Federal judge: Utah’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional

posted at 6:51 pm on December 20, 2013 by Allahpundit

First Phil Robertson gets suspended, then the New Mexico Supreme Court declares that state’s ban on SSM unconstitutional, now this.

Good lord. It’s the gayest week ever.

Judge Shelby said the state had failed to show that allowing same-sex marriages would affect opposite-sex marriages in any way, and that the state’s unsupported fears and speculations were not sufficient to justify barring same-sex marriages.

Lawyers for the state had argued that Utah’s law promoted the state’s interest in “responsible procreation” and the “optimal mode of child-rearing.” The lawsuit was brought by three gay and lesbian couples in Utah.

Many similar court challenges are pending in other states, but Utah’s has been closely watched because of the state’s history of staunch opposition to same-sex marriage as the home of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Here’s the opinion. The basic conclusion is the same as it was in the New Mexico case, which itself was the same as in every other pro-SSM ruling: The state just doesn’t have a good reason to discriminate. You can’t win by arguing that marriage is designed for procreation if it’s open to straight couples who can’t procreate. You can’t win by arguing that gays marrying will discourage straights from marrying and raising children without showing real evidence to that effect. (It’s easier for social conservatives to argue that gay marriage is a symptom of the decline of the institution than the cause of it. Gays didn’t make divorce rates and the numbers on out-of-wedlock births what they are.) You can’t win by arguing “it’s tradition” when other old discriminatory traditions, like interracial marriage bans, have been overturned by courts with most of the public’s approval. The threshold question — why should a person be legally barred from doing something that doesn’t seem to hurt anyone else? — is never really answered. (Liberals have trouble with that concept too, of course.) That question gets complicated in cases where gay couples demand that a Christan baker or photographer work their wedding despite the business owner’s religious objection to gay marriage — which, as Gabe Malor points out, is yet another reason to prefer that this subject be handled by legislatures, not courts. But that’s something that can be addressed in antidiscrimination law with religious exemptions. A judge isn’t going to uphold a total ban on gay couples marrying because a few of them might harass business owners with obnoxious “cater my wedding or else” threats.

Here’s the court’s conclusion:

ut

Pretty standard. So what’s different between this and the New Mexico decision yesterday? A few things. One: The New Mexico decision was issued by the state supreme court based on its reading of the state constitution. That’s not appealable to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Utah case, issued by a federal district court, is. Two: The New Mexico court found that the state’s marriage laws violated gays’ right to equal protection. The federal judge in the Utah court went a step beyond that, finding not just an equal protection violation but a violation of due process too. Everyone has a right to marry under the Constitution, he says, and no, granting a gay man the right to marry a woman for whom he feels nothing romantically isn’t enough. What good is having a right that’s deliberately circumscribed in a way to leave you with no desire to exercise it? It’s like telling gun owners they have the right to bear arms so long as those guns aren’t capable of firing live ammunition.

pr1pr2

Not every court takes up the due process argument, partly because they feel they don’t need to (the equal protection argument is easy enough) and partly because it gets them into abstract arguments about the scope of the right to marriage. Is “gay marriage” a different right, or is it the same ol’ right everyone’s always had except exercised by gays? Many judges don’t bother. This one did.

Three: Look back at the New Mexico opinion and you’ll find the court explaining why gays, as a group, should enjoy “suspect class” status as a politically disadvantaged minority for equal protection purposes, which means courts should be extra skeptical about laws that discriminate against them. The Utah district court judge doesn’t make that move, probably because he knows the Supreme Court is verrrry reluctant to expand the universe of suspect classifications under the Fourteenth Amendment to include sexual orientation. That would be a landmark ruling and would have huge implications for antidiscrimination laws across the country. This judge felt bound to follow existing precedent on that and ignored the question of whether gays are a “suspect class.” Instead he applied the lowest level of equal protection scrutiny, i.e. “rational basis review,” in which a law is valid and constitutional so long as it bears some rational relation to the objective the state wanted to achieve by passing it. But that brings us back to the beginning: There is no rational relation, the court says, between promoting marriage and excluding gays from the practice. There’s simply no evidence that the latter helps you with the former. Even as a matter of rational-basis review, it just doesn’t fly.

One more thing, via Mediaite. Here’s the judge having some fun with Antonin Scalia, who of course dissented in the SCOTUS case earlier this year striking down DOMA:

sc

He’s mocking Scalia, basically, by citing him in an opinion to reach a result he knows Scalia would oppose, but the DOMA ruling is what it is. Scalia was right — once the Supremes ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional because it limited certain benefits to straights, it was a fait accompli that federal judges would extend that principle to state marriage laws too. I doubt Scalia’s mood upon reading that will be embarrassment so much as “told ya.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Bottom line: The day homosexuals can convince me that Jesus would approve of a man inserting his penis into another man’s anus, that’s the day I become an atheist.

And that happens when Heaven freezes over.

godsense on December 21, 2013 at 12:11 AM

So goes Utah. So goes the country.

AshleyTKing on December 21, 2013 at 12:36 AM

I’m sorry… but where is this right to marry everyone keeps talking about?

dpduq on December 21, 2013 at 12:59 AM

See, here’s the funny thing about marriage. I’ll skip, just for the moment, the black and white question of whether same sex marriage is or is not marriage. For a change, let’s talk about the “dhades of gray,” as the classic liberal phrase goes.

We’ll start the shades of gray from one end: the traditional conventional marriage of a man who marries a woman and has children. Those children are then brought up in a home with their biological father and biological mother, who stay married.

Now, let’s step back a notch. A man marries a wife, but they’re unable to have children. So they adopt. The children are not biologically theirs, but they do the best they can.

Now, let’s step back to something less “perfect.” The original marriage is over through no fault of the wife, and the wife has remarried. We’ll ignore whether the husband died or left or was abusive. The important thing is that the remaining parent has found the best new husband she can to be married to and raise her children.

Now another shade of gray: the marriage ended, and she’s a single mother with a steady boyfriend who is not willing to marry her, but still acts mostly like a husband and tries to help with her children.

Now another shade of gray: single mom with a succession of somewhat serious boyfriends who come in, stay for a while, and then leave.

Now another shade of gray: single mom with a succession of casual boyfriends

Each of these gets further away from the “ideal.” And each type of relationship has worse results with child rearing.

The further you get from the very ideal rejected by modern liberals — the first example — the worse the results.

The differences have actually been measured, and the evidence is in. Married parents raising their biological children is the best for society.

Where does same-sex marriage fit in this continuum? Will they ever be able to raise their biological children?

(That’s a joke, son.)

No, here’s what you get when you ask SSM advocates about the children. You get a blanket assertion that there is absolutely no evidence that same-sex parenting leads to worse outcomes than normal marriages.

Do you get that? Normal marriages where the husband and wife were not the original couple, and children are being raised by at least one non-biological parent, has measurably poorer results in raising children.

But not same-sex parents! Even though the only way they can have children is for some normal couple to have sex and produce a child, then for the same-sex couple to take those children, their results are certifiably every bit as good as normal parents.

Or so an amicus curia brief to the Supreme Court during the DOMA hearing swore to be true, based on all the best scientific evidence.

So there you have it, folks. Not only are same-sex parents just as good as normal parents, we can clearly see they are much better. After all, in a normal marriage, it’s harder to raise children well who have been in a broken home and are not being raised by both of their biological parents.

But if it’s a same-sex couple, apparently magic sweeps in.

Or the claims are bogus.

Your choice which to believe.

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 21, 2013 at 1:04 AM

Don’t you just love how courts continue to create special rights for certain groups. Last I checked homosexuals had the same marital rights as everyone else. They could marry anyone they chose to marry of the opposite sex. But now they have special marital rights.

bgibbs1000 on December 20, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Well if what you say is true then celebrate! After all, such “special marital rights” are not limited to gays. Yep, you too can now marry someone of the same-sex as well. Feel free to pick amongst your buds.

JohnAGJ on December 21, 2013 at 1:10 AM

And the march to juristocracy continues.

Dunedainn on December 21, 2013 at 1:20 AM

Polygamy, ho!

Then pederasty and consanguineous relationships!

What a future to look forward to!

And a polymorphously perverse New Year!

profitsbeard on December 21, 2013 at 1:27 AM

The state just doesn’t have a good reason to discriminate.

Why does the state need a good reason?

Ronnie on December 21, 2013 at 1:27 AM

Just curious….why marriage? Why do gays never seems to want the “injustice” and “unequal treatment” of tax/benefit/pension issues solved via civil unions?

That would be a much easier and acceptable solution to a majority of people. Don’t you agree? I mean, why marriage? What seems odd, is the demand for marriage comes from the same groups of people and value systems that, not that far back, were the very ones who would belittle marriage as “just a piece of paper”.
Why do you suppose that is?

Mimzey on December 20, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Bearing in mind we are strictly talking about a matter of civil law, for myself it’s a matter of trust or rather the complete lack thereof now. By that I mean I was perfectly willing to accept civil unions in all 50 states while society was given time to deal with this at a slower pace. In essence, I was fine with a different name even if gays considered themselves to be married and not “civil unioned” for the greater good. Yet socon groups lied, cheated and did every thing they could to nix those too. I was confident that civil unions would eventually lead to civil marriage in name as well, even if this didn’t occur in my lifetime, and apparently so were opponents because they fought against them every chance they could. I will never forget the flat-out lie about an anti-SSM amendment that was passed with it’s proponents swearing before the election it wouldn’t impact domestic partnerships, and then running out to have state courts strike them down once they had won the referendum. This was not the only case where this happened as well. Forget it. Your side has no credibility anymore on this so I for one am no longer willing to take a slow approach.

Oh, and if you want to point out the lies, subterfuge, cheating, etc. of Gay, Inc., be my guest. I find them a sometimes useful tool but at other times a most annoying one that rarely speaks for me. Yet in some of these cases I’d say they were aping their so-called “pro-family” opponents, but frankly I’ll agree with you in others. It’s not exactly related to this, but to give an example I for one did not support the firing of Phil Robertson, was not offended by his remarks (I reject his viewpoint so why should I care what he thinks of my eternal chances?) and although A&E has every right to do what they did I believe they were wrong.

JohnAGJ on December 21, 2013 at 1:31 AM

Hell, they cant even have real sexual relations. They have to resort to toys and sodomy. How sad and pathetic.

bucsox79 on December 20, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Wow your sex life must be thrilling. Lucky wife!

NoStoppingUs on December 21, 2013 at 2:00 AM

Just curious….why marriage? Why do gays never seems to want the “injustice” and “unequal treatment” of tax/benefit/pension issues solved via civil unions?

That would be a much easier and acceptable solution to a majority of people. Don’t you agree? I mean, why marriage? What seems odd, is the demand for marriage comes from the same groups of people and value systems that, not that far back, were the very ones who would belittle marriage as “just a piece of paper”.
Why do you suppose that is?

Mimzey on December 20, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Bearing in mind we are strictly talking about a matter of civil law, for myself it’s a matter of trust or rather the complete lack thereof now. By that I mean I was perfectly willing to accept civil unions in all 50 states while society was given time to deal with this at a slower pace. In essence, I was fine with a different name even if gays considered themselves to be married and not “civil unioned” for the greater good. Yet socon groups lied, cheated and did every thing they could to nix those too. I was confident that civil unions would eventually lead to civil marriage in name as well, even if this didn’t occur in my lifetime, and apparently so were opponents because they fought against them every chance they could. I will never forget the flat-out lie about an anti-SSM amendment that was passed with it’s proponents swearing before the election it wouldn’t impact domestic partnerships, and then running out to have state courts strike them down once they had won the referendum. This was not the only case where this happened as well. Forget it. Your side has no credibility anymore on this so I for one am no longer willing to take a slow approach.

Oh, and if you want to point out the lies, subterfuge, cheating, etc. of Gay, Inc., be my guest. I find them a sometimes useful tool but at other times a most annoying one that rarely speaks for me. Yet in some of these cases I’d say they were aping their so-called “pro-family” opponents, but frankly I’ll agree with you in others. It’s not exactly related to this, but to give an example I for one did not support the firing of Phil Robertson, was not offended by his remarks (I reject his viewpoint so why should I care what he thinks of my eternal chances?) and although A&E has every right to do what they did I believe they were wrong.

JohnAGJ on December 21, 2013 at 1:31 AM

You’re seriously going to claim that the reason civil unions didn’t take off was because of resistance from social conservatives?

Either you haven’t been paying attention, or you just have too many issues to see straight.

SSM advocates were the ones who rejected the compromise of civil unions. That’s why I and others kept trying to explain that “getting the government out of the marriage business,” was a dead end. It was never about having all the benefits of marriage legally. They have always wanted the full title of marriage — nothing less.

Frankly, if you were to give the SSM advocates in all 50 states full civil unions tomorrow, with every benefit of marriage except being able to call it marriage, the only thing that would happen is they would go back to demanding full marriage the next day.

In fact, their commitment is almost admirable. Too bad it’s misguided.

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 21, 2013 at 2:44 AM

The difference between gay marriage and polygamy was that that the former was transmogrified from an unrealized political want to a universal human right by enormous campaign donations to the left-wing political class.

crrr6 on December 21, 2013 at 6:57 AM

Wow your sex life must be thrilling. Lucky wife!

NoStoppingUs on December 21, 2013 at 2:00 AM

There’s a difference. Me and my significant other arent forced into sodomy or pervasive faux sex. We can have REAL sex, unlike gay couples.

And wake me up when toys/carpet munching/anal lead to a baby.

This whole thing is just allowing them to live in a fantasy world where everyone is supposed to pretend two fem dudes/two pats are the same as a man and woman. I cant help but laugh at the idea. Downright silly and stupid to even pretend they are the same.

bucsox79 on December 21, 2013 at 7:00 AM

The basic conclusion is the same as it was in the New Mexico case, which itself was the same as in every other pro-SSM ruling: The state just doesn’t have a good reason to discriminate. You can’t win by arguing …

Just leave it at that. You can win by winning enough elections over time to gain control of the courts. The law is what the justices say it is. Just as executive power is what the voters and Congress permits it to be and Congressional power is what the voters permit it to be.

The Constitutional theory of checks and balances, enumerated and plenary powers, Federalism and the rest is obsolete. A quaint exercise in political theory from a time when life was simpler.

MJBrutus on December 21, 2013 at 8:13 AM

Tradition and history since the beginning of recorded time tells us that “marriage” has been reserved for a man and woman. But let’s ignore that fact and thousands of years of history while dissembling into judicial flappery as to whether same-sex marriage would affect traditional marriage in any way.

What’s being attempted not only significantly changes the established definition, but it is precedent settings in its legal articulation. Funny, by the way, how liberals don’t like breaking “precedents” when it works in their favor.

Contrary to the contorted opinion these jurists produce, their is no “right” to marry. People certainly have the freedom to exercise in their personal life, a commitment to whomever they want. Will your stuff to the person of your choice? List whomever you want on a life insurance policy? Sure.

Supporters of traditional marriage are making the wrong arguments and thus helping an already sympathetic court rule against them. This is more a case of homosexuals showing their exclusion form marriage cause them harm. Oh and “hurting your feelings”, “making you feel different” or the countless other politically correct excuses don’t count as legal arguments.

Ultimately, marriage is done under the auspices and with the blessing of God. I dare say homosexuals will ever win that argument with him.

Marcus Traianus on December 21, 2013 at 8:19 AM

Finally the court is waking up and striking down these laws of intolerance and hatred. Religion has held too much sway in our legal system and needs to go back inside the church.

Panther on December 21, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Finally the court is waking up and striking down these laws of intolerance and hatred. Religion holds too much sway in our legal system and needs to go back inside the church.

Panther on December 21, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Should the Red Cross be allowed to screen male blood donators for homosexuality?

Akzed on December 21, 2013 at 12:06 AM

I don’t know. I have a 22 year old gay friend who for what ever reason is militant on this issue. I helped him compose a letter in favor of this for our Republican Senator (Pat Toomey), because he needed help to translate his ideas into Republican. But it’s not issue that I have thought deeply about, and I certainly don’t take the militancy of 22 year olds as intellectually serious. What is your take on this?

thuja on December 21, 2013 at 9:19 AM

Wow, all the new earth socons are out in full force tonight. All this hate based upon a really old book written by, well we’re not sure who, and containing all sorts of actual event stuff like hemorrhoids, talking animals, mass murders, someone occupying a live whale, numerous reanimated walking dead, and a magical place called never never land where you go to live with repentant baby rapers after you die. All quite believable.

You guys already cost the GOP the Senate in 2010 and that’s the real reason we’re still stuck with OC. You have no idea how enjoyable it is to watch you new eathers circle the drain…Truly evolution at its best.

Bandit13 on December 20, 2013 at 11:33 PM

It’s not productive to attack the Bible so stridently. Where you see silliness, I see realistic parts of human conditions and ideas that are contestable. One should even ask if the literal interpretation is the best interpretation and if a few problem verses in the Bible detract from it being divinely inspired? One can be in love with the Torah and still reject the prohibitions on homosexuality as silly and cruel.

thuja on December 21, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Where does same-sex marriage fit in this continuum? Will they ever be able to raise their biological children?

(That’s a joke, son.)

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 21, 2013 at 1:04 AM

Gays raising their biological children is just a technical problem at this point of medicine. What happens to your argument when they do?

thuja on December 21, 2013 at 9:29 AM

You’re seriously going to claim that the reason civil unions didn’t take off was because of resistance from social conservatives?

Either you haven’t been paying attention, or you just have too many issues to see straight.

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 21, 2013 at 2:44 AM

Seriously? Did you just start paying attention to this within the past couple of months??? Socons have fought tooth and nail at every step of the way even when it came to DPs/civil unions for years now. A couple of times in the last couple of years they either remained silent about these or reluctantly saw them as an alternative when it appears SSM was going to win in a particular state. Do you think it was just an accident that oops! the majority of states with marriage amendments and legislation not only ban SSM but also DPs/civil unions?

SSM advocates were the ones who rejected the compromise of civil unions. That’s why I and others kept trying to explain that “getting the government out of the marriage business,” was a dead end. It was never about having all the benefits of marriage legally. They have always wanted the full title of marriage — nothing less.

This “compromise” was a farce only suggested after years of having even DPs/civil unions rejected. Your idea here is about 10 years too late and ignores everything that’s happened in the meantime. As for wanting “the full title of marriage”, of course we do. We have a fundamental disagreement over not just the nature of our relationships but also whether civil rights are being violated here. You say they aren’t, we say they are. A compromise of DPs/CUs about a decade ago would have probably headed off much of the acrimony since then, but unfortunately this was made impossible.

Frankly, if you were to give the SSM advocates in all 50 states full civil unions tomorrow, with every benefit of marriage except being able to call it marriage, the only thing that would happen is they would go back to demanding full marriage the next day.

At this point, after everything the socons have done? You’d better believe it. The days of compromise like this on a national level are over. Your side killed any chance of that happening. In order to have a successful agreement it takes two sides able to have some measure of trust in the other to keep it. Your side has zero credibility on this now as far as I’m concerned, thus making such compromises impossible.

JohnAGJ on December 21, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Finally the court is waking up and striking down these laws of intolerance and hatred. Religion has held too much sway in our legal system and needs to go back inside the church.

Panther on December 21, 2013 at 8:51 AM

So says the bigot who expresses intolerance and hatred towards people of faith.

I’ll enjoy watching you suffer as you and your ilk destroy our nation with your arrogance.

njrob on December 21, 2013 at 11:44 AM

So our Founding Fathers were progressive enough to include gay marriage in the constitution as a right? Who knew?

NoPain on December 21, 2013 at 11:44 AM

So enjoyable watching all these new earth socon heads explode. This is what happens when you base your belief system on a 2000 year old book of fables and stories written by cave dwelling MEN. Of course it would be far too much of a shock to admit your entire belief system is a fabrication, wouldn’t it? That would really make your heads explode…But, regardless, you all are losing the culture war…You know it and you can feel your secure, fabricated way of life just slipping away, can’t you? I have to get more popcorn now, but I’ll be watching.

Bandit13 on December 21, 2013 at 11:52 AM

In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men.
 
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/

 
50% of the gay couples are still willingly risking that exposure after they’ve married.

 

Need more?
 
alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 8:57 PM

 
Some that are applicable, please.
 
rogerb on December 20, 2013 at 10:52 PM

 
I hope the thread isn’t dead.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Where are we going with this? I’d buy a lottery ticket if I could answer that. Don’t worry. No gotchas. Just a discussion.

I’m betting the majority of your cited benefit-to-the-state reason is gauged on single parent vs. cohabitation with children vs. married with children.

In other words, I’d wager the less-welfare argument is heavily dependent on biological kids in the relationship.

I’m fine with being wrong, so I’d appreciate a link to your source showing the details if so.

rogerb on December 20, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Sorry for the very slow response. Had a Christmas party last night and then when I woke up this morning all the lights were too bright and everyone was talking too loudly.

I would have thought marriage as a wealth builder would be a pretty straightforward concept just because it’s pretty clear prima facie that it’s cheaper to maintain one household than it is to maintain two. But if you want links

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-18-marriagewealth_x.htm

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 12:45 PM

alchemist19,
The arguments you are making against plural marriage are chiefly based on the idea they are now administered mostly be religious groups or individuals and not the state. This is exactly what was happening in the 19th century with marriage. If the state makes them legal and takes over their administration, exactly the same way it did with marriage, why shouldn’t it then come out okay? Shouldn’t the state be able to legislate out all the bad parts of plural marriage? Prior to the state getting involved there are many who would argue marriage was very detrimental to women.

Rocks on December 20, 2013 at 8:55 PM

If you’re asking if it’s theoretically possible for the state to legalize plural marriage yet somehow ban all the bad parts of it, I’d need to see what your list of bad parts is; it could be that the bad parts are things that can be remedied by a simple legal prohibition.

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Print your opinion on two pieces of board and throw them over your head and preach on the street corner, because that’s about all the good it’s going to do you. Polygamy is right behind gay marriage and there is nothing you can do about it, and it’s nothing but a parade of obscenities after that.

DFCtomm on December 20, 2013 at 8:58 PM

It’s funny, if you read the dissenting opinions in Perez v. Sharp which was the California State Supreme Court case that struck down that state’s ban on interracial marriage on equal protection grounds (the first such ban to be struck down) you’ll see concern from the losing judges that once the majority opinion became law that incest and bigamy were right around the corner. They said that in 1948. They were wrong.

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 12:55 PM

And it is detrimental to society for society to diminish traditional man/woman pairings who raise children and try to justify it by saying it the same as two of the same sex living together and having a little sex, and yet here we are.

melle1228 on December 20, 2013 at 8:58 PM

How are those diminished, exactly? Same-sex couples raise children too and from the research I’ve seen on the subject they’re every bit as capable as heterosexual couples.

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Again, that is your OPINION. Studies on gay parenting are not conclusive, as they only started about 20 years ago, and they are limited to women, because it only become recently that males started to become parenting.

melle1228 on December 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Um, which studies exactly aren’t conclusive? If you’re going to say there are flaws then tell me what those flaws are. When I read things like the amicus the ASA filed in support of Perry and Windsor I find it pretty compelling. They summarize the current status of research and draw conclusions in plain English.

http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20(C_%20Gottlieb)_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 1:11 PM

That doesn’t really relate. Women are not dependent on marriage and men for financial support here. Plus they have easy access to no fault divorce. The problems you are describing mostly exist because the countries which practice it degrade women regardless of their marriage status. You are assigning to plural marriage faults imbedded in their government. Faults which the US does not have.

What is your argument against a same sex plural union? Should they be precluded from plural marriage because plural marriages with opposite sexes are detrimental?

Rocks on December 20, 2013 at 9:05 PM

I can’t totally discount this possibility because, you’re right, there’s no data on the effect of polygamy in an industrialized Western nation because they’ve been so thorough in stamping it out. Even though there are no modern examples, we can still examine the historical examples we do have (and there are many because polygamy is so prevalent in more primitive cultures) and conclude there is a rational basis for restrictions based off the rather large amount of data that is available.

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 1:19 PM

This is kind of silly. Even with the courts steam rolling over laws against same sex marriage the best any poll has ever shown is a bare majority of people supporting gay marriage and this is with a 2 decade long push for it but most in the media, etc. Clearly society does not support transsexuals, etc sharing dressing rooms with the sexes of those opposite the sex they were born with and that has not prevented courts and governments from forcing their acceptance.

Thanks to Windsor courts are not burdened with societal acceptance of a practice before their force everyone to accommodate it.

Rocks on December 20, 2013 at 9:42 PM

You’re falling into the trap of equating what is popular with what is right and/or Constitutional.

I’ll go back to the interracial marriage example. Support for interracial marriages is usually in the upper 80s today. It has not always been that way. In 1958 Gallup found 94% of Americans did not approve of marriages between whites and “colored people”. IIRC, polling on the issue didn’t break 50% until the 90s. In light of the poll numbers the issue had in 1967 should the Supreme Court have reached a different conclusion in the Loving case because society wasn’t anywhere near ready to accept it?

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Alchemist, because I respect that you show some reasoning ability, I’m going to try to make this clear.

Let’s think of all the possible marriage types there could be and put them in a set of sponsored and unsponsored. And guess what same-sex marriage goes in the sponsored set with traditional and interracial marriages. In the unsponsored set, while not exhausted, we have such representatives as incestuous, polygamist, interspecies (because bestial, just sounds too negative).

The sponsored have all been judged by society to be valuable and the unsponsored have been judged to be deficient. Against each in the unsponsored we have a stipulation about the difference from the accepted set of marriages, which are sponsored by the state.

Rather than use the word “valuable” for your sponsored set, I would say that there is no rational basis for a restriction and that there is a rational basis for restriction of your unsponsored set.

Of course we had that when same-sex marriages were in the unsponsored set. What happened? The stipulation became the statement of bias. Given that some future oligarch in black robes views that each of the other stipulations are simply moral bias, the lack of state sponsorship simply becomes a refusal to recognize the marriage types as equal, which we then argue that the Constitution forbids this behavior.

But we can add one more thing, that resistance to each new category is just as reprehensible as opposing interracial marriages, and then given your current bias against marriage X, we put you back in time and you’re opposing interracial marriages.

And really, that’s all part of the turning individuals into syndromes of the manipulative left anyway. But what you’re not seeing is that if simple stipulation and opposition becomes the equation of that syndrome then whenever the tide is against you, the majority is capable of making that same argument. You resist a current trend because you’re stuck in your ways just like racists were.

Axeman on December 20, 2013 at 9:51 PM

I do appreciate your being thoughtful on this, and I didn’t take your first line as an insult either so there’s nothing to apologize for.

It’s not that a stipulation became a statement of bias, it’s that we learned things we didn’t know before. It’s only recently that we’ve come to understand things like homosexuality is inborn, it’s not a mental illness, that sexual orientation cannot be changed, and that there is nothing inherently harmful about being homosexual. Just like with anything else, when new information comes to light you have to reexamine the situation. In light of what we now know there doesn’t seem to be any reason left to discriminate against homosexuals beyond a simple moral bias, and moral bias alone is not a rational basis for a prohibition. This is different than something like polygamy where we already understand a great deal about those types of arrangements and can express problems with them beyond a strictly moral one.

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 1:54 PM

I guess I won’t get the link on welfare and single parent vs. cohabitation with children vs. married with children vs. single/married, no children.

Oh well.

Since we covered the financial stability/welfare/impossible offspring bit and how it’s not applicable to gay marriage benefiting the state, we’re at two total “many reasons”. I bolded the other. I guess we may as well get it out of the way.

If you were spending the evening with the people I had to spend the evening with then you would have been drinking, too. :)

I’d certainly agree that sleeping around 50% less after your wedding is an overall positive decision, but you need to say it exactly like that. A 50% whoring-around reduction is apparently an admirable goal for a homosexual couple, but it’s another thing that is completely out of the norm when you try to claim it will benefit the state like traditional marriage.

Just to be clear, you’re talking about couples who are dating, not couples who are married. Apples, oranges and whatnot. A 50% whoring reduction isn’t ideal but it is still a huge step in the right direction, wouldn’t you say? Conservatives are big on the value of role models and while I must confess to not being very familiar with gay social culture, there aren’t a whole lot of positive role models being held up for the gay community. Hold up and highlight people like Andrew Sullivan who are married and faithful to their spouse as something gay people can strive for. It’s certainly better than letting someone like Dan Savage elevate themselves to prominence and stand in the absence of anyone else.

Health-wise, we’re still discussing a population that is a small percentage of the total US (~3% or so), but represents the majority of existing and new HIV/AIDS cases. Per the CDC:

50% of the gay couples are still willingly risking that exposure after they’ve married.

It’s undeniable that the HIV rate amongst the gay population is much higher, but do you know what the odds are of a gay person contracting HIV is if they’re in a monogamous, faithful relationship with someone who also doesn’t carry the virus? It’s zero. If gay men in particular as accounting for a lot of new HIV infection then it seems to me we should want them to enter into exclusive relationships and stay faithful to their partner. You know, like by enabling them to get married? Again, conservatives need to be holding up some positive role models here because the gay community seems to need them.

Some that are applicable, please.

rogerb on December 20, 2013 at 10:52 PM

The ones I cited are applicable, you just didn’t think all the way through them.

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Why stop there?

Why should people receive access to additional government benefits and reductions in their income and estate tax liabilities on the basis of their personal commitment to another? The whole thing should be struck down if there’s an equal protection issue. Not just in relation to homosexual couples.

blammm on December 21, 2013 at 2:18 PM

I hope the thread isn’t dead.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Nah. I’m tenacious and you leave me too many easy targets.

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM

In other words, I’d wager the less-welfare argument is heavily dependent on biological kids in the relationship.
 
I’m fine with being wrong, so I’d appreciate a link to your source showing the details if so.
 
rogerb on December 20, 2013 at 8:52 PM

 
I would have thought marriage as a wealth builder would be a pretty straightforward concept just because it’s pretty clear prima facie that it’s cheaper to maintain one household than it is to maintain two. But if you want links
 
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-18-marriagewealth_x.htm
 
alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 12:45 PM

 
Prima facie didn’t work with the less-welfare or no-more-whoring-around, but sure, let’s give it a shot here.
 
Nope, not here, either. Your link doesn’t address cohabitation at all.
 
That’s the data we need.
 
Demographics (effects of income level on the two groups) may be enlightening, too.
 
Comically, your link does state this, though
 

And for those who divorce, it’s a bit more expensive than giving up half of everything they own. They lose, on average, three-fourths of their personal net worth.

 
According to the American Psychological Association 40-50% of all marriages end in divorce, so encouraging half the population to lose 75% of their personal net worth may not be the best position to take.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 2:56 PM

It’s only recently that we’ve come to understand things like homosexuality is inborn
 
alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 1:54 PM

 
That seems like something that would’ve been on the news.
 
Link, please.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Prima facie didn’t work with the less-welfare or no-more-whoring-around, but sure, let’s give it a shot here.

Nope, not here, either. Your link doesn’t address cohabitation at all.

That’s the data we need.

Demographics (effects of income level on the two groups) may be enlightening, too.

Just to be clear you want specific data on poverty rates for married people vs. unmarried cohabitators? And if so do you want only the subset of people who cohabitate and count themselves as a committed couple as opposed to say, roommates who aren’t in a relationship but live together for convenience (like students at college or people who live in high-rent areas)?

Comically, your link does state this, though

According to the American Psychological Association 40-50% of all marriages end in divorce, so encouraging half the population to lose 75% of their personal net worth may not be the best position to take.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Comically you’re moving the goalposts if you want to start injecting divorce into this discussion.

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 3:05 PM

That seems like something that would’ve been on the news.

Link, please.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Here’s a video of a molecular biologist who has done research onto the biological nature of sexual orientation testifying before a committee of the Hawaii State Legislature when that body was debating legalizing gay marriage a couple months ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8H5hJz52E

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 3:06 PM

A 50% whoring reduction isn’t ideal but it is still a huge step in the right direction, wouldn’t you say?

 
and then
 

but do you know what the odds are of a gay person contracting HIV is if they’re in a monogamous, faithful relationship with someone who also doesn’t carry the virus? It’s zero.

 
Which was pretty much exactly my point. Weren’t you debating the other side?
 

Some that are applicable, please.

 
rogerb on December 20, 2013 at 10:52 PM

 
The ones I cited are applicable, you just didn’t think all the way through them.

 
alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 2:16 PM

 
Like continued health risks of HIV exposure in non-monogamous monogamous, faithful relationships? I see your point.
 
BTW, we’ve got to maintain the focus on “benefit to the state”.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Comically you’re moving the goalposts if you want to start injecting divorce into this discussion.
 
alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 3:05 PM

 
In a discussion about marriage and personal finances?
 
You’re right. I don’t think the two have any connection.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 3:10 PM

(inborn homosexuality)

 

That seems like something that would’ve been on the news.
 
Link, please.
 
rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 2:57 PM

 
Here’s a video of a molecular biologist who has done research onto the biological nature of sexual orientation testifying before a committee of the Hawaii State Legislature when that body was debating legalizing gay marriage a couple months ago.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8H5hJz52E
 
alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 3:06 PM

 
Sorry, I can’t watch/listen to videos.
 
Surely there is a single news article.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Nope, not here, either. Your link doesn’t address cohabitation at all.
 
That’s the data we need.
 
Demographics (effects of income level on the two groups) may be enlightening, too.

 
Just to be clear you want specific data on poverty rates for married people vs. unmarried cohabitators? And if so do you want only the subset of people who cohabitate and count themselves as a committed couple as opposed to say, roommates who aren’t in a relationship but live together for convenience (like students at college or people who live in high-rent areas)?
 
alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 3:05 PM

 
Be careful to not accidentally debate from my position again. If there is no difference between the bolded and the others then there is no benefit to the state.
 
If you’ve got it then those details would help prove your argument, though.
 
FWIW, I suspect those pesky kids have a lot to do with it (again).

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Which was pretty much exactly my point. Weren’t you debating the other side?

I was stating the ideal and refusing to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

In any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, if neither partner has HIV initially and they remain faithful to each other then the odds of them contracting HIV is zero. That is the ideal and something we should encourage just from a public health perspective.

Certain former presidents demonstrate pretty clearly though that the ideal isn’t always what happens and I acknowledge that. But even if we can’t get all the way to that ideal it doesn’t mean we should be averse to taking a step that gets us partway there to a better situation we’re in now. Making marriage (and everything that comes along with it) something gay couples can strive for and making role models out of couples who do get to that ideal is a step we can take towards that goal.

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Sorry, I can’t watch/listen to videos.

Surely there is a single news article.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Not my problem. You asked, I delivered. Sort your own technical issues out.

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Be careful to not accidentally debate from my position again.

If there is no difference between the bolded and the others then there is no benefit to the state.

If you’ve got it then those details would help prove your argument, though.

FWIW, I suspect those pesky kids have a lot to do with it (again).

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 3:16 PM

I’m still trying to figure out what your position is. I’ve got a guess but you won’t seem to state it. Clearing the air on that would help the discussion immensely. The more specific you are the better.

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 3:34 PM

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 3:34 PM

And I don’t just mean your position on SSM. That’s pretty clear. I mean I want to know why you think the state sanctions marriages at all.

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 3:38 PM

(inborn homosexuality)
 

Sorry, I can’t watch/listen to videos.
 
Surely there is a single news article.
 
rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 3:11 PM

 
Not my problem. You asked, I delivered. Sort your own technical issues out.
 
alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 3:31 PM

 
So there’s not a single link or news article on arguably the most important scientific discovery in the last 50 years?
 
And the only source is a youtube video featuring informal testimony from a gay activist in front of a committee debating legalizing gay marriage?
 
Again, you should probably not try to make my point for me.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 3:51 PM

I’m still trying to figure out what your position is. I’ve got a guess but you won’t seem to state it. Clearing the air on that would help the discussion immensely. The more specific you are the better.
 
alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 3:34 PM

 
As previously stated, learning the benefit to the state.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM

So there’s not a single link or news article on arguably the most important scientific discovery in the last 50 years?

And the only source is a youtube video featuring informal testimony from a gay activist in front of a committee debating legalizing gay marriage?

Again, you should probably not try to make my point for me.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 3:51 PM

If you think the nature of sexual orientation is the most important scientific discovery of the last 50 years then you don’t get out into science much. Are you trying to shock and awe me with what you don’t know?

The testimony of a gay activist? You make it sound like the gentleman offering testimony is just some guy who wandered in off the street. He’s a molecular biologist with a doctorate from Harvard who worked and published at the NIH.

If you think I’m making your point then either you don’t understand what I’m saying or you don’t understand your own point (assuming there is one).

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 4:11 PM

As previously stated, learning the benefit to the state.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM

I asked what you position on the state recognition of marriage is; I want to know why you think it should be recognized, or even if you think it should be recognized at all.

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 4:14 PM

If you think the nature of sexual orientation is the most important scientific discovery of the last 50 years then you don’t get out into science much. Are you trying to shock and awe me with what you don’t know?

 
Don’t get testy. It weakens your position.
 

The testimony of a gay activist? You make it sound like the gentleman offering testimony is just some guy who wandered in off the street. He’s a molecular biologist with a doctorate from Harvard who worked and published at the NIH.

 
Fine. No supporting citation other than a youtube video of a gay activist with a doctorate from Harvard who worked and published at the NIH.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM

As previously stated, learning the benefit to the state.
 
rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM

 
I asked what you position on the state recognition of marriage is; I want to know why you think it should be recognized, or even if you think it should be recognized at all.
 
alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 4:14 PM

 
I’m not sure why my position would have any influence on your ability to adequately argue your “benefit the state” point, but here’s why I’m trying to learn.
 

I’ll defer to my core belief about our nation:
 
The decisions should be made at the lowest authority possible. If I don’t like them, I can move.
 
I doubt my answers are appropriate for Raleigh or Fayetteville, much less Salt Lake City or Compton’s (or China’s), values and legacies. I also don’t believe we’re similar enough that my solutions can fit their problems, and I expect the same respectful attitude towards my town/county/state.
 
That ship has sailed, of course, but that’s still my default position on everything I can think of.
 
rogerb on August 18, 2013 at 7:00 AM

 
Does that help?
 
I’m actually interested in finding out if it does benefit the state. So far you haven’t done much to prove it.
 
I think the closest thing so far was a potential 50% reduction in the chance that they’d bring HIV back to a life partner.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Don’t get testy. It weakens your position.

I was expressing incredulity over your ignorance. There’s no real shame in that kind of ignorance; if you’re not intimately involved in the sciences you might not even be aware of some of the advances that have taken place over the last half century (it would honestly surprise me but I can’t discount it) to the point you believed learning that sexual orientation isn’t a matter of choice is the most significant discovery we’ve made. I don’t see how your being ignorant or me expressing my incredulity over it weaken my position on an unrelated issue though.

Fine. No supporting citation other than a youtube video of a gay activist with a doctorate from Harvard who worked and published at the NIH.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Before I venture any farther on this I want to know what your threshold of proof is. I bring you a molecular biologist who has expertise in this area testifying under oath about his findings and you say that’s not enough so I want to know what is. Do I need to bring you two people saying that being gay is not a choice before you will believe it? Three? Is there any reputable scientific evidence to the contrary?

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 4:33 PM

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 4:24 PM

That actually does help, thank you. So just so I’m clear does that mean that if you were, say, a black man living in Virginia or Tennessee back in the 1960s and the state said you couldn’t marry a white woman that you would be okay with that because you were free to “vote with your feet” as it were and move to Maryland or Pennsylvania or California where no law against interracial marriage existed.

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 4:38 PM

It’s funny, if you read the dissenting opinions in Perez v. Sharp which was the California State Supreme Court case that struck down that state’s ban on interracial marriage on equal protection grounds (the first such ban to be struck down) you’ll see concern from the losing judges that once the majority opinion became law that incest and bigamy were right around the corner. They said that in 1948. They were wrong.

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Except….polygamy just won a law suit, and there are two polygamous shows currently on TV. Why don’t you give up. You know there is little difference between gay marriage and polygamous marriage, and that’s why your arguments are frail and easily defeated. It’s not because you’re stupid, it’s because you’ve chosen to defend a position that cannot be defended.

DFCtomm on December 21, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Except….polygamy just won a law suit, and there are two polygamous shows currently on TV. Why don’t you give up. You know there is little difference between gay marriage and polygamous marriage, and that’s why your arguments are frail and easily defeated. It’s not because you’re stupid, it’s because you’ve chosen to defend a position that cannot be defended.

DFCtomm on December 21, 2013 at 5:46 PM

I don’t give up because facts are stubborn things and I have them on my side.

We might be talking past each other. The polygamy lawsuit you’re referring to dealt with a legal prohibition on cohabitation, not state recognition of a polygamous marriage. Those are two separate issues and the former was struck down while the latter was not. It’s their version of the latter that gay people are fighting for so the removal of the prohibition of religious cohabitation (on which the judge cited the First Amendment) is not germane to the SSM issue.

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 6:18 PM

I’ll defer to my core belief about our nation:

The decisions should be made at the lowest authority possible. If I don’t like them, I can move.

I doubt my answers are appropriate for Raleigh or Fayetteville, much less Salt Lake City or Compton’s (or China’s), values and legacies. I also don’t believe we’re similar enough that my solutions can fit their problems, and I expect the same respectful attitude towards my town/county/state.

That ship has sailed, of course, but that’s still my default position on everything I can think of.

rogerb on August 18, 2013 at 7:00 AM
.

Does that help?

I’m actually interested in finding out if it does benefit the state. So far you haven’t done much to prove it.

I think the closest thing so far was a potential 50% reduction in the chance that they’d bring HIV back to a life partner.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 4:24 PM

.
That actually does help, thank you. So just so I’m clear does that mean that if you were, say, a black man living in Virginia or Tennessee back in the 1960s and the state said you couldn’t marry a white woman that you would be okay with that because you were free to “vote with your feet” as it were and move to Maryland or Pennsylvania or California where no law against interracial marriage existed.

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 4:38 PM

.
Ethnicity (I don’t believe we’re different “races”) is NOT a legitimate/valid grounds-basis for forbidding a marriage between a man and a woman, who are both consenting to marry each other.

The abnormality of homosexuality is “self-evident” in nature, even without ‘recognition of God.’

I should have said this the other day, in that ‘New Mexico Supreme Court’ thread. My apologies.

listens2glenn on December 21, 2013 at 6:26 PM

I was expressing incredulity over your ignorance. There’s no real shame in that kind of ignorance…

 
It will be difficult, but we’ll revisit that in a moment.
 

I bring you a molecular biologist who has expertise in this area testifying under oath

 
This under-oath molecular biologist (who apparently lives in Hawaii):
 

I know that I did not choose my sexual orientation; I was blessed with it. But I did choose to have a committed relationship and build a life together with the man whom I have the fortune and the right to love, Joe Wilson. I am so happy that we can soon marry in the place we call home.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-hamer-and-joe-wilson/hawaii-marriage-equality_b_4247433.html

 
(BTW, if he was under oath, 1031 other people were testifying under oath as well.)
 

about his findings and you say that’s not enough so I want to know what is. Do I need to bring you two people saying that being gay is not a choice before you will believe it? Three? Is there any reputable scientific evidence to the contrary?
 
alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 4:33 PM

 
Consensus isn’t science, but the last sentence is a good example of why one shouldn’t make comments about ignorance
 

By setting up a stand at Gay Pride parades and approaching “gay friendly” groups like PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), Sanders has found more than 4,000 gay men with a brother who are interested in participating. He has already started mapping the first 500 and estimates that by mid-2008 the world will know where—if anywhere—to find the gay gene.
 
“We definitely should be able to put to rest one way or another whether the Xq28 finding is replicable,” says Sanders. “We should be able to address that to anyone’s satisfaction.”
 
The question of whether there is a gay gene—and if so, where it resides—is hardly the only question about sexual orientation that remains unanswered.
 
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay

 
It’s a good article. You should read it.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 7:05 PM

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 4:24 PM

 
That actually does help, thank you. So just so I’m clear does that mean that if you were, say, a black man living in Virginia or Tennessee back in the 1960s and the state said you couldn’t marry a white woman that you would be okay with that because you were free to “vote with your feet” as it were and move to Maryland or Pennsylvania or California where no law against interracial marriage existed.
 
alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 4:38 PM

 
Oh, good. Time travel.
 
So are we all done with the “benefit to the state” discussion?

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 7:09 PM

It will be difficult, but we’ll revisit that in a moment.

I can’t wait!

This under-oath molecular biologist (who apparently lives in Hawaii):

(BTW, if he was under oath, 1031 other people were testifying under oath as well.)

I wasn’t there so I can’t say that he specifically was sworn in so perhaps you’re right he might nit have placed his hand on a particular holy book (and he may have, I don’t know) but knowingly lying to a legislative committee isn’t something that’s highly thought of. You usually have to affirm under threat of some penalty that what you’re saying is true to the best of your knowledge. If he’s a homosexual himself that’s totally irrelevant unless your goal is to cast aspersions on the person because you can’t take on his argument.

Consensus isn’t science, but the last sentence is a good example of why one shouldn’t make comments about ignorance

Careful here. I listen to Rush daily so I’ve heard his line about consensus and science many times and he’s partially right and partially wrong about it. Science is the process of gaining knowledge about the natural world through a systematic investigation of it involving a series of testable explanations. There *is* consensus in science, but the fact there is a consensus doesn’t mean that thing is confirmed true and no further information will be considered. We should always been open to new facts and be willing to change (or outright reject) any theories that do not conform to them. But if we’re trying to understand things and all the facts we’ve learned point in the same direction and there’s no evidence to the contrary (like with evolution for example) then it’s reasonable to go with what we’ve learned so far. That’s certainly preferable to going with gut instincts, guesses and anything else that doesn’t stand up well to scrutiny.

It’s a good article. You should read it.

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 7:05 PM

I went through all four pages. Hamer mentioned in his testimony that there have been some studies that did not replicate his results. The body of work by Hamer (and several others) has not identified a single gene that if a person inherits it they will certainly be gay. Findings like that aren’t uncommon in genetics though. Just to give you an idea of what goes into a person, we’ve also not found a single “tall gene” either, there are 150 different genes that influence your height and what combination you get is what determines it. Recently we’ve also come to understand the role of epigenetics, or epi-marks, in determining a person’s sexual orientation. Your link started to touch on that without using the word when they talked about methylations, as well as probably some similar acetylations if you’re biochemically inclined.

Here’s a link back for you. You should read it; there’s some good stuff in there.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121211083212.htm

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Oh, good. Time travel.

Oh, good! A dodge!

So are we all done with the “benefit to the state” discussion?

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 7:09 PM

I don’t think so, and I sure hope not. I’m just trying to frame my responses in the proper context; I don’t want to waste time by talking past each other in the event one of us (or both of us maybe) aren’t fully understanding the other, and on the off chance we agree on something I don’t want to belabor a point. When you were asking me about the societal benefit of marriage people and I asked what you thought you responded with a plea for local control on issues which I’m trying to make sense of in the context of the subject we were on. Knowing what you think might help me frame my responses in the proper context to lead to a more insightful discussion.

So…..

Just so I’m clear does that mean that if you were, say, a black man living in Virginia or Tennessee back in the 1960s and the state said you couldn’t marry a white woman that you would be okay with that because you were free to “vote with your feet” as it were and move to Maryland or Pennsylvania or California where no law against interracial marriage existed.

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 7:58 PM

We might be talking past each other. The polygamy lawsuit you’re referring to dealt with a legal prohibition on cohabitation, not state recognition of a polygamous marriage. Those are two separate issues and the former was struck down while the latter was not. It’s their version of the latter that gay people are fighting for so the removal of the prohibition of religious cohabitation (on which the judge cited the First Amendment) is not germane to the SSM issue.

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Don’t be fooled that was the decriminalization of polygamy. It’s not like the state was handing out marriage licenses to everybody, and then it was up to the cops to hunt down the polygamists. They had one official wife and then the others were church wives, and so overturning this portion of the law has made it nearly impossible to pursue prosecution. The state now recognizes polygamy with a wink and a nod. Much the way homosexuality became decriminalized. You seeing the parallels that keep popping up, over and over again?

DFCtomm on December 21, 2013 at 9:39 PM

Bottom line: The day homosexuals can convince me that Jesus would approve of a man inserting his penis into another man’s anus, that’s the day I become an atheist.

And that happens when Heaven freezes over.

godsense on December 21, 2013 at 12:11 AM

.
. . . : )

listens2glenn on December 21, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Don’t be fooled that was the decriminalization of polygamy. It’s not like the state was handing out marriage licenses to everybody, and then it was up to the cops to hunt down the polygamists. They had one official wife and then the others were church wives, and so overturning this portion of the law has made it nearly impossible to pursue prosecution. The state now recognizes polygamy with a wink and a nod. Much the way homosexuality became decriminalized. You seeing the parallels that keep popping up, over and over again?

DFCtomm on December 21, 2013 at 9:39 PM

How many states prohibit cohabitation by unmarried sexual partners like the Utah law did? I know Florida, Michigan and Mississippi do but I’m not sure how much longer the list is. If that’s your standard then almost every state in the Union recognized polygamy with a wink and a nod a long time ago. I’m told the way the Utah statute was written if you wanted to be consistent with your application of the law you would have had to start throwing men with mistresses in jail.

If you want to argue something out of that case you could say we’re giving to much legal deference to things just because a person claims it’s a part of their religion.

alchemist19 on December 22, 2013 at 12:13 AM

How many states prohibit cohabitation by unmarried sexual partners like the Utah law did? I know Florida, Michigan and Mississippi do but I’m not sure how much longer the list is. If that’s your standard then almost every state in the Union recognized polygamy with a wink and a nod a long time ago. I’m told the way the Utah statute was written if you wanted to be consistent with your application of the law you would have had to start throwing men with mistresses in jail.

If you want to argue something out of that case you could say we’re giving to much legal deference to things just because a person claims it’s a part of their religion.

alchemist19 on December 22, 2013 at 12:13 AM

Now you’re starting to piss me off by acting stupid. You know Utah’s history with polygamy. Trying to compare it with Florida is stupid. Can you show me some cases where Utah pursued unfaithful spouses instead of polygamists with this law? You are beginning to grasp for straws.

DFCtomm on December 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM

Now you’re starting to piss me off by acting stupid. You know Utah’s history with polygamy. Trying to compare it with Florida is stupid. Can you show me some cases where Utah pursued unfaithful spouses instead of polygamists with this law? You are beginning to grasp for straws.

DFCtomm on December 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM

It’s not stupidity. We both know about Utah’s past but the thing is it’s irrelevant for determining whether the law passes constitutional muster. I brought up Florida because I’m pretty sure they still have a cohabitation law that is basically never enforced.

The argument the people who sued the state brought was that because the state wasn’t going after truly unfaithful spouses with that law that they were using it to single out fundamentalist Mormons because of their religion. The plaintiffs claimed their rights protected by the First Amendment were being violated and the judge, a Bush appointee, agreed.

alchemist19 on December 22, 2013 at 12:45 AM

It’s not stupidity. We both know about Utah’s past but the thing is it’s irrelevant for determining whether the law passes constitutional muster. I brought up Florida because I’m pretty sure they still have a cohabitation law that is basically never enforced.

The argument the people who sued the state brought was that because the state wasn’t going after truly unfaithful spouses with that law that they were using it to single out fundamentalist Mormons because of their religion. The plaintiffs claimed their rights protected by the First Amendment were being violated and the judge, a Bush appointee, agreed.

alchemist19 on December 22, 2013 at 12:45 AM

All that work, but at least now you admit that the decision decriminalized polygamy. Just the way early cases decriminalized homosexuality.

DFCtomm on December 22, 2013 at 1:20 AM

All that work, but at least now you admit that the decision decriminalized polygamy.

I thought it was clear from the news stories last week that the decision in Utah had the effect of decriminalizing polygamy so I didn’t feel it was necessary to restate the obvious.

Just the way early cases decriminalized homosexuality.

DFCtomm on December 22, 2013 at 1:20 AM

Post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

You might have just as well said that plural marriage has been decriminalized the same way the early cases decriminalized interracial marriage.

alchemist19 on December 22, 2013 at 2:44 AM

rogerb on December 21, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Here’s a link back for you. You should read it; there’s some good stuff in there.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121211083212.htm

alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 7:50 PM

I hope the thread isn’t dead.

alchemist19 on December 22, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Travelling (just the regular kind, though). Will check post-Christmas gay marriage threads and pick back up after the holidays.
 
Merry Christmas to all.

rogerb on December 22, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Epigenetics May Be a Critical Factor Contributing to Homosexuality, Study Suggests
 
…leading most researchers to presume a genetic underpinning of sexual preference. However, no major gene for homosexuality has been found despite numerous studies searching for a genetic connection.

 
Thanks for finally providing a link to try and back up your position, btw.
 
Consensus-wise, I don’t listen to Rush so I’m unfamiliar with what you’re referring to. I just mean basic science. Presume all you want, but if a hypothesis fails particular scrutiny then it must be rejected. Anything more than that is faith, not science.
 
Regardless, merry Christmas and we can catch up next week.

rogerb on December 22, 2013 at 10:49 PM

Thanks for finally providing a link to try and back up your position, btw.

When links have to meet an undefined, arbitrary standard you don’t always hit it on your first attempt. :)

Consensus-wise, I don’t listen to Rush so I’m unfamiliar with what you’re referring to. I just mean basic science. Presume all you want, but if a hypothesis fails particular scrutiny then it must be rejected. Anything more than that is faith, not science.

Your line was very similar to one Rush uses but I take you at your word that it you weren’t borrowing from him. Not really a big deal either way though.

Regardless, merry Christmas and we can catch up next week.

rogerb on December 22, 2013 at 10:49 PM

I’m always up for a little debate of carefully lifted words that clearly miss the overall aim. (Sorry, couldn’t resist) But I’m getting ready to take some time off for the holidays as well so will have to pick this back up whenever in 2014 the next state Constitutional amendment is struck down on similar grounds to this one. I don’t know yet if you don’t know the difference between genetics and biology of if you’re just being obtuse but I’m looking forward to finding out. Until then, from this humble agnostic, Merry Christmas.

alchemist19 on December 22, 2013 at 11:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3