Supreme Court puts stay on same-sex marriage in Utah

posted at 12:01 pm on January 6, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

The US Supreme Court unexpectedly intervened today to block enforcement of a federal district court ruling that invalidated Utah’s definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. The move effectively halts any same-sex marriages in the state while the case proceeds to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, a stay that the presiding federal judge refused to grant:

 The Supreme Court has put same-sex marriages on hold in Utah, at least while a federal appeals court more fully considers the issue.

The court issued a brief order Monday blocking any new same-sex unions in the state.

The order follows an emergency appeal by the state following the Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples’ constitutional rights.

The stay was issued en banc from the Supreme Court — and unanimously:

The state’s stay application was made to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who referred the decision to the whole court, according to the order issued Monday.

Is this a hint as to how the Supreme Court will rule down the line?  Probably not, although it at least expresses their desire for a more careful approach through the federal courts.  The effect of Shelby’s ruling on December 20th was to impose a federal definition for marriage regardless of how Shelby justified his ruling, rather than allow states to define it for themselves.  I’d guess that the justices wanted that kind of redefinition to take place cautiously, with a lot of scrutiny, and without the pressure of having to deal with an avalanche of faits accomplis as a complicating factor.

On the other hand, this may show how the 10th Circuit is likely to approach the issue:

Sotomayor is assigned to the 10th Circuit Court, which rejected Utah’s request for a stay three times.

This may well be a rebuke from the top court to the rest of the federal judiciary about refusing stays for obviously activist decisions. I’m not sure it says anything more than that.


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 7

Wow! A random act of common sense.

Mord on January 6, 2014 at 12:05 PM

It seems to me that SCOTUS doesn’t want a repeat of Roe v. Wade and would like the majority of Americans to “grow” into agreement with same sex marriage. Seems pretty smart since the tide is moving towards acceptance faster everyday.

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2014 at 12:06 PM

I expected AP to post this thread.

Schadenfreude on January 6, 2014 at 12:07 PM

I guess Kennedy is now a bigot.

nobar on January 6, 2014 at 12:08 PM

It’s just temporary.

The SC will rule soon on “anything goes”.

The pope will follow…just temporarily holding off.

Might as well get used to it and fight the loss of your freedoms, due to the NSA/HLS and related goons, and the economic intentional destruction of the US, by obama and his thugs.

Schadenfreude on January 6, 2014 at 12:09 PM

This may well be a rebuke from the top court to the rest of the federal judiciary about refusing stays for obviously activist decisions. I’m not sure it says anything more than that.

Activist or not, I would still like to know why stays are not automatic once they state their intention to appeal?

Rocks on January 6, 2014 at 12:12 PM

What is marriage anyway, when you think about it…?

Akzed on January 6, 2014 at 12:15 PM

It seems to me that SCOTUS doesn’t want a repeat of Roe v. Wade and would like the majority of Americans to “grow” into agreement with same sex marriage. Seems pretty smart since the tide is moving towards acceptance faster everyday.

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2014 at 12:06 PM

I think they lost that chance already when they invalidated a valid amendment in CA based solely on the idea that state officials can refuse to defend it because they don’t like it.

Rocks on January 6, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Love to see the end of judicial activism, but this stay is only that, a “stay” and then the progressive train will roll on. Pardon my cynical view of the power organs that rule our courts.

geotopia on January 6, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Activist or not, I would still like to know why stays are not automatic once they state their intention to appeal?

Probably to up the ante. SCOTUS doesn’t want to be in the position to tell people they’re no longer married because the previous law is still in place. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was a big reason they upheld the District Court decisions on Prop 8 last year due to lack of standing.

jas88 on January 6, 2014 at 12:20 PM

So when a federal judge finally decides that polygamists must be issued marriage licenses will Utah still be a state? The charter for our state makes it conditional on polygamy being banned.

Here we go!

It is ironic that a state that can into existence after the 14th amendment was forced to adhere to a certain legal notion of marriage is now being forced to recognize another one because of the 14th amendment.

Remember the 14th amendment’s “equal protection” clause didn’t grant blacks or women the right to vote – the 15th and 19th amendments were needed for that.

“Equal protection” is now just whatever some liberal justice wants it to mean.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Rocks on January 6, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Well, that’s the way we run the whole nation now. Obama makes sh!t up and ignores what he doesn’t like.

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Marriage for gays is nothing more than this seasons latest runway fashion. As soon as it is fully accepted then it will be passe; besides who wants to deal with the messy divorce when a new young stallion enters the picture.

Tater Salad on January 6, 2014 at 12:21 PM

It seems to me that SCOTUS doesn’t want a repeat of Roe v. Wade and would like the majority of Americans to “grow” into agreement with same sex marriage. Seems pretty smart since the tide is moving towards acceptance faster everyday.

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Maybe.

But in the DOMA case Kennedy said that ONLY bigotry and hatred motivated traditional marriage laws. And said we had to do it for the children (currently being raised by gay couples).

On the one hand they don’t want another Roe v Wade. But on the other the left has turned this into the “civil rights fight of our times”, “arc of history bending towards justice!” and all the rest of this kind of crap.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Delaying the inevitable.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:24 PM

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Didn’t some judge open the door for polygamy just recently?

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Now that “equal protection” demands gay marriage (when it didn’t demand the right to vote for blacks or women) I can’t wait for federal judges to strike down our entire system of federal taxation and the entitlement state.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 12:27 PM

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Yep, all tactics to wear the populace down. You would think we would be immune to name calling by now.

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Didn’t some judge open the door for polygamy just recently?

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Yeah. It was decriminalized, essentially.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Delaying the inevitable.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Say, isn’t death sort of inevitable?

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 6, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Obama makes sh!t up and ignores what he doesn’t like.

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2014 at 12:20 PM

So that’s where my kids get it from.

Bishop on January 6, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Didn’t some judge open the door for polygamy just recently?

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2014 at 12:27 PM

No. Utah had a law that made it illegal to cohabitate and that was struck down, partly on First Amendment grounds because it was argued that that particular form of cohabitation was part of their religion. The bigamy statute still stands.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Delaying the inevitable.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:24 PM

It’s just as inevitable as the left using this issue to destroy the freedoms of other people – religious, expression, property.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Say, isn’t death sort of inevitable?

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 6, 2014 at 12:28 PM

That’s what they say but I plan to live forever. :)

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Exit question:

Has Doug Matagayness weighed in on this decision??

Eph on January 6, 2014 at 12:31 PM

No. Utah had a law that made it illegal to cohabitate and that was struck down, partly on First Amendment grounds because it was argued that that particular form of cohabitation was part of their religion. The bigamy statute still stands.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:29 PM

So bigamists and polygamists are still unequal before the law?

And so are all the other people who don’t have a relationship the state deems necessary to get “benefits”?

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 12:31 PM

We deal with crap like this a lot in California where judges constantly overturn the votes of the people. We have a similar amendment to our state constitution that the current state government refuses to enforce. It is as if the state constitution doesn’t really mean anything and it is up to whoever we elect as state “king” as to whether or not the law will actually be applied. “Real” laws in California are not passed in our legislature, they come from unelected bureaucrats from our various boards, bureaus, and commissions staffed in large part by term-limited legislators who rule for life in unelected positions.

crosspatch on January 6, 2014 at 12:32 PM

“I expected AP to post this thread.”

+1

(the atheist update cometh…and that right soon!)

Eph on January 6, 2014 at 12:32 PM

So bigamists and polygamists are still unequal before the law?

And so are all the other people who don’t have a relationship the state deems necessary to get “benefits”?

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Yes they are, because the historical track record of polygamy shows it causes a lot of problems and thus we have a rational basis for treating it unequally.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:33 PM

crosspatch on January 6, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Electing a boatload of Democrats tends to lead to problems like the ones you’re describing. You haven’t surprised by all that have you?

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:35 PM

Delaying the inevitable.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Yes, the scientific cure for homosexuality is on the horizon.

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 12:35 PM

So bigamists and polygamists are still unequal before the law?

And so are all the other people who don’t have a relationship the state deems necessary to get “benefits”?

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Yes they are, because the historical track record of polygamy shows it causes a lot of problems and thus we have a rational basis for treating it unequally.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Please. It’s perfectly obvious that the real difference is that polygamy doesn’t have a politically powerful activist group pushing it. Yet.

Granting popular groups the right to have their own version of marriage while barring unpopular groups from the same shows what a lie the “equal protection” argument is.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 6, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Yes, the scientific cure for homosexuality is on the horizon.

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 12:35 PM

Umm, no. There is no “cure”, nor is one necessary.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Yes they are, because the historical track record of polygamy shows it causes a lot of problems and thus we have a rational basis for treating it unequally.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Wrong.

And now you’re a bigot. A hateful bigot. You might as well say that gay marriage will promote HIV infection because “historically” gay relationships did that. You might as well use the most stereotypical and bigoted examples of gay relationships and gay culture to argue against gay marriage. Because if you can find one polygamist family that doesn’t have these “historical problems” then they are being treated unequally for no rational reason.

And the 14th amendment doesn’t include anything about the state having a rational basis to treat people unequally – it doesn’t provide any exceptions.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 12:38 PM

So bigamists and polygamists are still unequal before the law?

And so are all the other people who don’t have a relationship the state deems necessary to get “benefits”?

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Homosexuals are more equal than others despite scientific studies showing the detrimental effects they have on society.

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 12:39 PM

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Can’t wait for this! References please.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Supreme Court puts stay on same-sex marriage in Utah

The correct term is either gay marriage or homosexual marriage.

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Umm, no. There is no “cure”, nor is one necessary.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:38 PM

There isn’t a cure?

So why is DeBlasio’s wife an ex-lesbian?

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 12:40 PM

I think they lost that chance already when they invalidated a valid amendment in CA based solely on the idea that state officials can refuse to defend it because they don’t like it.

Rocks on January 6, 2014 at 12:15 PM

good point

cmsinaz on January 6, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Can’t wait for this! References please.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Kids of gay parents fare worse, study finds, but draws fire from experts

Was the wait worth it?

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Umm, no. There is no “cure”, nor is one necessary.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:38 PM

That’s like schizophrenics saying there is no cure, nor one is necessary,

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 12:41 PM

I sense an “I hate the Tea Party” thread later this afternoon

Eph on January 6, 2014 at 12:42 PM

Whatever gets the queers to stop having sex in the park bathrooms would be appreciated.

JohnBrown on January 6, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Kids of gay parents fare worse, study finds, but draws fire from experts

Was the wait worth it?

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Nope. When your own link explains why the study in question is flawed it sort of undermines your own credibility.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:44 PM

That’s like schizophrenics saying there is no cure, nor one is necessary,

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 12:41 PM

You’re missing some key differences, like the fact that schizophrenia is harmful and homosexuality is not.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Nope. When your own link explains why the study in question is flawed it sort of undermines your own credibility.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Criticized by pro-homosexual forces that are anti-science.

Sounds familiar.

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 12:45 PM

You’re missing some key differences, like the fact that schizophrenia is harmful and homosexuality is not.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:44 PM

They share similar characteristics.

Thinking the anal cavity is a sexual organ is delusional.

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 12:46 PM

Nope. When your own link explains why the study in question is flawed it sort of undermines your own credibility.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:44 PM

The research in this field is more skewed than global warming research.

Whenever someone releases any research that shows gay parenting is harmful or even less optimal than a traditional family there is a media blitz and the usual forces run around trying to get researchers fired and black listed. You’re not going to get a lot of good research out of social “science” on this topic right now.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 12:48 PM

Criticized by pro-homosexual forces that are anti-science.

Sounds familiar.

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 12:45 PM

The author of the study admitted the study is flawed. You should have read the whole story before linking it.

From further down than you may have read:

Regnerus was upfront about the funding from conservative groups, and said he pledged to groups involved that he would report whatever the data found, regardless of which way it leaned. What’s more, he says some of the criticisms are valid and plausible.

“There are some valid criticisms that are being made, such as the measurement decision on who should be called a lesbian mother in this study,” Regnerus said. “People might say that’s irresponsible to do this study without all these stable lesbian couples in the study,” he said, adding the random sampling only found two out of the 175 children who said they lived in a home with both same-sex parents throughout all 18 years

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Yes they are, because the historical track record of polygamy shows it causes a lot of problems and thus we have a rational basis for treating it unequally.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Funny, there was a thread recently with hundreds of pages, and you were asked numerous times to back this claim up with facts and you failed to do so. Yet you have the gall to come up with this?

Can’t wait for this! References please.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:39 PM

In your world, unequal is in the eye of the beholder. In your case, it’s in favor of that protected group, the homosexuals, whose unhealthy lifestyle should be endorsed by government. The polygamists are yucky. They can be treated unequally. You just ooze with hypocrisy.

ROFLMAO!

JannyMae on January 6, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Yes they are, because the historical track record of polygamy shows it causes a lot of problems and thus we have a rational basis for treating it unequally.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:33 PM

It’s hilarious how leftists invoke “tradition” and “past experience” as a reason for banning polygamy, while insisting that “tradition” and “past practice” are wholly-unsatisfactory reasons for banning gay-sex marriage.

But that’s because gay-sex marriage pushers like alchemist19 are antireligious bigots who are simply attempting to use gays as an excuse to push their bigotry. That’s why bigots like alchemist19 state that any gays who disagree with them are mentally ill.

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 12:51 PM

The author of the study admitted the study is flawed. You should have read the whole story before linking it.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:49 PM

I read the story just fine.

There are flaws to just about all scientific studies.

Charles Darwin got the same flack from zealous for his studies on evolution.

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 12:51 PM

The research in this field is more skewed than global warming research.

Whenever someone releases any research that shows gay parenting is harmful or even less optimal than a traditional family there is a media blitz and the usual forces run around trying to get researchers fired and black listed. You’re not going to get a lot of good research out of social “science” on this topic right now.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 12:48 PM

I’m extremely critical of all the global warming nonsense and when I am I fight science with science. I examine their data, locate the flaw, highlight it then counter with other scientific data and analysis. It’s not enough to say something is “skewed”, you have to demonstrate exactly where and how. If you do it with the relevant research here I’m happy to examine it; I’m open to changing my mind if I’m presented with scientific evidence that suggests I should, the thing is I haven’t see any yet.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:52 PM

I read the story just fine.

There are flaws to just about all scientific studies.

Charles Darwin got the same flack from zealous for his studies on evolution.

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Oh! Broad, unsupported supposition AND moving the goalposts at the same time! That’s a lot of fail to pack into a post that short. Well done.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Nope. When your own link explains why the study in question is flawed it sort of undermines your own credibility.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Yet the studies that have concluded that there are no differences, that have been shown to be flawed have validity to you. If you can pick and choose which research you want to believe is valid, then so can other people. More hypocrisy from you.

JannyMae on January 6, 2014 at 12:53 PM

You’re missing some key differences, like the fact that schizophrenia is harmful and homosexuality is not.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Isn’t that funny, when you state that any gays who don’t agree with you and don’t support your antireligious bigotry are mentally ill?

Once people realize that alchemist19 is a bigot who actually hates and attacks gay people who criticize him and claims that they’re mentally ill, his duplicity and lies unravel immediately.

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 12:54 PM

Broad, unsupported supposition AND moving the goalposts at the same time! That’s a lot of fail to pack into a post that short. Well done.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Looks like we have a somebody that is anti-science here.

Do you also believe in unicorns and faeries? The “real” faeries, not the sexual deviant kind.

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Oh! Broad, unsupported supposition AND moving the goalposts at the same time! That’s a lot of fail to pack into a post that short. Well done.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:52 PM

You mean like YOUR broad, unsupported supposition that polygamy is harmful in ways that allow for government to treat it unequally under the law?

You are totally lacking in self-awareness. It’s just hilarious what you will defend in order to promote homosexuality.

JannyMae on January 6, 2014 at 12:56 PM

This is what’s so dangerous about the loss of the filibuster. While the Supreme Court captures most of the nation’s judicial headlines, the truth is that most law is really made at the Court of Appeals level. So here, you have 3 judges on the court of appeals who missed the mark so widely that they got blanked 9-0 in the Supreme Court! This will only get worse once Obama starts packing the courts with liberal activist judges.

Outlander on January 6, 2014 at 12:56 PM

You’re missing some key differences, like the fact that schizophrenia is harmful and homosexuality is not.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Homosexuality is harmful to the continuation of our species but hey…..

Rio Linda Refugee on January 6, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Funny, there was a thread recently with hundreds of pages, and you were asked numerous times to back this claim up with facts and you failed to do so. Yet you have the gall to come up with this?

If it was blink talking I probably didn’t see it. She argues in bad faith on this issue (and as I just spent two days learning in the evolution thread, on that issue as well) so not only do I not respond to her, I skip over her posts without even reading them. If you really do want to have a serious discussion of the issue then I’m happy to have it.

In your world, unequal is in the eye of the beholder. In your case, it’s in favor of that protected group, the homosexuals, whose unhealthy lifestyle should be endorsed by government. The polygamists are yucky. They can be treated unequally. You just ooze with hypocrisy.

ROFLMAO!

JannyMae on January 6, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Do you believe polygamy is not detrimental to a society?

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:56 PM

I’m extremely critical of all the global warming nonsense and when I am I fight science with science.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Actually, the gay and lesbian community and its leaders like Rachel Maddow and HRC say that anyone who criticizes global warming is a homophobe.

Why do you support and endorse these bigots?

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Looks like we have a somebody that is anti-science here.

Do you also believe in unicorns and faeries? The “real” faeries, not the sexual deviant kind.

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Your slur aside (which makes you seem totally reasonable and intelligent, let me tell you) I believe in neither unicorns not faeries because I’ve seen no evidence of either. You’re still trying to distract from the topic at hand.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:57 PM

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:49 PM

You are delusional. CDC stats verify that make homosexuals transmit and harbor diseases far in excess to their proportion of the population (3%). Of all verified child molestations, fully one third (33%) are homosexual.

Homosexual lifestyles are responsible for a large portion of domestic violence incidents, suicide attempts, drug overdoses, alcohol-related incidents, etc.

Same sex relationships have no benefit to society, and there is no evidence that could imply a social benefit.

And then there are all the religious objections …

platypus on January 6, 2014 at 12:58 PM

I’m extremely critical of all the global warming nonsense and when I am I fight science with science. I examine their data, locate the flaw, highlight it then counter with other scientific data and analysis. It’s not enough to say something is “skewed”, you have to demonstrate exactly where and how. If you do it with the relevant research here I’m happy to examine it; I’m open to changing my mind if I’m presented with scientific evidence that suggests I should, the thing is I haven’t see any yet.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:52 PM

And yet you oppose polygamy because of the vast amounts of research showing it’s harmful?

Social “science” is also much much easier for researchers to introduce bias and to make claims that aren’t really supported. I had a psychology professor – one of the leaders of research in his field – tell me that he could design a study to produce most any result he wanted.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 12:58 PM

Homosexuality is harmful to the continuation of our species but hey…..

Rio Linda Refugee on January 6, 2014 at 12:56 PM

They’re a small segment of the population who historically have not reproduced and we do fine without them breeding, as does every other mammal species where homosexuality has been observed.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:59 PM

Your slur aside (which makes you seem totally reasonable and intelligent, let me tell you) I believe in neither unicorns not faeries because I’ve seen no evidence of either. You’re still trying to distract from the topic at hand.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Slur? Sexual deviant is a scientific term.

Debating with a zealot like you is like how Copernicus must have felt exclaiming the Earth revolves around the Sun.

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 1:01 PM

alchemist19,

So do you think the courts should be deciding this?

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 1:01 PM

The author of the study admitted the study is flawed. You should have read the whole story before linking it.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:49 PM

LOL.

This is again why treating irrational bigots and leftists like alchemist19 as if they are anything other than amoral liars and scum is a waste of effort.

Has alchemist19 EVER criticized research that produced positive gay-sex marriage results?

Has alchemist19 EVER allowed that criticisms of gay-sex marriage could be valid?

Has alchemist19 EVER analyzed the funding sources for gay-sex marriage studies and deemed that any funded by “pro” groups or liberals are invalid?

This researcher acknowledged all of these things and alchemist19 screams at him, trying to trash his research.

Yet not a single peep of criticism from alchemist19 on any of the studies HE cites — and indeed, he screams that anyone who criticizes HIS studies is anti-science and homophobic.

Does alchemist19 have the balls to state that any study funded by pro-gay-marriage anything is thus invalid?

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 1:03 PM

“69 comments”

The jokes, they write themselves.

Ward Cleaver on January 6, 2014 at 1:03 PM

So that’s where my kids get it from.

Bishop on January 6, 2014 at 12:29 PM

More likely the other way around. Obama isn’t that bright. Always a follower, never a leader.

Happy Nomad on January 6, 2014 at 1:03 PM

You are delusional. CDC stats verify that make homosexuals transmit and harbor diseases far in excess to their proportion of the population (3%).

So then perhaps we should be encouraging homosexuals to form stable, monogamous, faithful relationships. Like, say, by getting married.

Of all verified child molestations, fully one third (33%) are homosexual.

Attraction to children (either sex) is something totally different.

Homosexual lifestyles are responsible for a large portion of domestic violence incidents, suicide attempts, drug overdoses, alcohol-related incidents, etc.

Is that an effect of being homosexual in and of itself or is it related to minority stress from being held up for discrimination and status as a second-class citizen?

Same sex relationships have no benefit to society, and there is no evidence that could imply a social benefit.

Except for that whole disease prevention thing you claimed to be worried about.

And then there are all the religious objections …

platypus on January 6, 2014 at 12:58 PM

What are those?

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Umm, no. There is no “cure”, nor is one necessary.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 12:38 PM

There isn’t a cure?

So why is DeBlasio’s wife an ex-lesbian?

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 12:40 PM

And then there’s the epitome of ex-lesbianism – Ann Heche.

Mitoch55 on January 6, 2014 at 1:05 PM

alchemist19,

So do you think the courts should be deciding this?

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 1:01 PM

They tend to be the best arbiter we have. IIRC polling on interracial marriages didn’t break 50% until the 1990s, and even in 2000 when the state of Alabama tried to take the symbolic act of removing their state constitutional prohibition on interracial marriage 40% of the population still voted against it. If forced to choose between the courts and a popular vote to secure any minority their rights as protected under the Constitution I’ll take the courts any day of the week.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 1:06 PM

So then perhaps we should be encouraging homosexuals to form stable, monogamous, faithful relationships. Like, say, by getting married.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 1:04 PM

A more effective way is for homosexuals to practice safer sex and not treat the anus as a sexual organ.

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Slur? Sexual deviant is a scientific term.

I was referring to your use of the term “faeries”, and I think you know that.

Debating with a zealot like you is like how Copernicus must have felt exclaiming the Earth revolves around the Sun.

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 1:01 PM

I do feel a bit like Copernicus at time, overthrowing the old order because we’ve now come to realize how wrong we’ve been in the past. Clearly there’s still a lot of work to be done but I wholeheartedly believe what’s right will win out in the end.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 1:09 PM

So then perhaps we should be encouraging homosexuals to form stable, monogamous, faithful relationships. Like, say, by getting married.

Nope. Advocates of gay-sex marriage oppose monogamy and promote promiscuity.

Attraction to children (either sex) is something totally different.

Nope. As I’ve previously linked, the gay and lesbian community that you support fully endorsed pedophilia and sex with children as normal gay and lesbian behavior for decades, and in fact screamed that Jesse Helms criticizing them for doing so was “homophobic”.

Facts and direct quotes refute your lies. Your delusions are based on your desperation to make your hatred of religious beliefs socially acceptable, instead of demonstrating clearly that you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters are not able to function in a civil society.

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 1:10 PM

So when a federal judge finally decides that polygamists must be issued marriage licenses will Utah still be a state? The charter for our state makes it conditional on polygamy being banned.

Here we go!

It is ironic that a state that can into existence after the 14th amendment was forced to adhere to a certain legal notion of marriage is now being forced to recognize another one because of the 14th amendment.

Remember the 14th amendment’s “equal protection” clause didn’t grant blacks or women the right to vote – the 15th and 19th amendments were needed for that.

“Equal protection” is now just whatever some liberal justice wants it to mean.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Ah, see the problem is that you’re operating under the quaint notion that the federal government gives a f*ck about your constitution, or their own, for that matter.

The law is what they want it to be at any given moment, you see.

Midas on January 6, 2014 at 1:11 PM

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 1:06 PM

Homosexuality is not a race. It is a sexual perference.

A sexual preference which the overwhelming majority of voters voted against giving the right to use a word which would convey “normalcy” to their sexual deviation.

No hoses have been turned on gay Americans. No dogs have been let loose on them.

This is all about a quest for the self-illusion of the conveyance of “normalcy” to a sexual behavior practiced by 3% of America’s population.

kingsjester on January 6, 2014 at 1:12 PM

A more effective way is for homosexuals to practice safer sex and not treat the anus as a sexual organ.

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Safer sex is always a good idea, and I think lesbians in general and even some gay men don’t treat the anus as a sexual organ. For those that do I think they’re even okay so long as they’re disease free; I know anal sex (either heterosexual or homosexual) is inherently riskier for transmission of disease but if there’s no disease to transmit then there’s no disease to transmit.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 1:14 PM

If forced to choose between the courts and a popular vote to secure any minority their rights as protected under the Constitution I’ll take the courts any day of the week.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 1:06 PM

Uh point out where marriage is addressed in the US constitution and then get back to me.

Johnnyreb on January 6, 2014 at 1:14 PM

I was referring to your use of the term “faeries”, and I think you know that.

Like we all know that you’re ignoring blink and pederasty.

I do feel a bit like Copernicus at time, overthrowing the old order because we’ve now come to realize how wrong we’ve been in the past. Clearly there’s still a lot of work to be done but I wholeheartedly believe what’s right will win out in the end.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 1:09 PM

I see you more like Jerry Sandusky.

You’re more like the zealots rejecting Darwin and his scientific evidence. You’re most likely to believe in unicorns and leprechauns despite evidence to the contrary.

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 1:15 PM

Is that an effect of being homosexual in and of itself or is it related to minority stress from being held up for discrimination and status as a second-class citizen?

No. It is because the gay and lesbian community actively encourages bad choices and because its “supporters”, like yourself, regularly slur conservative and religious gay people who speak out against these bad choices as mentally ill.

Your statement indicates that gays and lesbians are mental inferiors who cannot resist the temptation to abuse drugs and alcohol. It reveals you as a contemptuous homophobe and bigot who actually hates gay people and simply seeks to exploit them.

Except for that whole disease prevention thing you claimed to be worried about.

The HIV and STD rates have consistently risen among gays since gay marriage first was introduced. In fact, the HIV rate among gay teens and children is now twice that of sub-Saharan Africa.

Once again, the facts refute your lies. Your irrational hatred of religion and religious believers is why you spew such nonsense, and it is contemptible that you attempt to use gay people to cover up your own sick bigotry.

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 1:15 PM

I know anal sex (either heterosexual or homosexual) is inherently riskier for transmission of disease but if there’s no disease to transmit then there’s no disease to transmit.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 1:14 PM

It’s riskier because the anus is not meant for sexual reproduction.

I apologize forthright for using science, which you abhor

Anus: The opening at the lower end of the alimentary canal through which solid waste is eliminated from the body.

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 1:17 PM

They tend to be the best arbiter we have. IIRC polling on interracial marriages didn’t break 50% until the 1990s, and even in 2000 when the state of Alabama tried to take the symbolic act of removing their state constitutional prohibition on interracial marriage 40% of the population still voted against it. If forced to choose between the courts and a popular vote to secure any minority their rights as protected under the Constitution I’ll take the courts any day of the week.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 1:06 PM

Minority rights? You really want to compare the plight of blacks to those of gays? Really?

In the same thread where you vehemently want to deny other minorities their supposed Constitutional rights? You’ve yet to really show a rational basis for denying polygamists a marriage license – or even decriminalizing it.

Or that the 14th amendment really applies to this case when it hasn’t for so many others.

And what specifically are gay couples being denied by the state? The right to vote? Speak? Attend public schools? Oh, no, they are being denied some government benefits – just like large swaths of the rest of the population for a myriad of reasons. They don’t get special tax breaks for their estate – just like single people and others. So if access to government “benefits” is a constitutional and natural right then why are we still limiting access to all these things to just those who meet the state’s new definition of marriage?

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 1:17 PM

I do feel a bit like Copernicus at time, overthrowing the old order because we’ve now come to realize how wrong we’ve been in the past.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Now that’s just silly.

Midas on January 6, 2014 at 1:18 PM

If forced to choose between the courts and a popular vote to secure any minority their rights as protected under the Constitution I’ll take the courts any day of the week.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 1:06 PM

Perhaps you’re not aware of the fact that the Constitution has and can be changed by popular vote.

Indeed, in order for you to be logically and intellectually consistent, you would have to REJECT gay marriage arguments that center on the 14th Amendment — which was a change made to the Constitution by popular vote.

Furthermore, statist, you and your fellow bigots have stated that the people have no right to amend their own Constitution and that the government cannot be forced to follow amendments that people place into their constitutions.

Again, you are arguing irrationally because you are motivated solely by bigotry and animus against people with religious beliefs. You in fact do not like gay people, as you have shown by your screaming insistence that any gay person who criticizes you and your bigotry is mentally ill.

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 1:19 PM

I do feel a bit like Copernicus at time, overthrowing the old order because we’ve now come to realize how wrong we’ve been in the past.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 1:09 PM

And Miley Cyrus feels like Madame Curie.

kingsjester on January 6, 2014 at 1:19 PM

Homosexuality is not a race. It is a sexual perference.

It appears to be just about as much of a choice as race is though.

A sexual preference which the overwhelming majority of voters voted against giving the right to use a word which would convey “normalcy” to their sexual deviation.

The overwhelming majority of Americans at one time opposed interracial marriage. Majority status didn’t make them either right or their beliefs Constitutional.

No hoses have been turned on gay Americans. No dogs have been let loose on them.

America is certainly a more decent place now than it was back then, no doubt.

This is all about a quest for the self-illusion of the conveyance of “normalcy” to a sexual behavior practiced by 3% of America’s population.

kingsjester on January 6, 2014 at 1:12 PM

I can’t speak to the motives of homosexuals but I can empathize. If I were being persecuted because of who I was, because of something about myself I can’t change, and this persecution was for no real reason when I’m not hurting anybody then I think I’d be pretty ticked off about it, too.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 1:20 PM

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 1:06 PM

Homosexuality is not a race. It is a sexual perference.

A sexual preference which the overwhelming majority of voters voted against giving the right to use a word which would convey “normalcy” to their sexual deviation.

No hoses have been turned on gay Americans. No dogs have been let loose on them.

This is all about a quest for the self-illusion of the conveyance of “normalcy” to a sexual behavior practiced by 3% of America’s population.

kingsjester on January 6, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Are you trying to tell me that systemic and institutional racism is not the same as telling a gay couple that they have to pay estate taxes?

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Whatever gets the queers to stop having sex in the park bathrooms would be appreciated.

JohnBrown on January 6, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Don’t you know that you’re supposed to keep your nose out of their bedrooms?

Oh, wait….

BuckeyeSam on January 6, 2014 at 1:22 PM

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 1:20 PM

It appears? Please provide the genetic evidence that homosexuality is a predisposition.

kingsjester on January 6, 2014 at 1:22 PM

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 1:20 PM

LOL! Yep.

kingsjester on January 6, 2014 at 1:23 PM

It appears to be just about as much of a choice as race is though.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 1:20 PM

So if a bisexual loves two people he should be able to get a marriage license to be married to both of them?

And aren’t proclivities towards polygamy just as natural?

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 1:23 PM

It appears to be just about as much of a choice as race is though.

So call us back when Bill DeBlasio’s wife decides to turn white as readily as she turned heterosexual.

The overwhelming majority of Americans at one time opposed interracial marriage. Majority status didn’t make them either right or their beliefs Constitutional.

Substitute “polygamy” for interracial marriage, and we’ll see how amusing your argument really becomes.

I can’t speak to the motives of homosexuals but I can empathize. If I were being persecuted because of who I was, because of something about myself I can’t change, and this persecution was for no real reason when I’m not hurting anybody then I think I’d be pretty ticked off about it, too.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 1:20 PM

And yet you scream that any homosexual that doesn’t agree with you is mentally ill and self-loathing.

You are an irrational and desperate bigot who is using gay people as an excuse for your own antireligious hate and animus.

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7