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 6 7

Where are we, now? Five times?
 

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

 

Who cares about disagreement? That’s not science. Data either supports inborn homosexuality or not.
 

if we’re even talking about the same issue,

 
Seriously?
 

Well said. Speaking of, are you still maintaining a position that homosexuality is inborn?
 
rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 7:13 PM

Unless human biology has changed significantly in the last three weeks then yes.
 
alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 7:59 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

 

…homosexuality is inborn…

 
rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Refresh my memory…
 
alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 8:43 PM

homosexuality is inborn

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 8:33 PM

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM

 
So yes, I suspect we’re all still on the same data-driven “homosexuality is inborn” discussion.

 
Shall we continue?

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 9:35 PM

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.

How that isn’t clear to everyone, I’ll never know.

JetBoy on January 14, 2014 at 7:00 PM

If it’s so clear, why wasn’t it clear within the first generation after the 14th Amendment was passed?

Why did judges suddenly perceive that marriage violated the 14th Amendment?

We know what’s happening here. Nothing has changed, except that it’s become popular to come up with a new interpretation for the 14th Amendment.

Just more “The Constitution means whatever I say it means” jurisprudence.

The Constitution is a social compact defining the government. When it no longer has any intrinsic meaning, there is no longer a reason for everyone to abide by the rule of law. This continual high-handedness will ultimately lead to either totalitarianism or violence.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 14, 2014 at 9:36 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

How does it make my argument look stupid? Is that because if we disallowed polygamy for heterosexuals but allowed it for homosexuals that that would be discrimination and that’s bad or what?

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 9:37 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.

Convenient. But this is what really makes it funny.

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.

LOL.

No one forced them to lie. They chose to lie for personal gain and advantage, and destroyed someone else’s life to do it.

But of course, you can’t hold them accountable for their decisions. Gays and lesbians are children, little better than animals who aren’t capable of being adults. Indeed, as the leadership of the gay and lesbian community says, monogamy and commitment “destroy lives” for gays and lesbians, and straight people should be more promiscuous and non-monogamous like gay people are.

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

And, as I just showed, the gay and lesbian community does NOT encourage such behavior; it encourages and supports promiscuity and lying.

Therefore, gay marriage is DESTABILIZING to society, and should be banned.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 9:38 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

OK.

Then by law, plural marriage must be allowed because it’s part of the doctrine of various Mormon, Jewish, and Islamic groups.

Thank you for playing.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 9:39 PM

Sylvester do you take Tweety?

Tweety do you take Sylvester?

Th’sufferin’ Th’uccotash it’sth the Fourteenth Th’amendment’th!

viking01 on January 14, 2014 at 9:41 PM

Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin praised the ruling

Wanna bet that Chad is only in it for the gays? Next round when the law has been so fundamentally changed to accomodate the sodomites- will chad be there supporting polygamy, marriage to a 13-year-old, or ending the persecution that comes from expressing love for a goat?

Happy Nomad on January 14, 2014 at 9:42 PM

And, as I just showed, the gay and lesbian community does NOT encourage such behavior; it encourages and supports promiscuity and lying.

Therefore, gay marriage is DESTABILIZING to society, and should be banned.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 9:38 PM

There’s a difference between these people and these people, but both pictures show parts of the gay community. Which one do you think supports same-sex marriage, and which one doesn’t?

ZachV on January 14, 2014 at 9:42 PM

Anyway, you don’t want me blathering at you about law and gay marriage, especially when it’s another loss for social conservatism.

Another loss, seems to be a string of them piling up. Partial blame belongs with the advocates themselves. I’ve never seen a group so adept at alienating just about everyone they encounter. Mad skillz.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 9:42 PM

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 9:35 PM

How can we continue what you don’t seem to want to start? You’re quoting my words, not using your own. But I will give you that you’re smarter than most.

Is sexual orientation a matter of personal choice?

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 9:42 PM

It has been a long time since I’ve posted, so please forgive me for just jumping right in.

After having read several marriage threads, it seems to me that the arrangement with the greatest potential to “confer benefits on society” is a marriage among one heterosexual male and two bisexual women.

Why? For several reasons:
(1) It helps satisfy a man’s natural urge for variety, and may make it less likely for the man to stray;
(2) It provides each woman with some relief from the sexual demands by the male, while making it more likely that his needs will be met, again making it less likely that he will stray;
(3) It allows each female some variety in experiences without resulting in jealously by the male;
(4) because these women are bi-sexual and have their own sexual bonds with each other, there is less of a chance that they will be jealous of each other over the male-female relationship;
(5) the female-female intimacy can also help satisfy each female’s need for emotional intimacy, something that a male cannot always provide;
(6) It can result in biological children, with the parents being in a committed relationship;
(7) In the event that children are in the home, it may make it easier for one parent to stay home as a full-time parent (as there is the potential for two other incomes to support the family). This can be highly beneficial to the child(ren).

I am emphatically not an advocate of redefining marriage. However, I cannot readily think of any “rational basis” for the state denying full marriage rights to such a threesome… which appears to be standard that some on this thread are applying. Clearly, we have no history to illustrate the grave harm that recognizing such relationships would cause. It seems to me that the only possible reason for opposing marriage equality in this case would be bigotry and hatred.

/s… sort of. :-)

Just Sayin’

Just Sayin on January 14, 2014 at 9:44 PM

So one activist liberal judge once again overrides the will of the people. That ban passed with 75 % approval!!!!!! I’m fed up with this crap. Fed up with watching my country fall on its continued path of sin and rejection of God. I don’t know how he holds his wrath against us off.

sadsushi on January 14, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Fred Phelps, is that you?

Since when is love and commitment a “rejection of God”? Not to mention, since when is the US Constitution a religious document enforcing religious doctrine…or more specifically, Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

JetBoy on January 14, 2014 at 7:50 PM

non sequitur much?

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 14, 2014 at 9:45 PM

There’s a difference between these people and these people, but both pictures show parts of the gay community. Which one do you think supports same-sex marriage, and which one doesn’t?

ZachV on January 14, 2014 at 9:42 PM

LOL.

Who wants to bet they both agree that monogamy destroys lives?

It’s funny how your blather about “stabilizing society” goes right out the window when it would involve you having to actually put your money where your mouth is and support monogamy and commitment over promiscuity.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 9:49 PM

Need to win elections and start cleaning out the courts — a long term project. The government may coerce us with demands that we legally recognize SSM but the reality is that it will never be accepted as legitimate.

DaMav on January 14, 2014 at 9:49 PM

So one activist liberal judge once again overrides the will of the people. That ban passed with 75 % approval!!!!!! I’m fed up with this crap. Fed up with watching my country fall on its continued path of sin and rejection of God. I don’t know how he holds his wrath against us off.
sadsushi on January 14, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Now this is the type of “wrath of god” stuff I’ve been waiting for. Demons, fire and brimstone rhetoric. Preach on, brother.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 9:50 PM

Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin praised the ruling

Wanna bet that Chad is only in it for the gays? Next round when the law has been so fundamentally changed to accomodate the sodomites- will chad be there supporting polygamy, marriage to a 13-year-old, or ending the persecution that comes from expressing love for a goat?

Happy Nomad on January 14, 2014 at 9:42 PM

Ummm, yes? Where did you get the idea that anyone sensible (i.e. NOT gay progs and socialists) in the LGBT community supported anything more than same-sex marriage? Chad is probably just as committed as you are to protecting the sanctity of marriage; with Chads’ added perspective that gays ought be held to the same social expectations of relationship stability as are straight.

ZachV on January 14, 2014 at 9:50 PM

Now this is the type of “wrath of god” stuff I’ve been waiting for. Demons, fire and brimstone rhetoric. Preach on, brother.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 9:50 PM

A number seem genuinely upset the Rapture hasn’t happened yet.

antisense on January 14, 2014 at 9:51 PM

I don’t know how he holds his wrath against us off.

Just you wait. It’s coming.

Murphy9 on January 14, 2014 at 9:52 PM

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 9:35 PM

I think you’re probably not going to answer my question directly so I’ll just issue the spoiler right now and see if that gets you to finally take a position on something.

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

If your answer is “No,” then we’ve got a starting point where we can have a discussion. If your answer is “Yes,” then you’re an idiot and I’m not going to bother.

So which is it?

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 9:52 PM

There’s a difference between these people and these people, but both pictures show parts of the gay community. Which one do you think supports same-sex marriage, and which one doesn’t?

ZachV on January 14, 2014 at 9:42 PM

LOL.

Who wants to bet they both agree that monogamy destroys lives?

It’s funny how your blather about “stabilizing society” goes right out the window when it would involve you having to actually put your money where your mouth is and support monogamy and commitment over promiscuity.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 9:49 PM

I would take your bet in a heartbeat? You actually think that Dan Savage – the flaming socialist that he is – speaks for the entirety of the gay community? Ha!

… when it would involve you having to actually put your money where your mouth is and support monogamy and commitment over promiscuity.

I don’t and have never slept around. Have you?

ZachV on January 14, 2014 at 9:53 PM

I don’t know how he holds his wrath against us off.

Just you wait. It’s coming.

Murphy9 on January 14, 2014 at 9:52 PM

I should have added that the rise of homosexuality in a society is itself a Divine judgment.

Wait till these sodomites start swinging their purses.

Murphy9 on January 14, 2014 at 9:53 PM

I should have added that the rise of homosexuality in a society is itself a Divine judgment.

Wait till these sodomites start swinging their purses.

Murphy9 on January 14, 2014 at 9:53 PM

And matching black pumps – very tasteful.

antisense on January 14, 2014 at 9:55 PM

Hey as long as the gay rights activists don’t mind if the living Constitution that has these invisible ink penumbras comes up with a legal foundation for dissolution and break-up I am fine…

The left is engaged in Lawfare that too many of my allies on the right are refusing to play in reverse,,

EPA is keeping states from maximizing their resources…

I am running out of “goods” to justify obeisance to the Federal level…

the Liberals at SCotUS LOVE reaching into their bag of tricks by invoking foreign laws as precedentary basis these days…

declaration no. 142-H

Evidently all it takes is the right combination of judges and hysteria…

thanks for playing.

harlekwin15 on January 14, 2014 at 9:56 PM

A number seem genuinely upset the Rapture hasn’t happened yet.

antisense on January 14, 2014 at 9:51 PM

There does appear to be a bit of gleeful anticipation…you have to look past the frothing mouth to see the smile.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 9:58 PM

But it expressly protects religion. Not relationships. Where there is conflict, religion wins.

alwaysfiredup on January 14, 2014 at 8:05 PM

And…?

Gay marriage is a secular, constitutional issue…not a religious one. The only way religion seems to come into this debate comes from certain religious groups and individuals trying to get the state to govern based on their faith beliefs. It’s the “Because the bible says so” defense.

The constitution is clear…the state may not govern by any religious doctrine, nor prevent the free exercise of the religious. Gay marriage recognition under the constitution by the state does not force changes to any religion, nor does it specifically follow any religion.

It’s a “people” issue, not a religious one.

JetBoy on January 14, 2014 at 8:12 PM

What religious group is trying to get the state to govern based on their faith beliefs? What law is saying that SSM is prohibited because the Bible says so? Is it those dratted Mormons? Those troglodyte Muslims? Those backward Baptists?

Who is trying to make everyone comply with their values? Isn’t it obvious that the homosexual lobby is the one demanding that everyone change an institution they didn’t create or have any interest in until now?

It doesn’t even take a speck of religion to see that marriage is between a man and a woman. Biology is enough to establish that. Children deserve to be raised by their biological parents, which is flatly impossible in any same-sex house.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 14, 2014 at 10:00 PM

Ummm, yes? Where did you get the idea that anyone sensible (i.e. NOT gay progs and socialists) in the LGBT community supported anything more than same-sex marriage? Chad is probably just as committed as you are to protecting the sanctity of marriage; with Chads’ added perspective that gays ought be held to the same social expectations of relationship stability as are straight.

ZachV on January 14, 2014 at 9:50 PM

Actually, Chad claims monogamy destroys lives and that all people should be more promiscuous just like gays are.

Meanwhile, you need only look at this, which lays out nicely that how gays and lesbians demand incestuous and plural relationships be granted the same status as marriage — signed by Chai Feldblum, who is Barack Obama’s liaison on such matters and serves on the EEOC.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 10:00 PM

After having read several marriage threads, it seems to me that the arrangement with the greatest potential to “confer benefits on society” is a marriage among one heterosexual male and two bisexual women. Just Sayin on January 14, 2014 at 9:44 PM

You, sir, have my vote and full support behind your campaign.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 10:01 PM

Actually, Chad claims monogamy destroys lives and that all people should be more promiscuous just like gays are.

Meanwhile, you need only look at this, which lays out nicely that how gays and lesbians demand incestuous and plural relationships be granted the same status as marriage — signed by Chai Feldblum, who is Barack Obama’s liaison on such matters and serves on the EEOC.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 10:00 PM

The gays live rent free in this one..:)

antisense on January 14, 2014 at 10:02 PM

Ummm, yes? Where did you get the idea that anyone sensible (i.e. NOT gay progs and socialists) in the LGBT community supported anything more than same-sex marriage? Chad is probably just as committed as you are to protecting the sanctity of marriage; with Chads’ added perspective that gays ought be held to the same social expectations of relationship stability as are straight.

ZachV on January 14, 2014 at 9:50 PM

Right so like the Potheads vice alcohol Gays get to be the new self-appointed ethics and morals police on what heretofore inappropo things are verboten and which are now legal?

In the case of pot in CO less onerous for despite its attack on the Federal sanctity of law it WAS A POPULAR vote.

Thus when Jihadi Jim wants to have his 3 wives on his insurance we must not cave and allow this evil Polygamy “because.”

Now quick make that case without moral judgements or invokation of “the sanctity of marriage requiring a binary number”…

yeah good luck champ…

so we are risking screwing with the Xth amendment using a very shaky legal method to get the woobie you want by striking down DOMA as a state matter then using the XIVth to FORCE a federal one size fits all answer because “justice.”

If it is good for the goose it will likely be good for the gander, or we are not a nation of law based on logic but simple emotion.

We’ve already abolsihed the notion that US contracts are exempt from Ex Post Fact Jedi Hand Waving by PotUS the last half decade…

we may as well do away with the illusion of the Xth amendment or popular sovereignty and law.

harlekwin15 on January 14, 2014 at 10:02 PM

A horse is a horse, of course, of course…..

Equal protection… right? Willllbuurrrrrr?

viking01 on January 14, 2014 at 10:02 PM

There does appear to be a bit of gleeful anticipation…you have to look past the frothing mouth to see the smile.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 9:58 PM

I was a fan of Christopher Hitchens’s commentary on the problem with monotheistic messianic religions and how they divided humanity and set it against itself. It applies wonderfully, in a very horrible way.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 10:03 PM

What religious group is trying to get the state to govern based on their faith beliefs?

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 14, 2014 at 10:00 PM

Last time I checked Evangelical Atheists and in some of Pennsylvania & Parts of Michigan Muslims…

I must have missed where Christianity was allowed to flourish in the public square unlike the Muslims getting to play “be Muslim for a fortnight and take a personal Jihad baby!” in El Cajon Mexifornia…

harlekwin15 on January 14, 2014 at 10:05 PM

I would take your bet in a heartbeat? You actually think that Dan Savage – the flaming socialist that he is – speaks for the entirety of the gay community? Ha!

Yep.

He has the full endorsement and support of HRC, the Obama Party, GLAAD, and all the other alphabet-soup organizations.

I don’t and have never slept around. Have you?

ZachV on January 14, 2014 at 9:53 PM

Uh huh.

You can say that because according to you a “committed relationship” involves sleeping around, being promiscuous, and advocating that monogamous people be promiscuous.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 10:05 PM

The gays live rent free in this one..:)

antisense on January 14, 2014 at 10:02 PM

Ah, another homophobic bigot who actually hates gay people and wants gays who don’t do as they say to kill themselves comes along.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 10:06 PM

Hitchens sure had his life in order in a pinball sorta way.

viking01 on January 14, 2014 at 10:06 PM

“Supreme Court law prohibits states…” Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court gets to write its own laws?

Texas Zombie on January 14, 2014 at 10:07 PM

This thread is now becoming useful, it’s now the quarantine zone for all the Hot Gas idiots. Hint: Panther Pajama Boy and others who think like him.

22044 on January 14, 2014 at 10:09 PM

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

If your answer is “No,” then we’ve got a starting point where we can have a discussion. If your answer is “Yes,” then you’re an idiot and I’m not going to bother.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 9:52 PM

Yes.

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.”

Of course, we know why alchemist19 can’t answer or deal with that.

Well I think it’s that it makes them uncomfortable both because it’s something that’s unfamiliar and that has been cast in a negative light for them, and because they don’t like the idea they were wrong about something so rather than really think about their beliefs and consider changing your mind it’s much easier and more comfortable to ignore facts that are contrary to your point.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 7:07 PM

ZachV ran away from it too, as have Panther and antisense.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 10:11 PM

“Supreme Court law prohibits states…” Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court gets to write its own laws?

Texas Zombie on January 14, 2014 at 10:07 PM

It’s right there in the Benedict Roberts Amendment.

Right after he says: “How do I love Me, let me count the ways.”

viking01 on January 14, 2014 at 10:11 PM

If only Hamilton, Madison, Monroe and Franklin had been prescient enough to write:

“Supreme Court shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof…”

and so forth…. and so forth for the entire Bill of Rights.

viking01 on January 14, 2014 at 10:15 PM

So yes, I suspect we’re all still on the same data-driven “homosexuality is inborn” discussion.

 
Shall we continue?
 
rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 9:35 PM

I think you’re probably not going to answer my question directly so I’ll just issue the spoiler right now and see if that gets you to finally take a position on something.
 
Is it your position that sexual orientation a matter of personal choice?
 
If your answer is “No,” then we’ve got a starting point where we can have a discussion. If your answer is “Yes,” then you’re an idiot and I’m not going to bother.
 
So which is it?
 
alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 9:52 PM

 
So the only acceptable answer is the one that confirms your beliefs? Ha. Nicely done. SCIENCE!
 
Hey, remember what you started the thread with?
 

…so rather than really think about their beliefs and consider changing your mind it’s much easier and more comfortable to ignore facts that are contrary to your point.
 
alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 7:07 PM

 
Boomerangs are neat, aren’t they?
 
Speaking of idiots:

 

Dr. Alan Sanders is a Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Northwestern University at Evanston. He is conducting a large-scale study with gay brothers. His research confirms an earlier finding by Dr. Dean Hamer, which linked the Xq28 genetic marker for homosexuality to the X chromosome.

 

How big is the role genetics play in sexual orientation?
 
It’s not as high as a lot of conditions that are studied genetically. It is low to moderate heritability. There are different estimates. Maybe somewhere around thirty to forty percent of the variation.
 
Interview: http://www.lgbtscience.org/alan-sanders
 
2012 abstract: http://www.ashg.org/2012meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f120122263.htm

 
Low to moderate heritability?
 
Maybe 30-40% of the variation?
 
What an idiot.

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 10:22 PM

You, sir, have my vote and full support behind your campaign.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 10:01 PM

Well, I’m not a “sir,” and I actually don’t support redefining marriage to include such relationships, but thanks! :-)

Just Sayin on January 14, 2014 at 10:24 PM

Once again, no reply by the gays in this thread– why does the 14th amendment force us to perform same sex marriage while at the same time allow the federal government to imprison Mormons and take away their property and rights to vote, even for Mormons who were single and stayed that way?

Will any of you answer? Or are you too chicken?

Vanceone on January 14, 2014 at 10:27 PM

BTW
 
alchemist19, maintaining a position that homosexuality is inborn
 

It’s only recently that we’ve come to understand things like homosexuality is inborn, it’s not a mental illness, that sexual orientation cannot be changed…
 
alchemist19 on December 21, 2013 at 1:54 PM

 
will now be little more than a religious position similar to beliefs in a young Earth and dinosaurs coexisting with man.
 
It’s fine to continue that belief, of course, but it won’t have any sort of valid scientific basis. It will be faith-based (and only 6000 years old) from this moment on.

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 10:28 PM

They cease to be a state once polygamy is legalized. Because, see, the state charter conditioned Utah’s statehood on banning polygamy forever. It’s written into the state constitution, and as far as I know is the only part of any constitution that cannot be amended–the amendment power of Utah’s constitution specifically forbids amending that section. If polygamy is legalized, then of necessity Utah ceases to be a state.

Vanceone on January 14, 2014 at 7:43 PM

You’re forgetting about EO-BO. He’s got a pen and a phone and can do something about all that.

Axeman on January 14, 2014 at 10:31 PM

Once again, no reply by the gays in this thread– why does the 14th amendment force us to perform same sex marriage while at the same time allow the federal government to imprison Mormons and take away their property and rights to vote, even for Mormons who were single and stayed that way?

Will any of you answer? Or are you too chicken?

Vanceone on January 14, 2014 at 10:27 PM

Because uh things changed and we uh got enough poll support and uh “justice”…

“Living Constitution”…

“Justice”

Thing is I ask them again…

declaration no. 142-H why can’t the GOP heavy states invoke a domestic version…?

If the answer is “Constitution” why is THAT part sacred and timeless immemorial?

The liberals want impunity to unilaterally have the power to speciously alter the contract.

harlekwin15 on January 14, 2014 at 10:33 PM

Once again, no reply by the gays in this thread– why does the 14th amendment force us to perform same sex marriage while at the same time allow the federal government to imprison Mormons and take away their property and rights to vote, even for Mormons who were single and stayed that way?

Will any of you answer? Or are you too chicken?

Vanceone on January 14, 2014 at 10:27 PM

Well, this gay can explain the answer.

The reason is that the vast majority of the gay and lesbian community are antireligious bigots and statists, who, like their hero Obama, believe that laws exist to punish those who they dislike and reward those who they like.

For example, the gay and lesbian community states that gays who do not vote for Obama should be stripped of their right to vote and kill themselves.

Indeed, the gay and lesbian community, which holds high status leadership positions in the Obama Party, states flatly that the children of Republicans should be killed and openly advocates bombing the Republican National Convention.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 10:35 PM

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

If your answer is “No,” then we’ve got a starting point where we can have a discussion. If your answer is “Yes,” then you’re an idiot and I’m not going to bother.

So which is it?

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 9:52 PM

The whole idea of “sexual orientation” is a hoot.

Given my history, I guess I’m “oriented” toward brunette ladies with slim waists, bright eyes and easy smiles. So what does that make me? Can I pick a word and make everyone else refer to me by it or they’re a bigot?

If I changed my orientation and decided to start dating voluptuous/chunky blondes instead, would that mean I was an idiot?

fadetogray on January 14, 2014 at 10:38 PM

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 10:22 PM

I’ll give you this, you tried your best. Your best just isn’t very good. It appears I overestimated you.

Boomerangs are neat, aren’t they?

You haven’t even said anything. I couldn’t be ignoring facts because you haven’t presented any, or said anything. Like I said before, you don’t seem to want to take a position on anything so that makes it difficult to discuss anything with you.

Low to moderate heritability?

Maybe 30-40% of the variation?

What an idiot.

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 10:22 PM

Your problem here is that you have no clue what you’re talking about. I don’t disagree with Sanders, and if you think he does contradict me then it’s because you’re not understanding what you’re reading. A person’s biology isn’t just their genetics. Remember when I brought up epimarks just before you called a timeout for the holidays? Those are different than genes. I can see you either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it. And that’s actually OK; it’s a fairly complex topic that a layman will probably struggle with. I’ll give you a do-over though.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 10:39 PM

Just Sayin on January 14, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Except that that’s not how children function or develop. A child’s identity is bound up with the two whose union brought him into being.

Your comment reminded me of Thomas More’s Utopia. He neatly allocated everyone’s role, responsibilities, and relationships and moved them like pawns to make his system workable, tidying up all the loose ends without consideration for reality. It has an artificial Stepford Wives flavor, because people just don’t work that way without being torn asunder.

INC on January 14, 2014 at 10:40 PM

By this logic pedophiles should be protected under the equal protection clause. What lifestyle choices are not protected by the clause?

Ellis on January 14, 2014 at 10:42 PM

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 10:28 PM

Call me when you pass a biology class.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 10:44 PM

rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 10:28 PM

My preceding comment in response to this post was flippant and I shouldn’t have done it. I apologize.

But I stand by the fact you’re out of your depth. There’s no shame in ignorance; we’re all born that way too. The thing is though you’ve not corrected this one specific hole in your knowledge and it’s lead you to misunderstand something.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 10:47 PM

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 10:44 PM

Your great “education” – has somehow made you a blithering idiot. Still.

22044 on January 14, 2014 at 10:48 PM

Your problem here is that you have no clue what you’re talking about. I don’t disagree with Sanders, and if you think he does contradict me then it’s because you’re not understanding what you’re reading. A person’s biology isn’t just their genetics. Remember when I brought up epimarks just before you called a timeout for the holidays? Those are different than genes. I can see you either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it. And that’s actually OK; it’s a fairly complex topic that a layman will probably struggle with. I’ll give you a do-over though.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 10:39 PM

Ah yes, now the goalposts move from the previous shrieking that sexual orientation was “genetic” to “biology”.

Which is also why alchemist19 is running away from this clear example.

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.”

You have to wonder why alchemist19 is so desperate to avoid science, biology, and basic facts.

Is it because bigotry is irrational, and alchemist19 is a bigot?

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 10:49 PM

fadetogray on January 14, 2014 at 10:38 PM

I’m not really in the business of calling people bigots unless they’re basically begging for it so I’m not the best person to ask.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 10:50 PM

By this logic pedophiles should be protected under the equal protection clause. What lifestyle choices are not protected by the clause?

Ellis on January 14, 2014 at 10:42 PM

Theoretically under Sodomy V Texas pedophiles preying on children below the age of consent which is 16 in some states(unless the XIVth gets an itchy trigger finger)is an “okay” moral no-no.

You know like gay marriage was an okay moral no-no for how long after Sodomy V Texas?

You want to know why people are leery?

NAMBLA is openly in democrat circles and Horrywood openly advocates for Roman Polanski to be mainstreamed…

I am having a hard time understanding what roadblocks or safeguards are there for any moral breakwaters other than a non-binding…

“nah man serious you guys *I* got this and *I* get to be the referee but things are safe man…”

with the LBGTAXYZPDQ community deciding it is now ethics and morality cop and the new referee, DESPITE there being no allowance for any space for state’s to determine the legality of THEIR woobie when it was their fight trying to get acceptance…

harlekwin15 on January 14, 2014 at 10:52 PM

My preceding comment in response to this post was flippant and I shouldn’t have done it. I apologize.

But I stand by the fact you’re out of your depth. There’s no shame in ignorance; we’re all born that way too. The thing is though you’ve not corrected this one specific hole in your knowledge and it’s lead you to misunderstand something.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 10:47 PM

So you’re not apologizing.

Not only are you a liar, you’re a malicious bigot too.

But that’s typical. Gay-sex marriage supporters like yourself are nothing more than violent and disgusting pigs. Your behavior shows how disrespectful, irrational and bigoted you truly are.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 10:55 PM

Call me when you pass a biology class.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 10:44 PM

What a filthy piece of sick and deluded trash alchemist19 is.

Alchemist19 knows nothing about rogerb’s background and maliciously slandered him.

Shows that gay-sex marriage supporters like alchemist19 are nothing more than bigots.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 10:56 PM

Notice how alchemist19 won’t answer any of the facts I bring up.

We know why.

Well I think it’s that it makes them uncomfortable both because it’s something that’s unfamiliar and that has been cast in a negative light for them, and because they don’t like the idea they were wrong about something so rather than really think about their beliefs and consider changing your mind it’s much easier and more comfortable to ignore facts that are contrary to your point.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 7:07 PM

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 10:59 PM

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 10:56 PM

He lives in a bubble. If he wants to stay there he can’t be forced out.

22044 on January 14, 2014 at 10:59 PM

He lives in a bubble. If he wants to stay there he can’t be forced out.

22044 on January 14, 2014 at 10:59 PM

Yup.

And alchemist19 needs to live there, because his hatred and bigotry towards Christians is not only proof of malice, but incompatible with life in a free society.

northdallasthirty on January 14, 2014 at 11:00 PM

Except that that’s not how children function or develop. A child’s identity is bound up with the two whose union brought him into being.

Your comment reminded me of Thomas More’s Utopia. He neatly allocated everyone’s role, responsibilities, and relationships and moved them like pawns to make his system workable, tidying up all the loose ends without consideration for reality. It has an artificial Stepford Wives flavor, because people just don’t work that way without being torn asunder.

INC on January 14, 2014 at 10:40 PM

I don’t disagree with you, INC.

As I said in my post, I don’t support redefining “marriage” to apply to these types of relationships. Nor do I think they are healthy for any of the participants, including any children that may result.

I was simply pointing out that based on some of the arguments I have read on HA, there must be a “rational basis” to prohibit state sanction of marriage, and I can find no obvious “rational basis” for prohibiting the union I described. Therefore, I would suggest that some of those who strongly support SSM but argue against polygamous relationships may need to rethink their opposition, based on their own stated criterion. (Not providing an optimal environment in which to rear children can’t be the “rational basis”…because, SSM. At least in my example there would in fact be two biological parents in the home.)

Just Sayin on January 14, 2014 at 11:14 PM

“Discriminate” is a good word. It means “to tell the difference”. I you don’t think it’s a good word, try your next drive without discriminating between the road and grass, your neighbor’s fence and that tree coming up. It’s all good.

We chose that word to implement “equality”. That the state could not discriminate solely on the account of race, ethnicity or creed. However, that didn’t give Mormons the right to marry more than one person, and it did not give Rastafarians the right to smoke ganga, simply because they were practices of their sect.

It’s not that ethnicities were “equal”, its that we would refuse to make up laws saying that the only qualification is that the person of their ethnicity. It doesn’t mean that races don’t have differences, it means that whatever differences they have, we ignore them.

I am 100% of the opinion that that was the appropriate thing to do. But the feminist applied the “equal protection” clause to their own cases. You can’t simply not tell the difference between sexes. There is just too much pragmatic sense in our society of defining men and women–if not practical to consider them fully partitioned–at least distinct categories.

I really kind of wonder what success I would have if I walked up to a doctor and insisted on my right, under equal protection to receive a hysterectomy. Would any clinic in the world allow me to insist on birth controls so I don’t get pregnant. Women can. Men should be able to do so too.

Only we tell the difference, and we would in a court of law, as well. (And reasonably so). As far as I know there is no case where we should deny a Hindi lady a medical procedure that we would give to a white woman, or a Bushman the treatment we would give to an American Jew.

So there’s a disconnect from one “equality” to another–but the equality peddlers don’t want you to notice that. Sexism–which can be defined as simply thinking there are significant differences between the way the sexes act, is the “same thing” as racism. All equality is equal.

Heretofore, what was ignored was the identifying traits of the “groups”. The skin, ethnic similarities and sex of the individual. But with “sexual orientation”, we start arguing that differences in behavior cannot be discriminated under law. We know that behaviors are in no sense equal, but the advocates of “equality” of sexual orientation act like racism is sexism is homophobia.

And, like a liberal, they argue that if you’re for one type of “equality” which makes evidence sense to you, you really aren’t for that equality, if you’re against the latest wrinkle in The New Equality. You need to just shut your mind off and follow the consensus.

This is why I argue that although it is not true in all cases, when somebody makes a progressive argument, that whatever the new equality is is just exactly like the old one, slippery slope arguments are not only invalid, they counter the implied reverse slippery slope–that your opponent is just adding annoying liberal message control, to indicate that it is invalid to be for one step and not for others.

Axeman on January 14, 2014 at 11:37 PM

I predict that within 5 years, 10 at the latest, there will be ministers in jail in the US for refusing to marry gays.

Here’s the legal argument getting around the 1st Amendment, and it’s easy. Two, Three Supreme Court decisions is all that is necessary.

As soon as the Supreme Court legalizes SSM countrywide (because they will), the cases will start. An abortive attempt was already filed against the LDS church. Here’s the reasoning: 1) Since SSM is legal, all state actors must offer it. Anyone authorized by a state to marry people must marry all eligible citizens. That includes ministers. And since you can’t offer a state service on an unequal basis, anyone licensed to marry people must offer the complete package, including religious services. After all, if you go to a landfill, they can’t send Jews to only part of the landfill. Everyone the same, right? So either religions marry gays in the full ceremony, or they must no longer be authorized by the state to marry anyone.

Pretty simple. All based on state agents must be the same.

Next, and probably applied against the LDS church first, this country has long held that the 1st amendment does not allow religions to break the law. In particular, and especially in the case of marriages, Reynolds v US stands for the proposition that religions cannot have a differing arrangement of marriage than the rest of society. Lawrence v. Texas and the case last year establish that tradition, history, and religious beliefs are not “rational” reasons to discriminate against gays. In fact, they are prima facie evidence of “animus” towards gays.

So religions cannot hide behind the First Amendment to protect marriages that are biased against the general cultural view (pro SSM now), especially since they are causing animus towards gays. Just like in the Civil Rights Era, it is now the Federal Government’s responsibility to stamp out this animus that is not constitutionally protected, by force if necessary. The Mormon persecutions provide ample historical basis.

Therefore, the court will order some LDS (or Catholic) minister to perform a SSM, and if they refuse they will be in contempt of court and can be jailed.

Once this happens, then the entire panoply of Federal force, as demonstrated by the Edmund-Tucker act and so forth, will spring into action to “eradicate this violation of civil rights.” And the Feds are far more powerful now than in the 1880′s or so.

This reasoning, available to any gay leftist judge, is completely plausible. There’s no protection in the 1st Amendment, folks. Just ask the Boy Scouts about their rights to assemble and associate.

Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 12:01 AM

You are exactly right, Vanceone.

And that is really what the bigots like alchemist19, ZachV, JetBoy, Panther, and the like want.

Gay-sex marriage is about nothing more than antireligious bigotry from leftists.

northdallasthirty on January 15, 2014 at 12:41 AM

Oklahoma’s ban onnon-recognition of gay marriage is unconstitutional

FIFY

“Gay marriage” is not banned in ANY state. Show me people getting arrrested for having a gay wedding or saying “yeah, we’re married”.

“Gay marriage” is NOT illegal in ANY state.

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 15, 2014 at 7:41 AM

This poor sick Republic is spiraling to the sewer at warp speed.

rplat on January 15, 2014 at 8:09 AM

You are exactly right, Vanceone.

And that is really what the bigots like alchemist19, ZachV, JetBoy, Panther, and the like want.

Gay-sex marriage is about nothing more than antireligious bigotry from leftists. – northdallasthirty on January 15, 2014 at 12:41 AM

And, yet ND30 you are gay in a committed relationship. And, I am gay but never had a gay relationship. I do think that you take your hyperbole too far at times.

SC.Charlie on January 15, 2014 at 8:10 AM

This is a states rights issue and the state of Oklahoma passed a law, A LAW, banning not recognizing gay marriage as legally bonding

Don’t fall into their trap. “Gay marriage” hasn’t been banned anywhere.

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 15, 2014 at 8:33 AM

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

No, not Methodists. Although they are certainly chomping at the bit to be the next church to ignore scripture.

Nutstuyu on January 15, 2014 at 8:57 AM

Don’t fall into their trap. “Gay marriage” hasn’t been banned anywhere.

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 15, 2014 at 8:33 AM

That’s right. Can’t ban something that doesn’t exist in the first place.

Nutstuyu on January 15, 2014 at 8:58 AM

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – English Standard Version (ESV)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[b] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

– John Adams, 2nd President of the United States of America

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.

– Psalm 14:1

This is not a Ciil Rights Issue. This is an issue of Sexual Preference and Selfish Immorality.

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 9:04 AM

Sodomy is fabulous. Just ask liberals.

BuckeyeSam on January 15, 2014 at 9:13 AM

Is it your position that sexual orientation is a choice?

alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 9:00 PM

What’s your position on intelligence and genetics? Cause if sexual orientation and intelligence are genetic then how long before someone starts talking about a second look at eugenics? Is this a door you want to open?

DFCtomm on January 15, 2014 at 9:24 AM

I wonder, what if the governor of Oklahoma just said screw it, this Federal “judge” has no jurisdiction on this issue anyway. Would the judge actually attempt to send U.S. marshals? Would Holder or Obama really try to send in troops to enforce it? This was a constitutional amendment duly passed by the people of a sovereign state!

Nutstuyu on January 15, 2014 at 9:39 AM

This is a states rights issue and the state of Oklahoma passed a law, A LAW,

Not just a law: a constitutional amendment. Supersedes any law.

Nutstuyu on January 15, 2014 at 9:40 AM

If it’s so clear, why wasn’t it clear within the first generation after the 14th Amendment was passed?

14th Amendment passed, 1864
Plessy v. Ferguson decision, 1896
Brown v. Board overturns Plessy in 1954.

Because sometimes it takes society a while to catch up.

I’m not here to wade into the insanity of the “sexuality is inborn or not” debate or the “how many gays are there” debates. There are fewer Jews than gay identified people, yet they’ve reached the threshold for protection against discrimination in this country. And being Christian is a choice, yet it is unlawful to discriminate upon the basis of religious faith. So the question of whether people “choose” to be gay or not is immaterial to this discussion.

That said, the question of who is a citizen that deserved protection under the law has changed dramatically over time. We went from white propertied men, to universal male suffrage, to bit by bit allowing Irish, Italians, Catholics, Jews, Chinese, Mormons, South Asians, black people etc. etc. into the category of citizen. Despite the passage of the 14th Amendment, it didn’t all happen over night. Society changes. And its changing in this way now. I know you can see the writing on the wall. Why are you fighting it?

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 9:41 AM

This was a constitutional amendment duly passed by the people of a sovereign state!

Nutstuyu on January 15, 2014 at 9:39 AM

A sovereign state that has chosen to be part of a union. That choice comes with rules.

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 9:42 AM

“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.

Ok.

So the state cannot deny anyone a “marriage” license. Polygamists. Friends wanting for form a partnership around an estate for tax and entitlement benefits.
Siblings who want to form a partnership (not necessarily sexual).
But you also cannot deny mating siblings right? That’s a moral judgement. And if you’re going to claim they *might* produce genetically damaged children – well that’s a very long shot and I thought marriage wasn’t about procreation anyway?

As a resident of Utah the hypocrisy of the “equality” argument is plain to see: we have a powerless and hated minority whose relationships are actually criminalized (despite Loving) yet the gay marriage advocacy groups here never ever include them in their fight for “equality”. What a farce.

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 9:42 AM

A sovereign state that has chosen to be part of a union. That choice comes with rules.

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 9:42 AM

And do you remember what “rules” Utah had to agree to? Hmm…

Nutstuyu on January 15, 2014 at 9:46 AM

FIFY

“Gay marriage” is not banned in ANY state. Show me people getting arrrested for having a gay wedding or saying “yeah, we’re married”.

“Gay marriage” is NOT illegal in ANY state.

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 15, 2014 at 7:41 AM

+1

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 9:47 AM

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 9:42 AM

Then why do the states even have their own constitutions? Why not just have one line that says: “Whatever the Feds say.”

Nutstuyu on January 15, 2014 at 9:47 AM

A sovereign state that has chosen to be part of a union. That choice comes with rules.

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 9:42 AM

And do you remember what “rules” Utah had to agree to? Hmm…

Nutstuyu on January 15, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Ha ha ha.

It’s a good thing that the “marriage equality” movement it Utah could care less about polygamists.

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 9:49 AM

That said, the question of who is a citizen that deserved protection under the law has changed dramatically over time. We went from white propertied men, to universal male suffrage, to bit by bit allowing Irish, Italians, Catholics, Jews, Chinese, Mormons, South Asians, black people etc. etc. into the category of citizen. Despite the passage of the 14th Amendment, it didn’t all happen over night. Society changes. And its changing in this way now. I know you can see the writing on the wall. Why are you fighting it?

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 9:41 AM

The truth is that when the 14th amendment was written it didn’t mean what progressives have chosen to decide it means via penumbras and emanations.

The 14th amendment didn’t grant blacks the right to vote (15th amendment) or women the right to vote (19th amendment).
Yes society changes over time but it’s a disservice to our republic to twist the meaning and words of the constitution in order to use the force of the federal government to make your fellow citizens sign on to something.
If gay marriage is so inevitable in the court of public opinion then why use the hammer of the federal judiciary? Because the gay mafia wants power and they want to use the government to punish their “enemies”.
And you wonder why people fight it…

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 9:53 AM

I want social security and medicaid now. I want equality before the law.
I want the same tax rate as some of my fellow citizens. I want equality before the law.

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 9:57 AM

It’s a good thing that the “marriage equality” movement it Utah could care less about polygamists.

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 9:49 AM

You’ve reached a new low here. Why on earth should same-sex marriage advocates be forced to taint their movement by forming coalition with polygamists. Have polygamists who have lived in Utah far before there was a marriage equality movement there, ever made a move to join with the cause of marriage equality? Why on earth is it the burden of gay rights to form coalition with polygamists? Why do they have that obligation? When Jewish people fought against religious discrimination, where they obligated to join coalition with others? Where black people obligated to join coalition with Mexican rights advocates? Is the test of a movement’s legitimacy that it forms alliance with other groups that may or may not share other key values?

The standard you have created is intellectually dishonest and unrelated to the Constitutional issues before the Court. I mean, you can continue to twist in the wind all day about polygamy, or about whether sexuality is in-born or about how many gays there really are. I mean, have fun. This is how you distract yourself from engaging the actual issues and engaging the very real fact that the debate on same-sex marriage, at least in terms of the law, is about to come to and end. The Supremes will have taken care of this before the 2016 primary begins.

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Then why do the states even have their own constitutions? Why not just have one line that says: “Whatever the Feds say.”

Nutstuyu on January 15, 2014 at 9:47 AM

Because it is very possible for state’s to have unique amendments to their Constitution that do not violate the federal Constitution.

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 9:59 AM

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Why is your sexual diviation different from a polygamist’s sexual deviation?

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7