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

posted at 6:41 pm on January 14, 2014 by Allahpundit

He’s a Clinton appointee but he’s been sitting on this case for, if you can believe it, nine years. Maybe that’s because he was waiting for the Supremes to tackle the issue or maybe he just didn’t want to touch it in a state as red as Oklahoma. Either way, the plaintiffs were unhappy. They’re happier today.

“The Court holds that Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” U.S. District Court Judge Terence Kern wrote.

The ruling will not go into effect immediately, Kern decided, issuing a stay of his decision based on the recent Supreme Court action granting a stay in the case challenging Utah’s ban on same-sex couples’ marriages…

Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin praised the ruling in a statement, saying, “Judge Kern has come to the conclusion that so many have before him – that the fundamental equality of lesbian and gay couples is guaranteed by the United States Constitution. With last year’s historic victories at the Supreme Court guiding the way, it is clear that we are on a path to full and equal citizenship for all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.”

Here’s the opinion, which is standard as far as equal-protection analysis of gay marriage by federal judges goes these days. His first task was to decide what to do with SCOTUS’s ruling in the Windsor case last year, which found Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional on equal-protection grounds. Should he find that Oklahoma’s traditional marriage law is unconstitutional for the same reason, or should he give the state more deference than the feds got from the Supreme Court with DOMA? Ultimately he decides on both: States, being the historic locus for marriage laws, get more deference, but that deference isn’t unlimited. If they want to discriminate against gay couples, they need to show some rational reason for doing so. “Moral disapproval” isn’t a rational reason per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark case from 2003 that declared Texas’s anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. The upshot of Lawrence is that you can’t legislate morality when you’re targeting intimate relationships between consenting adults. You can regulate those relationships if you have some other rational reason for doing so, but the state couldn’t produce one here: “Encouraging procreation” doesn’t fly if you’re not also excluding straight infertile couples from marriage and “encouraging mother/father households” doesn’t fly if you can’t show how banning gay marriage would actually encourage the formation of those households. As I say, all of this is S.O.P. for federal SSM jurisprudence lately. The only real novelty is that, between this ruling and the ruling in Utah last month, the new legal battlefield over gay marriage lies in America’s reddest states. That may be an extra inducement for SCOTUS to deal with this sooner rather than later.

Kern, the Oklahoma judge, seems to think he knows which way that’ll go too:

ep

Anyway, you don’t want me blathering at you about law and gay marriage, especially when it’s another loss for social conservatism. What you want, via Ace, is … devil baby. Cleanse that palate.


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 4 5 7

Truth….Why can’t gay marriage be put on the ballet and be voted on by the PEOPLE? Because it won’t pass in the majority of the states..that’s why it’s never put before the people..they use liberal activist judges to pass laws from the court…it’s no different than what Obama is doing from his throne

sadsushi on January 14, 2014 at 8:31 PM

It was on the ballot in CA (Prop 8) and hack Judge Ross didn’t like the outcome so he deemed The People unConstitutional.

viking01 on January 14, 2014 at 8:37 PM

While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church — not the day they received their marriage license from the state. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.

Ron Paul

roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 14, 2014 at 8:37 PM

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014

You’re so intellectually honest you slammed Jet’s hilarious argument that we should not worry about homosexual marriage as we don’t have to have one…. oh yeh…you didn’t.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 8:37 PM

And for one of the great developments of gay pretend marriage … now incest is A-OK!! What’s to argue against two brothers getting pretend married, or two sisters, or a mother and daughter? Nothing. There are no genetic problems to worry about so now it’s open season for gays at home! Incest must necessarily fall as part of the path of destruction that gay pretend marriage is blazing.

And, now, since we have very good genetic testing, hetero-incest perverts will be able to argue that they’ve been given the genetic green flag from a test and should be allowed to marry and have a “family”.

Yep. Great stuff to come – even apart from the eventual acceptance of polygamy, polyandry, poly-whatever … as the very word “marriage” is vacated of all meaning, whatsoever, with society not far behind.

What a bunch of idiots.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 14, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Can’t believe libdie ain’t showed up for this…

Lanceman on January 14, 2014 at 8:35 PM

All the other mouth breathers sure did…

Genuine
Panther
Bandit
Alchemist
JetBoy

22044 on January 14, 2014 at 8:38 PM

alwaysfiredup, alchemist will just ignore you if you keep destroying his arguments.

blink on January 14, 2014

So true. Just like Jetboy. Must be something about the gheys.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Your argument is nonsense and full of tendentious reasoning that you don’t allow in arguments about gay marriage. It’s not bad for women. I know plenty of poly families. You are just being bigoted because you think it helps your argument. It doesn’t.

alwaysfiredup on January 14, 2014 at 8:21 PM

I’m noticing a lack of specifics.

I didn’t say all that much about being bad for the women in polygynous relationships because that’s a separate issue. I explained why it’s bad for society in general which would give a society through its legislature a rational basis for the prohibition. The lack of a rational basis when it comes to the (totally separate and unrelated) issue of same-gender marriages is why those same legislatures or state constitutions can’t forbid them.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Just reading through Allah’s rebuttal shows me how inane the SSM argument really is.

The case should have always been very simple.

The State had no right in declaring any couple married. That is a sacrament of the church.

The State can only issue legal licenses and we choose to do this for couples-only because a plurality of unrelated consenting adults, historically, has been due to a cult, commune or harem.

What beneficial “polyamorous” example can they point to that cannot be refuted by other examples, like, I dunno, Jim Jones?

Use the Overton Window to our advantage for once. Go wide with the argument and make the courts box it in to two people. Then, argue separation of church/state.

If the progs wants to claim marriage is in the realm of the state, that’s an argument we should welcome openly.

Let’s air it all out and really see how comfortable people are with the State controlling such matters. We don’t have to make a slippery slope hypothetical case, because we’re living through it and people are of aware of that now.

budfox on January 14, 2014 at 8:40 PM

And for one of the great developments of gay pretend marriage … now incest is A-OK!! What’s to argue against two brothers getting pretend married, or two sisters, or a mother and daughter? ….
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 14, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Don’t want to marry your brother–then don’t.
Signed -Jetboys
/

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 8:41 PM

How exactly are these judges finding the authority to rule in sovereign state amendments (somewhat rhetorical I know)? If it’s really about “equal protection” then pretty much any law can be undone at whim.

Nutstuyu on January 14, 2014 at 8:36 PM

Exactly..the Judicial Legislation Bench game has crossed the streams you have Federal Judges snipping state laws using the civil rights amendments for purposes way out of whack and leaving obvious disparities in application of precedent you can drive a truck through…

to get something that had the gays agreed on civil unions would have NEVER been an issue…

It’s an attack on the Xth amendment which it seems is on pace to be the first Bill of rights amendment to be repealed without an amendment….

Anyone who calls themselves “conservative” and has an ounce of honesty cannot support this assault on the Constitution…

“I wanna my cookie” is not worth the Feds being able to slice the State Laws or Xth amendment part of the devolution of law to state power.

harlekwin15 on January 14, 2014 at 8:42 PM

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 8:38 PM

You’re bigoted.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 8:42 PM

Biology hasn’t, but we’re discussing beliefs.

So you’ll drop your “homosexuality is inborn” position when someone provides current and credible information showing otherwise?

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Refresh my memory, is it your position that sexual orientation is a choice?

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 8:43 PM

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014

So when do you smack down Jetboy’s argument that we simply don’t have to marry someone of the same sex? Do tell. Link please.

Intellectually honest my arse.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 8:43 PM

It was on the ballot in CA (Prop 8) and hack Judge Ross didn’t like the outcome so he deemed The People unConstitutional.

viking01 on January 14, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Yep..The only acceptable view on this issue is their view..the majority who vote on these things, well their view is just plain homophobic…No state is safe right now from these judges because Oklahoma and Utah are two of the most conservative states around and this happened to them…CA was disappointing but not surprising at all with the liberals in courts dominating that state

sadsushi on January 14, 2014 at 8:43 PM

You’re bigoted.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 8:42 PM

Your arguments are well-thought out, well-reasoned, well-supported and overwhelmingly persuasive. They’re the marks of intelligence and adulthood.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Third request. What’s the rational basis for prohibiting three men from getting married?

blink on January 14, 2014 at 8:42 PM

“Because socks come in pairs.” — alchemist

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 14, 2014 at 8:44 PM

alchemist…you can drop the facade that there’s any intellectually solid framework for “gay” marriage.

it won’t kill you!

22044 on January 14, 2014 at 8:44 PM

We are no longer allowed to be a self-governing society. Our “moral betters” have decided that we are unfit to make laws. Note that the law at issue here didn’t say a damn thing about same-sex couples. It did not “ban” gay marriage. It defined the word “marriage”. No one’s rights were taken away. It simply declined to grant privileges. So to argue that this was a “gay marriage ban” and then approach the question as if something was taken away is completely disingenuous.

Sorry to all of the homosexual community who don’t like to hear this, but marriage is needed to protect breeders and the kids they breed. It isn’t needed to protect you. And what you’re doing is going to mean more kids without dads in their lives, because making marriage only about personal feelings means it is perfectly fine to abandon it solely because you don’t love your spouse anymore. Just like breaking up with a girlfriend. And since divorce imposes real costs, why bother marrying your girlfriend in the first place? It’ll just cost you more when you break up. Because everybody breaks up eventually.

The self-absorption of this crowd never ceases to disgust me.

alwaysfiredup on January 14, 2014 at 8:45 PM

So you’ll drop your “homosexuality is inborn” position when someone provides current and credible information showing otherwise?

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Refresh my memory, is it your position that sexual orientation is a choice?

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Yep the intellectually honest always answer a question with a question./

Hilarious. Dude you’re a joke.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 8:46 PM

LMAO. Riiiight. Its not a sacrament at all. It was invented by government.

Idiot.

alwaysfiredup on January 14, 2014 at 8:13 PM

.
Marriage is a sacrament of The Church. Marriage is not a sacrament of the state.

And since you brought it up, marriage was not originally a religious sacrament or anything else…it originated through the state as a means of tracing heirs and for census purposes.

Do try and keep up.

JetBoy on January 14, 2014 at 8:20 PM

.
( Expletive )… marriage was defined by God, and the tradition continued through all branches, sub-branches, and sub-sub-branches of different cultures, since then.

Governments subsequently took it upon themselves to formally recognize marriages for the reasons you listed.

listens2glenn on January 14, 2014 at 8:46 PM

There’s no argument to be made about Polygamy then either….well except that whole messy “Utah can’t join the Union” thing but hey…whatevs right?

I actually agree. There is no real viable legal argument for banning state sanctioned marriages of more than two people. And in fact, there’s a hell of a lot more biblical support of polygamy than there is in the few sentences that mention homosexuality.

I do however think we will find that there IS a viable legal argument to be made against forcing churches to perform certain marriages. I think churches should be able to define for themselves who they and their congregation or denominations can perform in the eyes of The Lord.

I think some would welcome them, some would tolerate them, and some would not practice them at all. Free market baby. People would be able to choose for themselves. Choice, remember that?

I think that’s far more powerful and a far more robust defending of the freedom of religion than attempting to ban anything you think is just another long dark road to doom. Not everyone believes the same way as you. THAT’s America.

Why can’t 1st Cousins marry in all 50 states?

Perhaps I haven’t had need to examine the laws on inter family marriage such as yourself. So you’ll forgive me for not being privy to the EXACT laws you mean. But as far as the question of family, sex, and marriage goes it’s a genetic answer that makes it a viable legal argument.

How far it truly extends? Are 1st cousins safe?? Well, I just don’t know, Kwin. Report back to us with further information as your situation develops and it’ll help us answer that question more soundly.

Why can’t I use my Ohio CCW as I travel all 50 states?

You know, I just don’t know. States define their gun laws. Politics, legitimate differences of opinion, influencing federal characters of all colors conducting campaigns on behalf and against various gun laws. It’s a legitimately tough question. Why isn’t my fishing license good in Colorado where all the legal greenery is? I mean, who knows?!

Wait, what does this have to do with marriage again?

Oh that’s right, not a thing. Sorry. Moving on.

Marriage was heretofore a state matter.
You are never going to get a parade.
harlekwin15 on January 14, 2014 at 8:11 PM

Actually the federal government has been actively involved in the function of marriage for quite a long time. In fact, not so long ago it was conservatives trying to actually change the constitution and affect a federal ban on gay marriage. So forgive me again, for not basing my political opinions on my feelings instead of what I’ve actually seen and what policies are actually on the books and have been for a very very long time.

And I didn’t ask for a parade. I just stated there’s no viable LEGAL argument in favor of banning gay marriage.

And there’s not.

You sure didn’t provide one.

This is civil law man. The right to protest for redress of grievances. Unless you can come up with a viable legal argument banning gay marriages that is equally applied all across the board for all those currently allowed to marry, the the equal protection clause is gonna win in the end, no matter what.

It’s just the way it is.

Genuine on January 14, 2014 at 8:46 PM

“Because socks come in pairs.” — alchemist

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 14, 2014 at 8:44 PM

OK, I literally LOL’d!

22044 on January 14, 2014 at 8:46 PM

So when do you smack down Jetboy’s argument that we simply don’t have to marry someone of the same sex? Do tell. Link please.

Intellectually honest my arse.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 8:43 PM

What in blazes are you talking about?

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Genuine – all snark- not much else. Tedious.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 8:47 PM

I don’t have a clue!

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 8:47 PM

FIFY.

Try to keep up.

22044 on January 14, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Refresh my memory, is it your position that sexual orientation is a choice?

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 8:43 PM

For Anne Heche, Cynthia Nixon and numerous others, yes.

For others, no.

But that does not mean it’s genetic. In fact, new theories are pointing to it being epigenetic, at earliest. Some argue it’s even farther along after the fetus has formed a sex.

Look, you guys are going to get crushed in the science realm. It won’t be by The West. It’s coming from Asia. They don’t give an F about LGBXYZ feelings. It’s all about being first in discovery. So unless the sugar daddy’s start co-opting India, South Korea, China, etc… the answer is coming.

Then, we get to play the Federal Classification game. And that’s going to be a rollicking good time.

budfox on January 14, 2014 at 8:48 PM

So, all our states were being unconstitutional for the first 230 years of our existence? I’m sure that would be news to the Framers.

PaddyORyan on January 14, 2014 at 8:49 PM

The changing culture of the US as a more accepting and open society seems to frighten a certain segment of the populace. Perhaps an older, less flexible group. Pity and Darwin should eventually cull the herd.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 8:49 PM

What in blazes are you talking about?

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 8:47 P

Have you been awake the last hour? Dimwit. You idiots with your tiresome games and your claims on intellectually honesty are a hoot.

You’re as dishonest as they get.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 8:49 PM

I didn’t say all that much about being bad for the women in polygynous relationships because that’s a separate issue. I explained why it’s bad for society in general

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 8:38 PM

You said its bad for society because its bad for women and there might be some men who dont get the benefit of marriage. Those are both tendentious arguments. There are already many men who don’t get the increasingly dubious “benefits” of marriage. No one is crying a river over them. And their needs are frankly irrelevant compared to the needs of raising children in secure environments, where extending marriage to poly families might help. Certainly that benefit is easier to quantify than some speculative tripe about “social harm” from plural marriage.

alwaysfiredup on January 14, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Panther Pajama Boy on January 14, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Wow. Most lack of irony post in the history of the intertubes. Congratulations!

22044 on January 14, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Unless Panther Pajama Boy is another of Allahpundit’s sockpuppets…

On the other hand…probably not – I think he’s real.

22044 on January 14, 2014 at 8:51 PM

Panther: not if the older, less flexible group doesn’t cull you and your butties first!

PaddyORyan on January 14, 2014 at 8:52 PM

This is civil law man. The right to protest for redress of grievances. Unless you can come up with a viable legal argument banning gay marriages that is equally applied all across the board for all those currently allowed to marry, the the equal protection clause is gonna win in the end, no matter what.

It’s just the way it is.

Genuine on January 14, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Forgive me considering around 1/3d the states prohibit or restrict marriage between 1st cousins I did not see the need to define individual state laws on the matter. Can we agree 1/3d is a strong plurality and in so being shows a pattern? That the Federal Government had not seen the need to kick in the doors and force states to marry 1st cousins universally after the 14th was passed tells me the justification is well “bullsh*t” in the case of gay marriage.

Law is law, you don’t get to magically invoke equal protection laws with the worst acting state in the union setting the baseline for other states to have to not ONLY recognize but in fact consecrate under state B’s own powers without opening up a can of worms.

People like you and Gabriel Malor like to pretend you can force this genie back into the bottle or contain the precedent to marriage, or one type of marriage. It’s as big a folly as the CO Herbal Life brigade thinking there will not be a cascade of turbulence WRT sobriety law and employment law.

Ah screw it “we want our cookie!”

Enjoy your cookie, but sooner or later this in and out game of pick and mix on the XIVth and Xth and uneven application of Federal Law is gonna bite the left and the Libertine right in the butt.

harlekwin15 on January 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM

…and more comfortable to ignore facts that are contrary to your point.
 
alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 7:07 PM

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Refresh my memory, is it your position that sexual orientation is a choice?
 
alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 8:43 PM

 
That has no influence on data or your position.
 
Now, where were we? Ah, yes.
 

So you’ll drop your “homosexuality is inborn” position when someone provides current and credible information showing otherwise?
 
rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 8:33 PM

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM

For dimwit…you lazy dishonest phuck.

If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one. It’s really that simple.

JetBoy on January 14, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Again, if it’s really that simple, then why do you continue to oppose polygamy, consanguineous marriage, etc.? If you don’t like those types of marriage, then don’t get one.

blink on January 14, 2014 at 7:45 PM

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM

The changing culture of the US as a more accepting and open society seems to frighten a certain segment of the populace. Perhaps an older, less flexible group. Pity and Darwin should eventually cull the herd.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Kind of like AIDS did. You’re remarkably stupid.

msupertas on January 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM

So you’ll drop your “homosexuality is inborn” position when someone provides current and credible information showing otherwise?

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 8:33 PM

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM

He’ll just ask you another question.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 8:54 PM

And truthfully I would be fine with a heated argument/discussion/debate/whatever here if there was more intellectual honesty. I don’t have a single belief that I can think of that I will cling to even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary but some of the stuff I’ve seen here on this issue makes me think I’m in the minority on that.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 8:32 PM

The hilarious part, alchemist19, is that you actually think anyone here believes you care about “gay rights”.

Wholly false. Indeed, you support and endorse demonizing gays as mentally ill if they disagree with you.

What you are, alchemist19, is an anti-Christian bigot. Unfortunately, that’s not yet reached social acceptability except among the Obama set, so you have to hide the fact behind some type of agitation for people whose “rights” are supposedly being “suppressed”.

Key giveaway? Your argument that, if gays don’t support gay-sex marriage being imposed on others by judicial fiat, they are “self-loathing”.

Think about the inanity of that. The same logic would justify saying that blind people who don’t support drivers’ licenses for the blind are self-loathing. It makes no sense. One can be blind and oppose drivers’ licenses for the blind, just as easily as one can be gay and oppose gay marriage.

But that is impossible for you to acknowledge, because your quixotic quest dissolves if it is shown the people you are out to “save” from their “oppression” don’t consider themselves oppressed.

So you and your fellow bigots — and the vast and overwhelming majority of gay-sex marriage supporters are anti-Christian bigots — simply start screaming that any gay person who doesn’t go along with your game is an Uncle Tom and a race traitor, just as your Obama Party does to conservative black people.

You are doing this wholly out of selfish, hateful and malicious reasons. And you use and exploit people like JetBoy, who despite his professed “conservativism” would vote for a fascist Obama state if it guaranteed he could force the Pope to marry him to his sex partners. You appeal to the worst emotions of jealousy and malice in people and you openly encourage gays to make of Christians their enemies.

I am at the stage where I am ready to tell Christians that they have carte blanche to discriminate as they see fit against gays, because you and your fellow bigots have made it clear that you will not stop until all Christians are destroyed, and gays like JetBoy have been stupid enough to sign up as your weapons. They need to be made to hurt and hurt badly until they grow a brain and realize that you’re just using them for your own bigoted purposes.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 8:54 PM

The changing culture of the US as a more accepting and open society seems to frighten a certain segment of the populace. Perhaps an older, less flexible group. Pity and Darwin should eventually cull the herd.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Question: How will hedonists outnumber people who actually plan for the future? Since Hedonism is all about living for the moment, marriage and raising children is an afterthought. So please explain the brilliant ways in which non-breeders outnumber breeders.

nobar on January 14, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Pity and Darwin should eventually cull the herd.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 8:49 PM

That is so logical./

Weak…but if you say SoCon again I can take another drink of my favorite adult beverage.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Gosh. We changed social norms to make it perfectly acceptable to divorce because of feelings and to raise children in single-parent-by-choice families. Progress!

Now we have a tragedy in that a whole lot of kids have no dad. And there’s a lot of data suggesting kids suffer greatly, for the rest of their lives, because of that lack.

I wonder if there’s a connection?

alwaysfiredup on January 14, 2014 at 8:57 PM

The changing culture of the US as a more accepting and open society seems to frighten a certain segment of the populace. Perhaps an older, less flexible group. Pity and Darwin should eventually cull the herd.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 8:49 PM

If we’re invoking Darwin why don’t you join me in getting a 24 hour holiday each year to put Darwin to the test like in that Moonbat Palin Bashing Tripe The Purge?

I support DRUG legalization and Same Sex relationships for precisely the reason you imply I do not. The issue here is the screwed up Constitution shaking “I WANNA WANNA” 5 yeold in the checkout line method whereby you are getting said cookie.

Ounces, Pounds, or Tonnes?

Despite my personal loathing of subsidy I would back a reverse pyramid pricing scale for your intoxicants up to and including near the end of the arc “free” BUT don’t be a hypocrite and ONLY legalize YOUR cookie m’kay?

harlekwin15 on January 14, 2014 at 8:57 PM

alwaysfiredup on January 14, 2014 at 8:50 PM

A secure environment where the best a kid can hope for is a parent and a half/third/fourth/however many other people the other parent is married to? Very interesting indeed.

When you say “many” men are you talking 1 in 6, which is what the imbalance would be with relatively low levels of polygamy? And why do men not have rights, or at least rights compared to someone else? Do boys deserve to lose rights as they become men?

Have you ever been married or anywhere close to that? If you don’t feel like answering a personal question that’s fine, there’s no real need. I just find some of this post interesting and I’m trying to frame it in proper context.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 8:58 PM

Rome increasingly became an “open society”.

So open in fact that the Goths invaded and absorbed them.

viking01 on January 14, 2014 at 8:58 PM

Mainstreaming gross immorality and perversion is the only way to secure a peaceful and prosperous future for our nation.

Murphy9 on January 14, 2014 at 8:59 PM

The changing culture of the US as a more accepting and open society seems to frighten a certain segment of the populace. Perhaps an older, less flexible group. Pity and Darwin should eventually cull the herd.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 8:49 PM

.
Okay, here I go again . . . . . . . .

“The changing culture of the US as a more accepting and open God-rejecting society seems to frighten disgust a certain segment of the populace. Perhaps an older, less flexible group.”

listens2glenn on January 14, 2014 at 8:59 PM

Admit that the equal protection clause only wins for groups that have successfully shed social stigmas. Admit that social stigma is what governs what is considered a rational reason for discrimination. Nothing else.

blink on January 14, 2014 at 8:55 PM

They will never do that, or rather if they do then it means that Hollywood and the Media as rendered need obliterated.

If Hollywood, the Media, and the Judges are gonna rule the nation then that will be the battlefield and it should be as hard a battlefield as needed to get one’s way I’d imagine….

It was a charming Republic.

harlekwin15 on January 14, 2014 at 8:59 PM

Next up, banning the phrase “husband and wife” because that’s hetero-normative and therefore hateful bigotry against gays.

p0s3r on January 14, 2014 at 9:00 PM

This is civil law man. The right to protest for redress of grievances. Unless you can come up with a viable legal argument banning gay marriages that is equally applied all across the board for all those currently allowed to marry, the the equal protection clause is gonna win in the end, no matter what.

It’s just the way it is.

Genuine on January 14, 2014 at 8:46 PM

That’s easy.

Marriage is for two people capable of producing children unless blocked by a biological reason beyond their control.

Age is a biological reason beyond their control.

Congenital infertility is a biological reason beyond their control.

Sexual orientation, as is shown by such prime examples as Jim McGreevey, “Bishop” Gene Robinson, and Chirlae McCray, is not.

End of story. Game over.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 9:00 PM

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 8:43 PM

If it’s an activity, yes it’s a choice. If it’s an orientation, then yes you can change your orientation.

noun
1.
the act or process of orienting.
2.
the state of being oriented.
3.
an introduction, as to guide one in adjusting to new surroundings, employment, activity, or the like: New employees receive two days of orientation.
4.
Psychology, Psychiatry. the ability to locate oneself in one’s environment with reference to time, place, and people.
5.
one’s position in relation to true north, to points on the compass, or to a specific place or object.

Nutstuyu on January 14, 2014 at 9:00 PM

Marriage is a sacrament of The Church. Marriage is not a sacrament of the state.

And since you brought it up, marriage was not originally a religious sacrament or anything else…it originated through the state as a means of tracing heirs and for census purposes.

Do try and keep up.

JetBoy on January 14, 2014 at 8:20 PM

That, is simply wrong.

The two were separate in every culture. Romans, Mid-East, Medieval, Reniassance, etc…

Even when a king co-opted religion did the two remain separate.

But that doesn’t mean there weren’t barters between suitors and fathers. Of course that happened.

And that’s my point. Once you put the State in charge of marriage, all bets are off and we will be moving to a point where child-brides are part of the argument.

Why? Because it still occurs in third-world cultures and when they arrive here, they can co-opt the SSM argument.

Why should “Consenting Adults” be a barrier if a child is “in love” with an older person? Who are we to deny that “free will” and “pursuit of happiness”?

SSM supporters are all emo, all the time.

You have a solid case based upon legal, civil equality. Land, wills, contracts, etc…I totally support that.

But anything past that, and you’re playing a game of “enemy of my enemy”, which never turns out good for the middleman.

Wait and see. The first mufti who sues for his harem is going to have all the SSM advocacy usual suspects as supporters. And you guys will have to tow the line.

budfox on January 14, 2014 at 9:00 PM

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM

I did seem to remember you being somewhat averse to taking a position on anything. I’ll compliment you on that; there’s a lot less risk in ever being proven wrong if you never take a position.

Is it your position that sexual orientation is a choice?

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 9:00 PM

Next up, banning the phrase “husband and wife” because that’s hetero-normative and therefore hateful bigotry against gays.

p0s3r on January 14, 2014 at 9:00 PM

You heterosexist…you…grrr

/

22044 on January 14, 2014 at 9:01 PM

The changing culture of the US as a more accepting and open society seems to frighten a certain segment of the populace. Perhaps an older, less flexible group. Pity and Darwin should eventually cull the herd.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Nature is already doing a fine job of culling the herdin multiple directions.

It’s funny to watch the promiscuous repeat the same things that people have seen over and over and over again in the hope that, this time, there won’t be a consequence.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 9:02 PM

The right to protest for redress of grievances.

Genuine on January 14, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Sorry, but SCOTUS struck down that right when it ruled on California’s Prop 8.

malclave on January 14, 2014 at 9:02 PM

Let me guess, like California we are going to eventually find out that the judge is actually a homosexual ruling from his agenda and not the law.

Happy Nomad on January 14, 2014 at 9:03 PM

Gays probably feel entitled to have Christians help them keep Nigerian gays out of prison–once they get out of baker jail, that is.

Christien on January 14, 2014 at 9:03 PM

This is civil law man. The right to protest for redress of grievances. Unless you can come up with a viable legal argument banning gay marriages that is equally applied all across the board for all those currently allowed to marry, the the equal protection clause is gonna win in the end, no matter what.

It’s just the way it is.

Genuine on January 14, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Except that there’s no such thing, or else we would not have needed additional amendments for rights for blacks and women.

Nutstuyu on January 14, 2014 at 9:03 PM

I just find some of this post interesting and I’m trying to frame it in proper context.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 8:58 PM

What you find is a need to continue with your bigoted posts and your intellectually dishonesty.

Congrats to you . You will likely get your USA full of people who have perverted the definition of marriage….but you’ll see you have wrought more than you realize. Yes, one day people will have the right to have more than one spouse. Look in the mirror and blame yourself.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 9:03 PM

Darwin’s off to a great start culling traditional marriages, families, and children by saying those things are good, just like those irredeemably evil so cons.

22044 on January 14, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Weak…but if you say SoCon again I can take another drink of my favorite adult beverage.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 8:55 PM

That’s unfair.

SoCon!

I’ve got an open Dirty Bast__d from Founder’s Brewing in Grand Rapids. It’s a scotch-Style Ale. Delicious.

Admit that the equal protection clause only wins for groups that have successfully shed social stigmas. Admit that social stigma is what governs what is considered a rational reason for discrimination. Nothing else.

blink on January 14, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Depends. Us in the gay community have (right now) far less social stigma against us than did blacks when the Supreme Court handed down several of the hallmark Civil Rights decisions.

ZachV on January 14, 2014 at 9:05 PM

NOTICE: Alchemist again answered RogerB with a question….and again notice the irony in its post. This is almost too funny.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 9:05 PM

A secure environment where the best a kid can hope for is a parent and a half/third/fourth/however many other people the other parent is married to? Very interesting indeed.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 8:58 PM

According to gay-sex marriage supporters, children and childrearing are irrelevant to marriage.

Therefore, you are arguing without a rational basis.

Furthermore, since gay sex does not produce children, you have no rational basis for denying plural relationships among gay-sex groupings — which means, under “equal protection”, you must also grant marriage to multiple opposite-sex groupings.

Since your argument has no rational basis, clearly your actions are based solely in animus against a minority. Therefore, your motivations are immediately suspect and any and all laws banning incestuous and plural marriage must be immediately struck down; states must issue marriage licenses to whatever combination demands them.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 9:05 PM

So you’ll drop your “homosexuality is inborn” position when someone provides current and credible information showing otherwise?
 
rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 8:33 PM

 
there’s a lot less risk in ever being proven wrong if you never take a position.
 
Is it your position that sexual orientation is a choice?
 
alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 9:00 PM

 
What does any of that have to do with data?
 
Where are we now, three times we’re spinning our wheels in what should be a simple scientific conversation?
 
We’re discussing science.
 
Data.
 
Specifically inborn homosexuality.
 
Care to continue?

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 9:06 PM

So you’ll drop your “homosexuality is inborn” position when someone provides current and credible information showing otherwise?

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 8:33 PM

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM

He’ll just ask you another question.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 8:54 PM

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM

I did seem to remember you being somewhat averse to taking a position on anything. I’ll compliment you on that; there’s a lot less risk in ever being proven wrong if you never take a position.

Is it your position that sexual orientation is a choice?

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 9:00 PM

You cannot make this shit up.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 9:07 PM

Once again: how does the 14th amendment force us to mainstream gay rights, yet also allow Mormons to be jailed and lose their right to vote– even those who never had anything more than a normal marriage?

The Supreme Court held 9-0 that these were constitutional acts.

Vanceone on January 14, 2014 at 9:07 PM

Alchemist so do tell: What is your rational (lol ) basis for forbidding multiple gay men marrying each other?

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 9:08 PM

There is almost a palpable fear of change among the Pope Francis Republicans (PBUT). I’m not sure if it is the anxiety or thrill of being asked to participate. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 9:11 PM

You see this crap all the time. Out of one side of their mouths they cry equal protection, while out of the other side they ask for special exemptions.

Christien on January 14, 2014 at 9:13 PM

There is almost a palpable fear of change among the Pope Francis Republicans (PBUT). I’m not sure if it is the anxiety or thrill of being asked to participate. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 9:11 PM

Of course.

You need desperately to believe that your need to give teenagers HIV is normal, and when one’s worldview is that perverse, you couldn’t come up with a more logical explanation.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 9:13 PM

Ya see, DOMA was unconstitutional because the definition of marriage is decided at the state level.

Until that’s no longer convenient.

What we have are “just-so” stories where the reasoning is invented on the spot to justify whatever decision they want to give. AKA excuses.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 14, 2014 at 9:15 PM

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 9:06 PM

I think part of the hangups I’ve had in threads like this is when people start talking past each other; I’m trying to avoid that by finding out where we both stand to see if we’re even talking about the same issue, and if so if we then even really disagree.

Is it your position that sexual orientation is a matter of personal choice?

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 9:16 PM

Forgive me considering around 1/3d the states prohibit or restrict marriage between 1st cousins I did not see the need to define individual state laws on the matter. Can we agree 1/3d is a strong plurality and in so being shows a pattern? That the Federal Government had not seen the need to kick in the doors and force states to marry 1st cousins universally after the 14th was passed tells me the justification is well “bullsh*t” in the case of gay marriage.

See, here’s the thing. Sometimes people pass laws. Sometimes passing certain kinda of laws become a fad, a political campaign, or part of a party platform.

When states, constituencies, or the federal government begin to pass high profile controversial laws that affect other people, these laws generally end up in court.

When something ends up in court a decision is ultimately rendered on it at some point.

The more lawsuits that are filed, the more likely a far reaching federal decision will be the ultimate decider.

Social conservatives haven’t been trying to pass high profile laws, that then get challenged in a court of law, addressing the issue of 1st cousin marriage too much that I’ve seen. So it’s a little unthought out to expect that yardstick to apply here. Of course you don’t see the same actions between inter family marriage and gay marriage, no ones passing controversial laws or filing lawsuit defending the rights as an American to marry their cousin. Why on earth would you expect the same outcome?

Law is law, you don’t get to magically invoke equal protection laws with the worst acting state in the union setting the baseline for other states to have to not ONLY recognize but in fact consecrate under state B’s own powers without opening up a can of worms.

It’s not magic. It’s the only valid legal argument in the room actually. And when a federal decision is reached it won’t be because of one state you dislike. It will be from the avalanche of these cases, from places even like Oklahoma. I’m sorry you dislike that reality. But it’s a fact, Kwin. And you know it, legally, as well as I do.

People like you and Gabriel Malor like to pretend you can force this genie back into the bottle or contain the precedent to marriage, or one type of marriage. It’s as big a folly as the CO Herbal Life brigade thinking there will not be a cascade of turbulence WRT sobriety law and employment law.
Ah screw it “we want our cookie!”

Wtf are you even talking about? I’m not scared. I’m not really sure what there is for me to be concerned about containing. I’m not trying to put a genie back into a bottle. I’m just stating a fact and it’s like you’re trying to pull every trick you’ve got out of the book to tell me why I’m wrong, every single trick accept actually provide a viable legal argument to refute my point that there isn’t one.

Enjoy your cookie, but sooner or later this in and out game of pick and mix on the XIVth and Xth and uneven application of Federal Law is gonna bite the left and the Libertine right in the butt.
harlekwin15 on January 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM

I guess we’re gonna see, huh? Alas, the inevitable. Tie-ah-ah-ayme, is on my side. Yes it is.

But you’re the one picking and mixing and wanting to use the government to force your view onto everyone else. At least I defend your right to be involved in a church that doesn’t perform them. And I like cookies.

Thanks. ;)

Genuine on January 14, 2014 at 9:16 PM

Pope Francis Republicans (PBUT).

Hey gang we have a new phrase for the PajamaBoy Panther Drinking Game.

I’m not sure if it is the anxiety or thrill of being asked to participate. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 9:11 PM

Your argumentative skills are something to behold.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 9:17 PM

I never said that groups only get rights when the social stigmas are exactly equal, but the social stigmas associated with both had certainly fallen below the necessary threshold.

ZachV, you will likely join alchemist someday in suddenly declaring that it’s unconstitutional to oppose marriage equality and that all those opposition arguments you provided should simply be ignored. That’s what bigots like you do when society finally forces you to change your views.

blink on January 14, 2014 at 9:09 PM

I am extremely skeptical of the idea that society will ever move to support anything beyond same-sex marriage. The gays that want to get married are seeking it, because marriage evokes for them the understanding of fidelity, commitment, responsibility and hard-work. Not because they want to worsen the institution or break it.

What you’re talking about is the LGBT “progressives” who are no worse than straight “progressives;” in that both groups believe that marriage is destructive and should be gotten rid of. The LGBT “progressives” cheer and celebrate lifelong singlehood, free relationships and wild irresponsibility just as much as the straight “progressives” do.

ZachV on January 14, 2014 at 9:19 PM

He’ll just ask you another question.
CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 8:54 PM

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Is it your position that sexual orientation is a choice?

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 9:00 PM

You cannot make this shit up.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 9:07 PM

Good call. Remember the other day when someone predicted nonpartisan’s stupid comment about one minute before she posted it? It was almost word-for-word. Hilarious.

blink on January 14, 2014 at 9:13 PM

Blink that was hilarious …but then again just a minute ago:

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 9:06 PM

I think part of the hangups I’ve had in threads like this is when people start talking past each other; I’m trying to avoid that by finding out where we both stand to see if we’re even talking about the same issue, and if so if we then even really disagree.

Is it your position that sexual orientation is a matter of personal choice?

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 9:16 PM

You.Cannot.Make.This.Shit.Up.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 9:19 PM

I think part of the hangups I’ve had in threads like this is when people start talking past each other; I’m trying to avoid that by finding out where we both stand to see if we’re even talking about the same issue, and if so if we then even really disagree.

Is it your position that sexual orientation is a matter of personal choice?

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 9:16 PM

Yep.

Prior to meeting Mr. de Blasio, Ms. McCray identified as a lesbian and had several long-term relationships with other women. In a seven-page essay she wrote for the September 1979 issue of Essence magazine entitled “I am a Lesbian” she frankly discussed her sexuality and expressed gratitude that she came to terms with her preference for women before marrying a man.

“I survived the tears, the isolation and the feeling that something was terribly wrong with me for loving another woman” Ms. McCray wrote. “Coming to terms with my life as a lesbian has been easier for me than it has been for many. Since I don’t look or dress like the typical bulldagger, I have a choice as to whether my sexual preference is known.”
She added, “I have also been fortunate because I discovered my preference for women early, before getting locked into a traditional marriage and having children.”

I can also quote other examples like Jim McGreevey and “Bishop” Gene Robinson, who seemingly had no trouble marrying and loving women until they got bored and decided to run off with men instead.

So alchemist19, since you state that sexual orientation is absolutely set and completely unchangeable or affected by personal choice, reconcile that one.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 9:21 PM

“Moral disapproval” isn’t a rational reason per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark case from 2003 that declared Texas’s anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. The upshot of Lawrence is that you can’t legislate morality when you’re targeting intimate relationships between consenting adults.

Between this and legalized pot, I’m surprised there isn’t more righteous indignation and fury. There must be a certain sense of disbelief that someone or some institution hasn’t been smote.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Alchemist so do tell: What is your rational (lol ) basis for forbidding multiple gay men marrying each other?

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 9:08 PM

Interesting question.

If we’ve established there is a rational basis for prohibiting polygamy that dealt exclusively with heterosexuals then before we’ve even considered if there are reasons specific to homosexual polygamy we’re faced with the question of “Is it okay to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? To grant one group a privilege based on their sexual orientation (legal recognition of polyamorous unions in this case) and forbid it from others based solely on theirs?” It’s an interesting question, isn’t it?

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Genuine on January 14, 2014 at 9:16 PM

Right…so you want to pretend that what is in play is anything more defensible than “I wanna cookie?”

DOMA was struck down because Marriage was a state matter.

After being killed suddenly marriage becomes a XIVth amendment issue because “equal protection” despite it being fought oddly enough at the state level. The worst acting state on the issue became get this the baseline genius. Notice the argument being made here about HORRIBLE precedence?

You cannot make an argument other than invoking the very moral societal norms that are in fact prohibited from being the baseline for change to change a moral value from top to bottom federally. The Feds will not allow any of the multitude of justifications they use for various laws regarding moral law to interfere with the new shiny cookie. How can the age of consent be 16 in state a 18 in state b and california’s case the state C sliding scale of legality WITHOUT invoking moral guidelines?

Judicial Legislating from the bench?

You’re soaking in it.

SCotUS will either nip this in the bud(unlikely IMHO) or we are one step closer to wonderland….

Take for example the idea of “bewteen two consenting adults” in Sodomy versus Texas….

What precisely *is* an adult under law these days?

A 12 year old can get an abortion(implying there has been Statutory rape potentially) without a parent’s permission or notification BUT a child cannot be trusted to take a sinus pill a parent sends to school AND can’t drink at 18 but is a child on mom and dad’s insurance until 26…but has rights to privacy from mom and dad who are actually paying the fu*king bill that Lois Lerner can violate for a taxpayer and leak to Pro Publica…

The United States is the world’s largest open aired insane asylum feigning to be part of western civ…

unless Obama declared us a Muslim Nation again this week.

harlekwin15 on January 14, 2014 at 9:28 PM

It’s an interesting question, isn’t it?

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 9:22 PM

In other words, it makes your tedious argument look as stupid as it really is…but thanks for playing!

Say , if you could ask Rogerb another question at the exact same time that Panther says Socon I get to funnel the rest of my 6 pack…. can you help a guy out?

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 14, 2014 at 9:28 PM

Just saw this on fb – funny

It all makes sense now. Gay marriage and marijuana are being legalized at the same time.
Leviticus 20:13 says that if a man lays with another man, he should be stoned.
We were just misinterpreting it.

22044 on January 14, 2014 at 9:28 PM

I can also quote other examples like Jim McGreevey and “Bishop” Gene Robinson, who seemingly had no trouble marrying and loving women until they got bored and decided to run off with men instead.

So alchemist19, since you state that sexual orientation is absolutely set and completely unchangeable or affected by personal choice, reconcile that one.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 9:21 PM

Yes … Both McGreevey and Robinson lied to their spouses about their sexual orientation. I have two acquaintances in my life that did the same. That deception eventually destroyed their and their spouses’ lives in the proceeding fallout and divorces.

That’s why gay men and gay women need to get married to a person they are attracted to; not someone they are going to be forced to lie to. It’s why groups interested in a stable society need to encourage mutual, committed and honest relationships in both the straight AND gay communities.

ZachV on January 14, 2014 at 9:29 PM

But you’re the one picking and mixing and wanting to use the government to force your view onto everyone else. At least I defend your right to be involved in a church that doesn’t perform them.

Genuine on January 14, 2014 at 9:16 PM

Actually, you don’t.

But the bottom line for Feldblum is: “Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

The bigots leading the gay-sex marriage charge have already stated that religious liberty does not exist and that churches must be forced to perform gay-sex marriage.

The gay-sex marriage supporters have spoken. Religious liberty is incompatible with gay-sex marriage. Therefore, the answer is easy: religious liberty stays, and gay-sex marriage goes.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 9:29 PM

The bigots leading the gay-sex marriage charge have already stated that religious liberty does not exist and that churches must be forced to perform gay-sex marriage.

The gay-sex marriage supporters have spoken. Religious liberty is incompatible with gay-sex marriage. Therefore, the answer is easy: religious liberty stays, and gay-sex marriage goes.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 9:29 PM

Churches that support and perform same-sex marriages as a part of their core religious doctrines?

Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, ELCA Lutherans, etc. ?

ZachV on January 14, 2014 at 9:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 7