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

Boy is there going to be some cork-popping at GLAADstapo HQ this weekend. Party time!

eforhan on December 20, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Pic one.
Pic two.
Pic three.

ZachV on December 20, 2013 at 6:58 PM

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

Then any ban on polygamy is, too.

After that, incestuous marriage, then bestial marriage, marriage with inanimate objects, & eventually, marriage to children.

itsnotaboutme on December 20, 2013 at 6:58 PM

You can’t win by arguing that marriage is designed for procreation if it’s open to straight couples who can’t procreate.

Then how do you justify a ban on some guy marrying his sister?

Socratease on December 20, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Then any ban on polygamy is, too.

After that, incestuous marriage, then bestial marriage, marriage with inanimate objects, & eventually, marriage to children.

itsnotaboutme on December 20, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Yup. It’s just a matter of time. Either that, or a matter of getting a new POTUS who can repair SCOTUS.

Stoic Patriot on December 20, 2013 at 6:59 PM

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.

What discrimination? Where is the unequal treatment under the law?

Since the courts have lost their flipping minds it’s time for states to just simply get out of the marriage business altogether, accept as arbiters of contract disputes.

NotCoach on December 20, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Anusocracy!

Murphy9 on December 20, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Tyranny from the federal bench is old news for Mormons. During territorial days a federal judge used to have his mistress sit with him on the bench while he was sending Mormons to jail for polygamy.

flataffect on December 20, 2013 at 7:03 PM

What good is having a right that’s deliberately circumscribed in a way to leave you with no desire to exercise it?

You’re right. You’ve just indicated that any bachelor who plans to be a bachelor for life has no right to marriage, if he has no desire to exercise it.

What good is it, if it’s not desirable in itself.

The stupidity continues.

Axeman on December 20, 2013 at 7:05 PM

..geh…geh…geh

KOOLAID2 on December 20, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Let’s see freedom of speech is not a right for those people afraid of public speaking. And freedom of the press is not a right for those people who are disinclined to publish and be criticized. Freedom of assembly just vanished to agoraphobics and hermits. People who hate children don’t have the right to have children.

Axeman on December 20, 2013 at 7:10 PM

One on my FB friends is a priest in Utah. He’s a really cool guy-and likely not a happy camper right now. Heck-I’m an on again/off again Jooo in Texas-and I’m not a happy camper right now.
This ruling is BS!

annoyinglittletwerp on December 20, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Then any ban on polygamy is, too.

After that, incestuous marriage, then bestial marriage, marriage with inanimate objects, & eventually, marriage to children.

itsnotaboutme on December 20, 2013 at 6:58 PM

How about this?

NavyMustang on December 20, 2013 at 7:11 PM

A Constitutional Convention solves all of this.

Bubba Redneck on December 20, 2013 at 7:13 PM

I’m sure this thread will die at around 30 comments….

I’ll get the coffee going.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 7:14 PM

What good is having a right that’s deliberately circumscribed in a way to leave you with no desire to exercise it?

You’re right. You’ve just indicated that any bachelor who plans to be a bachelor for life has no right to marriage, if he has no desire to exercise it.

What good is it, if it’s not desirable in itself.

The stupidity continues.

Axeman on December 20, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Indeed. Asinine and twisted logic to justify this ridiculous insanity. If we logically apply AP’s thinking that means all marriage laws are unconstitutional because there are losers no matter what you do.

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.

Besides the fact that it’s nothing like that, such a law would be clearly unconstitutional since the right to bear arms in enshrined in the Constitution.

NotCoach on December 20, 2013 at 7:14 PM

We long lost this battle. Its a shame. Like it or not, the fact is homosexuality is a perversion. I dont care if they can help it or not, its quite sick and disgusting. And the fact that we now have to accept it as being equal to a man/woman is just an abomination. Sorry, but is the dumbest and most twisted thing ever to say that two dudes/two pats are the same as a man/woman. 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

Let’s see freedom of speech is not a right for those people afraid of public speaking. And freedom of the press is not a right for those people who are disinclined to publish and be criticized. Freedom of assembly just vanished to agoraphobics and hermits. People who hate children don’t have the right to have children.

Axeman on December 20, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Want some butter with that role?

NotCoach on December 20, 2013 at 7:16 PM

It’s all a sick joke. This process used to shove gay marriage done America’s throat will set precedents to completely dismantle our parliamentary system. There is absolutely no limit on how SCOTUS can interpret a law now as there is no way to ever amend the Constitution to check them at this point. Congress simply will not do it. They prefer SCOTUS, immune from election and impeachment, to do the dirty work.

Rocks on December 20, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Where’s Brigham Young when you need him?

portlandon on December 20, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Personally, I’m very glad to see all these constant equal protection cases, and I’m sure it’s just a matter of working through the docket before these same couples are suing to ensure they pay identical tax rates as the top 1%.

rogerb on December 20, 2013 at 7:20 PM

:)

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Boy is there going to be some cork-popping at GLAADstapo HQ this weekend. Party time!

eforhan on December 20, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Oh, they’ll be plenty of poppers there alright.

portlandon on December 20, 2013 at 7:20 PM

NRO interview with Robby George:

Robert P. George: In thinking and talking about the debate over marriage, Sherif, Ryan, and I came to see that the real question is not “who can marry whom,” but rather “what is marriage?” It became clear to us that the former question was impossible to address without answering the latter. Indeed, any position on the former presupposes a particular answer to the latter. Those seeking to redefine marriage were — usually quite unselfconsciously and uncritically — working with a conception of “marriage” that is radically at odds with the historical understanding of marriage as a conjugal relationship, which is that marriage is a comprehensive sharing of life that integrally includes the bodily union made possible by the sexual-reproductive complementarity of man and woman. The assumption implicit in their demand for the recognition of same-sex partnerships as marriages is that marriage is an emotional bond — a form of sexual and romantic companionship or domestic partnership. It is this assumption that is at the heart of what we call the “revisionist” view of marriage and that we contrast with the conjugal view.

INC on December 20, 2013 at 7:22 PM

You know marrying your pet is next.

Blake on December 20, 2013 at 7:23 PM

GEORGE: I wish I could say that it shaped the opinion for the majority in the Windsor decision (which invalidated a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act). It didn’t. In fact, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion for the majority failed to address our arguments at all. Kennedy simply assumed the validity of something like the revisionist view of marriage, without defending it or addressing the criticisms that we and others have made of it. Our article and book do seem to have influenced the dissenting opinion of Justice Samuel Alito, however. He is aware that the Kennedy opinion uncritically assumes an answer to the question “what is marriage?” without actually defending that answer or addressing the powerful reasons critics have advanced for rejecting it.

INC on December 20, 2013 at 7:23 PM

Looks like Christians will need to find another group to persecute–preferably a group Democrats won’t defend–otherwise they’ll be as harmless and congenial as Unitarians. Matthew 19:24 suggests an answer…

hicsuget on December 20, 2013 at 7:23 PM

More judicial legislating.

TfromV on December 20, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Why aren’t we impeaching judges?

JellyToast on December 20, 2013 at 7:25 PM

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.”

Yep, the slippery slope is alive and well..

melle1228 on December 20, 2013 at 7:25 PM

GEORGE: Our most important insight is that marriage is indeed a comprehensive (bodily as well as emotional) sharing of life — a conjugal union — and not merely a form of sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership. Our argument can explain and justify at the level of principle (and not merely as a matter of subjective preference or sentimental attachment) key features of marriage that cannot be explained or justified at that level by advocates of the revisionist view:

1. Why marriage is inherently a sexual partnership, and not a partnership integrated around other (nonsexual) shared interests or activities (reading novels, playing tennis, watching films, etc.).

2. Why marriage is the union of two persons, not three or more (“throuples” or “triads,” “quadrads,” etc.) in polyamorous sexual ensembles.

3. Why marriage is a sexually closed relationship, not an “open” relationship in which spouses can legitimately agree to permit liaisons with others.

4. Why marriage requires a pledge of permanence and not merely an agreement to stay together for a specified term, or “for as long as love (understood as emotional union) lasts.”

5. Why law and public policy legitimately treat marriage as a matter pertaining to the public interest, and not as a purely private matter (like ordinary friendship or like religious events such as baptisms and bar mitzvahs).

Moreover, the conjugal view, unlike the revisionist view, can make sense of the concept of marital consummation by sexual intercourse. Further, it can account for the idea that marriage is inherently, and not merely incidentally, a procreative partnership, and the idea that a valid marriage can be entered into by a man and a woman who, due to the infertility of one or both spouses, will not be able to conceive children.

The key there is to see that the link between marriage and procreation is not a means-to-an-end connection. Just as it is a mistake to regard marriage as a mere form of sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership, it is a mistake to view procreation and child-rearing as extrinsic ends to which marriage is a means. For a man and woman to marry is indeed for them to enter into a distinctive type of relationship — a conjugal union — that is oriented to procreation and would naturally be fulfilled by having and rearing children together; but being in that type of relationship is intrinsically, and not merely instrumentally valuable.

INC on December 20, 2013 at 7:26 PM

I’m sure this thread will die at around 30 comments….

I’ll get the coffee going.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Yep, and I am equally sure that you are happy that gay marriage has ushered in children having to be shuttled to THREE OR MORE parents house when their parents divorce.

melle1228 on December 20, 2013 at 7:27 PM

The threshold question — why should a person be legally barred from doing something that doesn’t seem to hurt anyone else?
-Allahpundit

Uh, gays aren’t barred from doing something.
They are barred from a marriage license from the state and state benefits.

Just like a host of other people are.

I’m sure that “equal protection” and “due process” will also be consistently applied in this manner to strike down the redistributive entitlement state and tax system.

gwelf on December 20, 2013 at 7:27 PM

I’ve been an antique dealer for a long time and when someone says a piece has been married it’s a bad thing. Guess we were ahead of our time.

rik on December 20, 2013 at 7:28 PM

What discrimination? Where is the unequal treatment under the law?

Since the courts have lost their flipping minds it’s time for states to just simply get out of the marriage business altogether, accept as arbiters of contract disputes.

NotCoach on December 20, 2013 at 7:01 PM

You know the same unequal treatment that incestuous couples and polygamous groups have..

melle1228 on December 20, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Question: What was the ORIGINAL intent of “marriage”?

THINK ABOUT IT!

Because these judges obviously have not.

GarandFan on December 20, 2013 at 7:28 PM

The thing is is that this whole society seems to have the attitude that “if so-and-so can do something, I need to be allowed to as well”. It’s like trophies for everyone at sports. It used to be that if one attained a certain level, one got a trophy, or if one met a certain set of qualifications, one could go from there with a different set of opportunities. I suppose that I should be whining to the Olympic Committee these days that although I have never skied in my life, it’s “not fair” that they’re not sending me to Russia as a skier for the Olympics.

Marriage, to me, seems to fall into one of those “qualifications” categories. First, you need to have a man and a woman. Second, they need to be of competency to get married. Third, they cannot fall into certain familial categories, etc.

I say this, because when people parade around saying “Oh, marriage is a right”, it negates all the traditional qualifications mentioned above. What really bothers me, too, is that I have a relative who is severely handicapped. He had to be institutionalized as a child already, because even with a large family to help out, he needed professional care to keep him from being a threat to his own (mainly) or others’ safety. He lost the ability to speak by the time he was 5, and, when he was healthier, still could only communicate in grunts, smiles, and (erraticly) via behavior. If marriage is a “right” in the sense that everyone need to be allowed to marry whomever they choose, then not only would he be “allowed” to marry, but there would be nothing stopping somebody unscrupulous from demanding that they be allowed to marry this family member so as to try to cash in on any benefits he may be receiving from the state (which I assume is the case). After all, you could probably find some judge to rule that just because he’s so severely handicapped, he can’t be a “consenting” adult. After all, that would be discrimination against the handicapped, would it not?

(Bringing up this family member also is one of the reasons that I am *against* a lot of government programs for the “needy” rather that for them. It’s wonderful that there have been programs to help this family member, but the liberals always use cases like his – where he cannot help himself – to prop up people who choose not to help themselves, eventually dropping the people who are truly and terribly in need for the ones who are more useful to them politically.)

Katja on December 20, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Original article that was published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49512761/What-is-Marriage-by-Robert-George

The book was published a year later and expanded their arguments and answered critics:

http://whatismarriagebook.com/

INC on December 20, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Why aren’t we impeaching judges?

JellyToast on December 20, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Because they haven’t done anything wrong, or at least this judge hasn’t.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 7:31 PM

We long lost this battle. Its a shame. Like it or not, the fact is homosexuality is a perversion. I dont care if they can help it or not, its quite sick and disgusting. And the fact that we now have to accept it as being equal to a man/woman is just an abomination. Sorry, but is the dumbest and most twisted thing ever to say that two dudes/two pats are the same as a man/woman. 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

I’m not afraid of living in an alien country. I’m not afraid of possible persecution (I really don’t want the beatings and buggering if they throw me in a regular prison, though). I’m not afraid of America turning gay for gays. I’m trying to decide whether I can have a say as a citizen and am therefore partly responsible as a Christian for the laws of the country, or whether I am totally shut out of the process except to vote for primpers-in-the-mirror on either side who will do nothing when all is said and done except go where the votes are, or whether the school gets a tad more money to teach Common Core so kids can fill out a test on whether conservatives are A) just simply evil, or B) really, really vile and evil. Whether hunters get to hunt something for another year (I’m not a hunter), and whether we can pretend to have a say in something that bugs the ACLU (perhaps having nothing to do with culture or religion), until they find some mechanism in court to slap it down.

Axeman on December 20, 2013 at 7:31 PM

You know the same unequal treatment that incestuous couples and polygamous groups have..

melle1228 on December 20, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Incestuous couples and polygamous groups are detrimental to society though and that’s a big difference between them and either heterosexual or homosexual couples where neither party is a close blood relative.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Yep, and I am equally sure that you are happy that gay marriage has ushered in children having to be shuttled to THREE OR MORE parents house when their parents divorce.

melle1228 on December 20, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Are you referring specifically to the California case where a surrogate was listed on a birth certificate?

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 7:34 PM

It’s easy to find things unconstitutional when the constitution had already been robbed of much of its meaning.

gwelf on December 20, 2013 at 7:34 PM

The threshold question — why should a person be legally barred from doing something that doesn’t seem to hurt anyone else?
-Allahpundit

Honestly… for me the issue isn’t gay marriage. It’s all the baggage that seems to come along with it. Same with the repeal of DADT. The repeal wasn’t the real issue.. it was all the other stuff that comes along with it. Attacks on Chaplains, sensitivity trainings and so forth.

It is not going to be enough that gays can be legally married..they must be allowed to be married in any church they wish. No Pastor will have the right to say “Not in this church!”

That is the real issue.

JellyToast on December 20, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Tar, feathers and rails…

viking01 on December 20, 2013 at 7:35 PM

This chart was made to summarize the main points of What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.

http://walkingchristian.com/2013/02/11/the-case-for-conjugal-marriage/

It does a fair job of doing so.

One thing to remember:

Until yesterday, no society had seen marriage as anything other than a conjugal partner­ship: a male-female union. What Is Marriage? identifies and defends the reasons for this historic consensus and shows why redefining civil marriage is unnecessary, unreasonable, and contrary to the common good.

INC on December 20, 2013 at 7:35 PM

The threshold question — why should a person be legally barred from doing something that doesn’t seem to hurt anyone else?
-Allahpundit

This question has been answered many times in the comments over the last couple of years.

INC on December 20, 2013 at 7:36 PM

We long lost this battle. Its a shame. Like it or not, the fact is homosexuality is a perversion. I dont care if they can help it or not, its quite sick and disgusting. And the fact that we now have to accept it as being equal to a man/woman is just an abomination. Sorry, but is the dumbest and most twisted thing ever to say that two dudes/two pats are the same as a man/woman. 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

We should deny people marriage because of how you personally feel about them as a couple? That mindset didn’t carry the day in the 60s and it shouldn’t now either. But chin up, you personally don’t have to accept or like or celebrate anything you don’t want to. The state has to recognize it but you don’t.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 7:37 PM

blink on December 20, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Try children—their well-being and stable healthy development.

INC on December 20, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Incestuous couples and polygamous groups are detrimental to society though and that’s a big difference between them and either heterosexual or homosexual couples where neither party is a close blood relative.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM

People keep stating this but the argument to it’s truth is largely that which was dismissed in attempting to keep marriage from being redefined to include a gay union. For example, how can a marriage of 2 brothers possibly be any more detrimental than of 2 unrelated men? Also how is polygamy detrimental? Many of the arguments used for that are ones that can easily be attributed to religious practices and not to polygamy itself. Is a non religious polygamist group automatically detrimental?

Rocks on December 20, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Honestly… for me the issue isn’t gay marriage. It’s all the baggage that seems to come along with it. Same with the repeal of DADT. The repeal wasn’t the real issue.. it was all the other stuff that comes along with it. Attacks on Chaplains, sensitivity trainings and so forth.

It is not going to be enough that gays can be legally married..they must be allowed to be married in any church they wish. No Pastor will have the right to say “Not in this church!”

That is the real issue.

JellyToast on December 20, 2013 at 7:35 PM

This wasn’t an issue at all back in the 60s when opposition to interracial marriage was strong and some churches found it counter to their teachings. No church or clergy member was forced to perform any ceremony they didn’t want to. Massachusetts has had gay marriage for a decade now and so far no churches there have been forced to do anything either, nor has any church in any other state where gay marriage is legal. Your fears here are unfounded.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 7:41 PM

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

People keep stating this but the argument to it’s truth is largely that which was dismissed in attempting to keep marriage from being redefined to include a gay union. For example, how can a marriage of 2 brothers possibly be any more detrimental than of 2 unrelated men? Also how is polygamy detrimental? Many of the arguments used for that are ones that can easily be attributed to religious practices and not to polygamy itself. Is a non religious polygamist group automatically detrimental?

Rocks on December 20, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Let me ask you the question then, can you give me any reasons polygamy should be illegal beyond simple moral disapproval of the practice? Are there any structural things about its practice that are bad? If so, what are they? I agree the practice is detrimental to society, I just want to see what your list is.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Nope. There’s no evidence that resulting children will be any less stable or healthy.

blink on December 20, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Do you have children? Are they now adults? Have you taken early childhood courses or studied child development? Have you done any reading on the topic?

INC on December 20, 2013 at 7:45 PM

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.

* Gays are not banned from marrying at all. They are not banned from marrying because they are gay, or for any other arbitrary characteristic.

* The question is why should a person have the right to entertain a fantasy — in this case, that another man is their wife, or another woman is their husband — and demand also that everyone around them also entertain that fantasy.

Axe on December 20, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Prepare yourself for pure stupidity.

alchemist claims that it’s more detrimental to society because the 2 brothers end up estranged from family if the marriage doesn’t work out.

That’s the nonsense that alchemist attempts to assert as compelling.

blink on December 20, 2013 at 7:44 PM

If that is the argument it is pure stupidity. Divorces, no matter who is in the marriage, wreak havoc on families. It’s not a basis for denying a marriage license.

Rocks on December 20, 2013 at 7:46 PM

INC on December 20, 2013 at 7:45 PM

I know we disagree on the same-sex marriage issue but trust me, don’t bother responding to blink. She (I think it’s a she) is actually on your side in the matter and is arguing in bad faith. Believe me, you’re better off just ignoring her. She’s not being serious.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Nope. There’s no evidence that resulting children will be any less stable or healthy.

blink on December 20, 2013 at 7:39 PM

We’re going to end up with feral roaming gangs that will make Lord of the Flies look civilized.

I’ve cited studies on children.

I’ve had courses and read books on child development.

I’ve reared children to adulthood.

I’ve read what others have to say about their own lives.

Children are going into the shredder with the redefinition of marriage.

INC on December 20, 2013 at 7:48 PM

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Thanks for the info.

INC on December 20, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Rocks on December 20, 2013 at 7:46 PM

If you missed my previous response, if your goal is a real and serious discussion then ignore blink. She (I think it’s a she) is actually opposed to same-sex marriage and is here arguing in bad faith. It’s an act, and a very old and tired one at that. I no longer bother with her and you shouldn’t either.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Thanks for the info.

INC on December 20, 2013 at 7:49 PM

No problem. When we’ve crossed paths before you’ve always seemed earnest about your beliefs so there’s no point on you making the same mistake I did and waste a bunch of time taking a person seriously when they aren’t serious.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Why aren’t we impeaching judges?

JellyToast on December 20, 2013 at 7:25 PM

One reason is that so many people said Gingrich was crazy during the primaries for even suggesting it.

BuckeyeSam on December 20, 2013 at 7:54 PM

We should deny people marriage because of how you personally feel about them as a couple? That mindset didn’t carry the day in the 60s and it shouldn’t now either. But chin up, you personally don’t have to accept or like or celebrate anything you don’t want to. The state has to recognize it but you don’t.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 7:37 PM

You just did the same thing based on incestuous couples a polygamous grouping. You said they were “detrimental” and that is YOUR opinion and subjective morality.

And no, I wasn’t talking about the surrogate case. I was talking about the case where the state of California terminated a man’s right without due process by making a women’s lesbian “wife” the legal parent.

melle1228 on December 20, 2013 at 7:57 PM

What I don’t get is how can a group that numbers just over 1% of the population have so much political power. I am especially troubled by what the gay lobby has done to our military. Politicians on both sides cower in fear of being blamed every time one of these alternate lifestyle types gets his feelings hurt.

And I wish they would stop gaying up every TV program. If you watch HGTV, you would think the country is 60% gay. I love that show, but it’s getting harder to watch as are a lot of other shows.

Alabama Infidel on December 20, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Is there any harm to society caused by a man marrying his brother? There can be no recessive mutation inheritance after all. Laws against brother marriage rest only in tradition and the “yuck” factor, neither of which, the judges tell us, matter anymore.

Honestly, the courts are undermining their legitimacy.

xuyee on December 20, 2013 at 7:59 PM

This country just continues on the path of sodom and gomorrah and towards it’s eventual destruction..I’m currently ashamed of what it’s become

sadsushi on December 20, 2013 at 8:00 PM

If you missed my previous response, if your goal is a real and serious discussion then ignore blink. She (I think it’s a she) is actually opposed to same-sex marriage and is here arguing in bad faith. It’s an act, and a very old and tired one at that. I no longer bother with her and you shouldn’t either.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 7:50 PM

I was writing at the time and this appeared after posting. But I don’t wholesale ignore people but base it on the current comments.

Let me ask you the question then, can you give me any reasons polygamy should be illegal beyond simple moral disapproval of the practice? Are there any structural things about its practice that are bad? If so, what are they? I agree the practice is detrimental to society, I just want to see what your list is.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Shouldn’t you at least attempt to answer my questions prior to asking your own? I will nonetheless answer this.

I’m not really convinced polygamy and polyandry should be illegal anymore. I think prior to no fault divorce there was a strong argument why the state would not recognize those because they made the dissolution of marriages, the primary reason the government started to recognize marriages to begin with, much too complicated.

In these days of no fault divorce and equal division of assets at divorce why is it any harder to carve things up among 4 people as 2?

Rocks on December 20, 2013 at 8:03 PM

c

What I don’t get is how can a group that numbers just over 1% of the population have so much political power.

Alabama Infidel on December 20, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Because people like Allahpundit shill for them every chance he gets.

Blake on December 20, 2013 at 8:04 PM

You just did the same thing based on incestuous couples a polygamous grouping. You said they were “detrimental” and that is YOUR opinion and subjective morality.

My opinion is informed by the track record of both incest and polygamy. But since you went there I’ll throw the same question out to you, melle. I think you’re an intelligent and thoughtful person so I strongly suspect you’ll give me an honest answer in response: Do you have any justification for opposing incest and polygamy beyond simple moral disapproval of the practices. I suspect you do, and if I’m correct then what are those reasons?

And no, I wasn’t talking about the surrogate case. I was talking about the case where the state of California terminated a man’s right without due process by making a women’s lesbian “wife” the legal parent.

melle1228 on December 20, 2013 at 7:57 PM

I don’t recall that off the top of my head. Do you remember the name of the case?

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 8:05 PM

You can’t win by arguing that marriage is designed for procreation if it’s open to straight couples who can’t procreate.

Wrong. Marriage affects classes of people. The classes in heterosexual marriage most certainly can procreate, and the classes involved in homosexual marriage cannot. That is, there is never any time when a woman and a woman, nor a man and a man, can make a baby through normal action and carry it to term. NEVER. A man and a woman, however can – assuming they are healthy and within the appropriate age ranges for their bodies – make a baby and carry it to term without any external assistance.

This is why homosexual marriage cannot be justified as “the same” as heterosexual marriage.

GWB on December 20, 2013 at 8:05 PM

The state has to recognize it but you don’t.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 7:37 PM

That’s not true. As the court decisions re: baker and photographer have shown. There is no such thing as freedom of association anymore.

txhsmom on December 20, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Alabama Infidel on December 20, 2013 at 7:58 PM

The problem is how many “judges” have decided to crown themselves as kings demanding acceptance of their causes whether it means overturning elections as “Judge” Ross did for CA prop 8 the NM hustler or this latest federal, feral example of judicial excrement.

The Colonists devised a solution to such tyranny and the solution to tyranny’s current resurgence likely will follow a similar path.

viking01 on December 20, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Shouldn’t you at least attempt to answer my questions prior to asking your own? I will nonetheless answer this.

I threw out the question because the answer I suspected I would get would illustrate my point better than a direct answer to your question would.

I’m not really convinced polygamy and polyandry should be illegal anymore.

Do you not believe either practice is a detriment to society?

I think prior to no fault divorce there was a strong argument why the state would not recognize those because they made the dissolution of marriages, the primary reason the government started to recognize marriages to begin with, much too complicated.

In these days of no fault divorce and equal division of assets at divorce why is it any harder to carve things up among 4 people as 2?

Rocks on December 20, 2013 at 8:03 PM

I think the government’s purpose for recognizing marriages wasn’t for the purpose of dividing the stuff; married couples are a benefit to the state so the state has an interest in encouraging marriage.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 8:10 PM

I will keep saying this: Why is Allahpundit still here at HotAir; especially, given his attitude & his posts about this particular subject matter? In his prominent position at HotAir, 1 post after another on these stories, he is constantly undermining the institution of marriage, twisting it around, & flipping it upside-down. The longer this fraud goes on, Salem Communications, the parent company of Hot Air who is in charge of staffing at HotAir, loses more & more respect; so much so that I & (as I imagine) lots of others are close to quitting Hot Air as a REAL- on the RIGHT- conservative information resource; especially for the real story on marriage, which was, is, & will always be 1 man & 1 woman, only. I’ve been stopping by here less & less, as it goes down & down. Did you ever see Salem, how it represents Hot Air? Here: ‘Hot Air provides a constantly-updated site for political and cultural analysis from a *center-right* perspective–making it the *premier conservative blog* covering politics, culture and media. Commentary from Ed Morrissey and anonymous blogger “Allah Pundit” give a *fresh conservative perspective* on the news of the day–around the clock.’ Ha. What a joke. As is it relates to Allahpundit’s posts on this subject matter, Salem is misrepresenting itself & Hot Air & Allahpundit & it’s pathetic.

ABLOGMAN on December 20, 2013 at 8:12 PM

married couples are a benefit to the state
 
alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 8:10 PM

 
How exactly?

rogerb on December 20, 2013 at 8:13 PM

That’s not true. As the court decisions re: baker and photographer have shown. There is no such thing as freedom of association anymore.

txhsmom on December 20, 2013 at 8:06 PM

The state isn’t forcing the baker personally to like or accept something, just to provide services for it. If I pour someone a Coors Light that doesn’t mean I like or endorse their lousy taste in beer. And besides, the bakers and photographers are running up against discrimination laws and those are wholly separate from the marriage issue. The oft-cited photographer case was in New Mexico years ago and that state only started granting marriage licenses to homosexuals yesterday.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Gays didn’t make divorce rates and the numbers on out-of-wedlock births what they are.

Depends on how broadly you define “gay”. The same hedonistic culture that produces gays also produced people that think marriage is just about hot sex and stomach butterflies.

Count to 10 on December 20, 2013 at 8:13 PM

How exactly?

rogerb on December 20, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Who would have ever thought it would fall on the SSM supporter to extoll the merits of marriage?

There are many reasons. For starters, married couples are more financially stable so there’s less chance for married people to find themselves on the welfare rolls, which is good for everyone except for Democrat politicians shopping for votes.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Utah is in the 9th Circuit, so there’s no help there. Sigh.

rbj on December 20, 2013 at 8:18 PM

That’s not true. As the court decisions re: baker and photographer have shown. There is no such thing as freedom of association anymore.

txhsmom on December 20, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Pretty much. In NJ, the homosexuals demanded to strip the gay marriage bill of language that would allow Christians and other people of faith to decline to recognize gay marriages on religious grounds.

Which is the real purpose of the homosexual community.

sentinelrules on December 20, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Great news.

mythicknight on December 20, 2013 at 8:18 PM

You can’t win by arguing that marriage is designed for procreation if it’s open to straight couples who can’t procreate.

Allah – “Can’t” is not the same as “Won’t”.

A hetero married couple who won’t precreate, but are capable, are making a conscious decision.

A hetero couple who want to procreate and have the correct sexual organs to do so, but can’t is due to an infertility issue.

You statement is equating infertile couples and LG couples, yet basic biology says that an infertile couple still has a 100% better chance at conception than a gay couple.

Even Dan Savage has admitted, in his usual colorful way, that he’ll never be able to knock up his hubby, no matter how hard he tries.

So barring previous medical circumstances, a hetero couple won’t know if they have a fertility issue until they decide to try and procreate. That’s usually how it’s discovered.

An LG couple knows from day zero.

I get what you’re trying to do. Because you support it, make it sound as this is fait accompli and we better get used to it.

But you, Libfree and all the other SSM supporters never address the science of the issue.

Because you know. If someone on the right actually took this argument to court, the SSM argument falls into chaos because

1. We do not know why LG exists

2. But we do know why all other “suspect classifications” do exist.

We understand the science behind race. The lineage of national origin, religious affiliation and non-citizenry.

So what is the “immutable and/or highly visible trait” LG possess?

The criteria for suspect has been fluid to this point.

Once you qualify LGB, then we blanket accept LGB is either biological, biochemical or a personal choice and don’t wait for the science

That, in turn, instantly qualifies every disabled group in the country, from chromosonal to psychological to addictive.

And then I can file so the Ginger Society of America has equal protection, since they now qualify as “powerless”.

How about Nordic Blondes? They’re technically a minority now by demographics.

budfox on December 20, 2013 at 8:18 PM

My opinion is informed by the track record of both incest and polygamy. But since you went there I’ll throw the same question out to you, melle

What exactly?

I think you’re an intelligent and thoughtful person so I strongly suspect you’ll give me an honest answer in response: Do you have any justification for opposing incest and polygamy beyond simple moral disapproval of the practices. I suspect you do, and if I’m correct then what are those reasons?

I am against those unions for the same reason that I am against gay marriage. I believe that the state should take an extremely limited view( if any ) to marriage. And the ONLY compelling interest is parents raising their bio children together.

The case in the one lesbian had an affair which resulted in a child. The lesbian got back with her partner whom she was married to and the two effectively shut the man out even though he fought to be included. The state using the “spouse is automatically the parent” law effectively terminated his rights as the bio parent without due process. The lesbian then had ANOTHER affair which resulted in her partner stabbing both her and her lover. The one lesbian went to jail, and the other to the hospital. The bio dad asked that the state not put the child in foster care and give the child to him. The state denied the father since he was not the legal parent and there could be only two. The whole ruling was bogus and so is the law. California has NO right to terminate his rights as the parent.

melle1228 on December 20, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Alabama Infidel: As you may already see, MeTV is a great TV entertainment resource for seeing real men & real women & how they play their roles in real stories. It’s interesting & sometimes shocking to see how low a lot of things going on in the state of the art in TV entertainment is, these days; especially, in casting & themes, & so on.

ABLOGMAN on December 20, 2013 at 8:19 PM

How exactly?
 
rogerb on December 20, 2013 at 8:13 PM

 
Who would have ever thought it would fall on the SSM supporter to extoll the merits of marriage?
 
There are many reasons. For starters, married couples are more financially stable so there’s less chance for married people to find themselves on the welfare rolls, which is good for everyone except for Democrat politicians shopping for votes.
 
alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM

 
Please continue.

rogerb on December 20, 2013 at 8:19 PM

For starters, married couples are more financially stable so there’s less chance for married people to find themselves on the welfare rolls, which is good for everyone except for Democrat politicians shopping for votes.

alchemist19 on December 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Really? Homosexuals can’t get divorced now?

sentinelrules on December 20, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3