the future of the importance of carefully and narrowly wording any changes to the Constitution.

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 8:47 PM

It didn’t mean that before, but it means that now, right? Here we go again.

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 19, 2013 at 10:52 PM

When the gays get marriage rights in all 50 states (plus territories) they will be happy, will having nothing more to bit$h about, and we will hear very little from them anymore.

Yeah, right.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 19, 2013 at 10:57 PM

Here are the people who don’t support socons, despite alchemist’s arrogance that all comments relate to him:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/01/poll-supreme-court-gay-marriage-affirmative-action-voting-rights/2479541/

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 10:48 PM

.
Susan Page is liberal propagandist. I wouldn’t trust anything she says, until I investigate it.

All she did in that article, is say (my paraphrase):

“SCOTUS is right where they agreed with liberals, but wrong where they agreed with conservatives.”

.
That’s it.

Also, I wouldn’t trust a ‘USA Today’ poll, to save my life.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:58 PM

When the gays get marriage rights in all 50 states (plus territories) they will be happy, will having nothing more to bit$h about, and we will hear very little from them anymore.

Yeah, right.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 19, 2013 at 10:57 PM

Why shouldn’t they have equal rights in all 50 states?

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 10:59 PM

Socons need to climb down off their moral soapbox and admit they are the worst violators of sexual abuse.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Yeah, those vile Christians making up groups like “Jesus Loves Porn Stars” or those that help get street walking ladies off the streets and living productive lives or those that facilitate adoptions both domestic and international or those that serve with such organizations like Mercyships.org. Yeah, they just need to stop!

Bubba Redneck on December 19, 2013 at 11:00 PM

I think I’ll take your tactic, instead. Make an assertion, pretend it’s a fact, and demand you prove otherwise.

I mean, since it’s not really susceptible of proof — people not being quite that predictable — it’s easier to just demand someone else prove my statement is not true.

I can back up anything I’ve stated, just say the word. So do you have anything about the “decline” (however you define it) of marriage in any country where homosexuals are allowed to marry, or in any of the states in this country where it’s legal?

A study of identical twins showed that it was not unusual for one twin to be gay and one to be straight. That is evidence that homosexuality is not necessarily linked to genetics. If it were inborn, you would expect both to be gay, or neither.

The contrary evidence most often cited in support of sexual orientation being inborn is based on biological differences between the brains of homosexuals and normal people. Even those doing the studies couldn’t say whether the brain differences caused the different behavior, or the different behavior caused the differences in the brain.

Is autism a choice? (Yes, I’m going somewhere with this)

Trying to change the subject again from your own statements without evidence.

Obviously, you’re first going to have to define “harmful.” Homosexuality seems to make people quite unhappy, so I suppose that could be considered “harmful.” It’s unhealthy, so harmful in that sense. It seems to also be linked with other psychological problems.

Let’s suppose this is true and go a bit deeper into the issue like you did with the brains in your previous bit. So let’s just say for the sake of argument that homosexuals are more unhappy. Are they more unhappy just because they’re homosexuals or are they unhappy because as homosexuals they experience prejudice, discrimination and general homophobia?

It didn’t mean that before, but it means that now, right? Here we go again.

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 19, 2013 at 10:52 PM

It always meant that before but we didn’t grasp it because we didn’t understand the nature of sexual orientation until recently. We’ve been in error for quite some time now, though it’s only recently that we’ve gained the knowledge to see this. The fact we’ve been wrong for so long is not a good reason to continue to be wrong though.

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 11:00 PM

Also, I wouldn’t trust a ‘USA Today’ poll, to save my life.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:58 PM

Yeah,neither would president Romney.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 11:01 PM

Why shouldn’t they have equal rights in all 50 states?

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 10:59 PM

Because it does not fall under the definition of marriage.
Next question.

Bubba Redneck on December 19, 2013 at 11:02 PM

( . . . B L U S H . . . )

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:40 PM

.
We obviously strongly disagree on a couple things where we’re not ever likely to see eye-to-eye but I think you try to argue in good faith and I do really appreciate that.

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 10:51 PM

.
( . . . b l u s h . . . ) … again.
.
Uh oh . . . . . . . . . . . . my head’s getting bigger . . . . . it’s going to BLOW.
.
False alarm … the swelling went down.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Because it does not fall under the definition of marriage.
Next question.

Bubba Redneck on December 19, 2013 at 11:02 PM

You should take that up with Windsor and the Supreme Court. Of course you opinion has more weight.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 11:04 PM

It’s absurd to claim that it does. How could it be against the Constitution when the very people voting in that Constitution didn’t consider it to be a violation.

If this is really the best you can do, then you should just hang it up.

Even if this is true then it’s their fault for writing an overly broad amendment and we’re living with the consequences of it. You can still amend the Constitution though if you wish.

Amendments are so passe. The new normal is for an activist group to pressure liberal judges to rewrite the Constitution at will. Soooo much easier.

No, I’m really not. And who are you to say such a marriage is not real. They live together as husband and wife, they have sex, they have children, they raise those children.

What you really want is to declare that it could not possibly be a real marriage because the man “IS” homosexual.

But he’s still a man, still capable of sexual activity and reproduction.

You seem to think way less of marriage than I do…

Technically, yes, since I believe marriage is a man and a woman, while you believe any two people qualify to become husband and wife — er, husband and husband? wife and wife? Life Partner and Life Partner?

Then again, it seems your concept of marriage is so broad as to be meaningless.

I didn’t say it was ideal, or that there weren’t problems. Most homosexual men are not particularly happy, so I wouldn’t expect their marriages to be ideal. But I’m not advocating for it. I’m recognizing the reality of it.

What’s your basis for this statement? Have there been any studies comparing married to non-married homosexual men to look at their happiness levels?

That most homosexual men are not happy? Observation, common sense, the psychological problems encountered by many homosexuals, statistics, the well-documented fact that married men tend to be happier overall than unmarried men, etc.

No, it’s not backed by the Constitution. It’s an opinion backed by a spurious claim that the Constitution says what no one thougt it said until recently.

Why amend the Constitution when you can just assign new meaning to it at will.

This constant attempt to assign new meaning to words in the Constitution that they never had before is contemptible, and undermines the rule of law.

The Equal Protection and Due Process clauses mean the same things they always have. If you want to add “except for homosexuals” to the Fourteenth Amendment then there is a process for that.

Once again, you jump to the conclusion that homosexuals are a separate class of people, and that equal protection can be interpreted to require the changing of all social conventions by force of government to accommodate whatever they desire.

Still desperate to put all the burden of proof on me.

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 19, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Because you’re the one who wants to deny people their Constitutionally protected rights to equal protection and due process. If you want to do that then you need to have a good reason for it. You don’t seem to have one.

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Since your interpretation is unjustified, your conclusion can hardly be any better.

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 19, 2013 at 11:08 PM

Wow, the Dems must be incredibly worried about 2014. The trolls are out early. It would be nice if OFA decided to pay up for a better class of trolls, but I’m sure that’s coming soon. Better get used to ignoring them folks, cuz a wave is on the way. They’re scared shyteless.

ManWithNoParty on December 19, 2013 at 11:10 PM

Because it does not fall under the definition of marriage.
Next question.

Bubba Redneck on December 19, 2013 at 11:02 PM

You should take that up with Windsor and the Supreme Court. Of course you opinion has more weight.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Sorry Dude. The definition of marriage has always been 1 man 1 women throughout civilization and cultures. Even in polygamous marriages 1 man was always married to 1 women resulting in multiple marriages.

You and yours are trying to change the definition, which you cannot, to justify your perverted lifestyle.
You cannot change marriage, only destroy it.

Bubba Redneck on December 19, 2013 at 11:11 PM

Socons grasp at straws to try and enforce their religious beliefs on others. They have been clearly rejected yet continue to rend hair and gnash teeth no matter how many people they alienate. The dying of an irrelevant political minority.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 11:13 PM

Glenda claims to be a christian, but listens to Beck, a polytheist. Of course, Glenda, like the good christian he is, doesn’t want to believe this and refuses to take any ownership in learning the beliefs of Mormonism himself. Are you equally ignorant an all other subjects as well?

Bandit13 on December 19, 2013 at 10:05 PM

.
I asked you to explain on what ‘grounds/basis’ you made that claim against the Mormon Church, and you never explained it.

Are you up to trying, now?

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:14 PM

.
C’mon Bandit’ ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . still waiting for your explanation, here.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 11:15 PM

Sorry Dude. The definition of marriage has always been 1 man 1 women throughout civilization and cultures. Even in polygamous marriages 1 man was always married to 1 women resulting in multiple marriages.

You and yours are trying to change the definition, which you cannot, to justify your perverted lifestyle.
You cannot change marriage, only destroy it.

Bubba Redneck on December 19, 2013 at 11:11 PM

You really don’t understand our country is based on law, not your beliefs. Let me put you a little knowledge, socon.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 11:16 PM

Why shouldn’t they have equal rights in all 50 states?

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 10:59 PM

Doesn’t matter what I think, but I said “when” they do.

I really don’t care if they do or they don’t. Making something legal doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t make unhappy people any happier.

They will still complain and we will have to continue to endure their protests and their never-ending PR campaign to convince people that find homosexuality nauseating that it’s indeed “cool” and “normal”.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 19, 2013 at 11:18 PM

Socons grasp at straws to try and enforce their religious beliefs on others. They have been clearly rejected yet continue to rend hair and gnash teeth no matter how many people they alienate. The dying of an irrelevant political minority.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 11:13 PM

.
Repeating:

“Those ‘standards of morality’ still make a better society, even if God didn’t exist.”

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:21 PM

.
I still believe that’s a fact.
I also believe todays problems are a direct result of the ‘Counter-Culture (anti-recognition of God) Movement’ of the 1970s.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 11:21 PM

They will still complain and we will have to continue to endure their protests and their never-ending PR campaign to convince people that find homosexuality nauseating that it’s indeed “cool” and “normal”.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 19, 2013 at 11:18 PM

I’m sure people complaining about not having equal rights hurts you sensibilities. Hey, as long as you have yours.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 11:22 PM

Socons grasp at straws to try and enforce their religious beliefs on others. They have been clearly rejected yet continue to rend hair and gnash teeth no matter how many people they alienate. The dying of an irrelevant political minority.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 11:13 PM

One man one women equates to a marriage is independent of religion or culture or civilization.
Even in polygamous societies individual marriage contracts between a man and a women have always been drawn up. I believe it is referred to as part of the “human condition”. Where in the above statement is a hint of my religious beliefs?

Bubba Redneck on December 19, 2013 at 11:22 PM

One man one women equates to a marriage is independent of religion or culture or civilization.
Even in polygamous societies individual marriage contracts between a man and a women have always been drawn up. I believe it is referred to as part of the “human condition”. Where in the above statement is a hint of my religious beliefs?

Bubba Redneck on December 19, 2013 at 11:22 PM

Once again, your opinion goes against the Supreme Court decision. RIF.

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 11:23 PM

Amendments are so passe. The new normal is for an activist group to pressure liberal judges to rewrite the Constitution at will. Soooo much easier.

Or you know you will never get the amendment through Congress, let along ratified by 38 states.

Technically, yes, since I believe marriage is a man and a woman, while you believe any two people qualify to become husband and wife — er, husband and husband? wife and wife? Life Partner and Life Partner?

Then again, it seems your concept of marriage is so broad as to be meaningless.

Far from meaningless. I think marriage is important so everyone ought to have a reasonable chance to have one, including the small segment of the population who happen to be attracted to people of the same gender.

That most homosexual men are not happy? Observation, common sense, the psychological problems encountered by many homosexuals, statistics, the well-documented fact that married men tend to be happier overall than unmarried men, etc.

Anecdotes and guesses? Well I’m convinced!

If you were really concerned about happiness (and we both know you’re not so I won’t belabor the point) and it is well-documented that married men are happier then it follows we should allow gay people to marry each other so they’re not trapped in perpetual singlehood.

Once again, you jump to the conclusion that homosexuals are a separate class of people, and that equal protection can be interpreted to require the changing of all social conventions by force of government to accommodate whatever they desire.

Homosexuals have a history of being discriminated against, they’re a very small segment of the population so they’re politically powerless, homosexuality is immutable and the fact they’re homosexuals and may engage in homosexual behavior does not prevent them from contributing meaningfully to society so, yep, equal protection for them!

Since your interpretation is unjustified, your conclusion can hardly be any better.

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 19, 2013 at 11:08 PM

Which one of those four things that I just listed is untrue?

alchemist19 on December 19, 2013 at 11:24 PM

You cannot change marriage, only destroy it.

Bubba Redneck on December 19, 2013 at 11:11 PM

.
You really don’t understand our country is based on law, not your beliefs. Let me put you a little knowledge, socon.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Panther on December 19, 2013 at 11:16 PM

.
Black robe wearing “bench sitters” don’t count.

What I said above:

I’m hoping that “government enforcement of societal acceptance of homosexuality” doesn’t lead to wholesale bloodshed. But I simultaneously believe that “government enforcement of societal acceptance of homosexuality” is worth going to civil war over.

Theres no other way to end this debate.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 10:37 PM

listens2glenn on December 19, 2013 at 11:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8