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 3 4 5 6 7

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

Good to see you admitting that the gay “equal rights” movement isn’t about equal rights.
Polygamists meet all the typical criteria for a progressive love fest and outrage at their treatment – powerless and hated minority those relationships are criminalized and you get upset at the hypocrisy of the progressive “equality” movement not caring at all.

And the debate isn’t about to come to an end – the gay mafia is turning to the judiciary to change society with a hammer. Just like Roe v Wade. And the gay mafia won’t let it stop either – “anti discrimination” laws and “human rights” bs laws will continue to be used and intensified in the wake of state licensed gay relationships. It’s telling you don’t even bother to counter this. State gay marriage advocates never do because everyone knows that this is only the beginning.

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 10:03 AM

The 14th amendment didn’t grant blacks the right to vote

I didn’t say it did. My post was about the gradual integration of groups into the category of “citizen.” The 14th Amendment is a key benchmark in that historical trajectory.

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.

This is the exact argument the majority of whites made as legal segregation was dismantled in the north and south. This was the exact argument former confederates used when they failed to resist the 13-15th Amendments in their state Constitutions. At a certain point, the will of the people needs to be balanced against the Constitutional rights of the few. You don’t “like” gay marriage. Fine, you can continue to not like it. I don’t like it all that much. But that’s not really the question. The question is what should the law allow. And you don’t have to go to any gay weddings you are invited to. You don’t have to have a gay marriage and you don’t have to say nice things to any gay person you meet. Its not that hard on you, really.

If gay marriage is so inevitable in the court of public opinion then why use the hammer of the federal judiciary?

The “hammer” of the federal judiciary is *evidence* of the shift in public opinion. Are you going to pretend that the Court isn’t influenced by shifts in culture and politics the way the rest of us are?

Because the gay mafia wants power and they want to use the government to punish their “enemies”.

Not this gay mafia shtick. Meanwhile, Phil Robertson has a job and conservatives still burn Dixie Chicks CDs. You only approve of cultural pressure being placed on institutions when its from the right. Your hypocrisy is duly noted.

And you wonder why people fight it…

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 9:53 AM

I don’t actually. I just find it amusing.

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 10:05 AM

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Answer my question, please: Why is your sexual deviation different from that of a polygamist?

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 10:07 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.

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 9:58 AM

What a bigot you are. You abandon all your supposed progressive principles when encountered with a class of people you don’t like.

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 10:07 AM

Doesn’t claiming it’s an equal protection violation open up the idea that all state laws violate the equal protection clause?

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 15, 2014 at 10:13 AM

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

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM

That’s a question for *you* to answer. I’m not particularly interested in “sexual deviation” as a problem in our society. Did you want to ask me something more relevant to issues of Equal Protection before the law?

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 10:13 AM

75 percent of Oklahoma voters approved a ban on same-sex marriage. 75 percent.

But Judge Terrence Kern, appointed to the bench by former President Bill Clinton – ignored the will of the people – ruling that Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

Oklahoma’s attorney general called it a troubling decision – said it’s up to the states to decide how to define marriage – not the federal government.

But activist judges are overturning the will of the people – it happened in Utah and California and there are lawsuits pending in 16 other states.

The people have spoken – but activist judges are saying – to hell with the people.

- Todd Starnes, Fox News

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 10:14 AM

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Some states actually fought to live by the actual words and meaning of constitutional amendments. Amendments that are hard to pass and show a real shift in public reasoning. But gay marriage is not covered by the constitution.

And I do think that the state has a role in protecting fundamental rights from being infringed upon by fellow citizens but there aren’t ANY fundamental rights as stake in state recognition of gay marriage. No one can name a fundamental right at stake except for some very specialized and hypocritical reading of “equal protection”.

And I’m not a hypocrite for evoking the gay mafia. I don’t burn Dixie Chicks CDs and think the “I’m offended, someone should be fired” culture we have is stupid on both sides. But the gay mafia doesn’t just use speech to protest: they sue people and even if they don’t win the process is enough punishment, they blacklist people and push for industries to blacklist people. They are fascists.

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 10:16 AM

And I do think that the state has a role in protecting fundamental rights from being infringed upon by fellow citizens but there aren’t ANY fundamental rights as stake in state recognition of gay marriage. No one can name a fundamental right at stake except for some very specialized and hypocritical reading of “equal protection”.

What fundamental right was at stake in Loving v. Virginia?

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 10:18 AM

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 10:13 AM

I asked you, perfesser.

As my Collegiate Socialogy book stated in 1979, back before twits like yourself took over our Universities, it’s not any different.

Your desire for coupling with a male is a sexual deviation, preferred by around 3% of America’s population. Nothing more. Nothing less.

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 10:18 AM

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM

.
I’m not particularly interested in “sexual deviation” as a problem in our society.

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 10:13 AM

.
Except pedophilia, right ?

listens2glenn on January 15, 2014 at 10:19 AM

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 10:18 AM

That involved interracial marriage. Not aa sexual preference.

Prove genetically that your carnal desire for another man was with you from birth.

I’ll wait.

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 10:20 AM

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Christianity is a choice (free will is at the cornerstone of the theology). Yet it would be illegal to discriminate against a “mixed” religious marriage. I don’t have to prove sexuality is or is not a choice to argue that whatever “fundamental right” the Court found in Loving v. Virginia also applies to same-sex couples.

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 10:24 AM

I can’t wait for the backlash.

Akzed on January 15, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Libfree has an opportunity to answer this question. None of the other gay rights people have tried.

The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. Shortly thereafter, on a question of marriage, the Federal government–Utah was a territory, so governed directly by the feds– started jailing Mormons, confiscating property, dissolving churches, stripped all women in Utah of their rights to vote (because they actually DID have the right to vote), and in Idaho the Supreme Court upheld a law stripping all Mormons of the right to vote, just on the basis of their beliefs. Utah was forced to forswear polygamy forever as a condition of joining the Union.

All of this while the 14th amendment was in effect. It did not provide one whit of protection to the Mormons.

Now, the gays claim that the 14th Amendment mandates that the government perform SSM and that everyone else just shut up.

How can the 14th amendment justify jailing Mormons and removing their fundamental right to vote, all because of their belief in polygamy, yet at the same time it forces society to perform weddings between 2 men? Which was in fact a hanging offense at the time the 14th Amendment was passed?

And don’t give me that BS about society “evolving.” If you want it evolved to justify gay marriage, pass a constitutional amendment.

Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 10:27 AM

It’s not an equal protection issue because gays have the exact same marriage rights under the law as everyone else.

tommyboy on January 15, 2014 at 10:28 AM

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 10:24 AM

In other words, you cannot prove that your sexual preference is brought about in any genetic fashion. It could be a condition brought about by scoialization or psychological trauma in your fa=ormative years. And, yet, you demand that judges overturn the will of American citizens and grant your coupling with another male the conveyance of ‘normalcy” through the use of the word “marriage”.

And, chihuahuas want to be called German Shepherds.

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 10:30 AM

How can the 14th amendment justify jailing Mormons and removing their fundamental right to vote, all because of their belief in polygamy, yet at the same time it forces society to perform weddings between 2 men? Which was in fact a hanging offense at the time the 14th Amendment was passed?

And therein lies the problem with your argument. The 14th Amendment did not justify those behaviors. Clearly, the federal government acted in violation of the 14th Amendment when it terrorized Mormon families. Guess what, sometimes the state violates the Constitution.

*WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE A JUDICIARY*

Now clearly. Mormons were unable to muster the resources, or persuade any court of law at the time that their rights were being violated. That has everything to do with popular sentiment towards polygamy at the time. The 14th Amendment was also in effect when southern states established Jim Crow laws, even though those laws openly violated the 14th Amendment.

You seem to be arguing that because our nation has failed to live up to the standards enshrined in the Constitution in the past, that it doesn’t have to now.

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 10:33 AM

In other words, you cannot prove that your sexual preference is brought about in any genetic fashion.

I can not.

It could be a condition brought about by scoialization or psychological trauma in your fa=ormative years.

Well now the burden of proof is on you. If you can demonstrate evidence that the majority of gay identity is produced by socialization or psychological trauma then do so. Otherwise, you’re just speculating.

And, yet, you demand that judges overturn the will of American citizens and grant your coupling with another male the conveyance of ‘normalcy” through the use of the word “marriage”.

Some Christians claim the right to marry Muslims even though there’s no compelling reason for society to allow two people who believe in invisible deities to do so. Different strokes.

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 10:40 AM

So what lib free is saying is that “Sucks to be Mormon, then. Too bad!”

Your argument explicitly states that the protections of the 14th amendment depend on popular sentiment.

Which is why we fight this tsunami of Gay rights legislation. Because as a Mormon, I know EXACTLY how much protection and regard the Federal government will give my rights as a member of a church on the “wrong” side of marriage debate. I have no desire to lose my right to vote because I hold that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Yet that is exactly what happened to my ancestors when they found themselves on the “wrong” side of the debate.

Surely that won’t happen again! Right? Right? Well, I mean GLAAD and the other gay mafia groups have explicitly shown that they wish to punish any “dissent” from their views. And since they are running the country now, in a few years I am 100% convinced they are going to start punishing the “wrong” religions.

The rhetoric coming out of the gays towards the LDS church and Christianity in general is exactly the same kind of rhetoric directed at the Mormons in the 1800s. I want to stop this train BEFORE it gets to the “Shipping Mormons and Christians to reeducation camp” stage, like GLAAD and co. want to do.

Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 10:41 AM

What fundamental right was at stake in Loving v. Virginia?

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 10:18 AM

In some sense there wasn’t a fundamental “right” at stake because rights don’t flow from the government. The government can either interfere with citizens exercising their rights, prevent one citizen from violating the rights of another (or forcing them to compensate a citizen whose rights they violated), or let one citizen violate the rights of another.

So, if the state actively prevented interracial marriages that would be a violation of rights. But a marriage license is not really something you have a “right” to. All the things associated with marriage recognition by the state – tax and estate laws etc – are often employed unequally to citizens. The DOMA case decided last year was about estate taxes.

Now, I’m glad that our society has made a lot of progress in it’s acceptance of interracial marriages (though it looks like you lefties have a lot of self policing to do on that front: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/368491/fox-news-reporter-responds-bigoted-slurs-about-his-interracial-marriage-andrew-johnson). But I don’t think there is an absolute demand in the constitution to allow interracial marriage. The constitution wasn’t meant to settle all issues for all time. It only handled a specific set of things and was intended to be amended.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” – has a fair amount of room for interpretation but as vanceone above has highlighted (and others) the interpretation of “equal protection” has a very spotty and inconsistent legal history. A fair reading of the 14th amendment is that it’s requiring the states to use the same rules for every citizen when deciding when to deprive them of life, liberty or property. A marriage license doesn’t fall into this category.

But if you want to say that “equal protection” covers a marriage license then fine – it also covers the tax code and the entitlement state and both of those are built on treating citizens unequally.

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 10:42 AM

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 10:40 AM

I don’t get diseases from being a Christian.

Just salvation from a loving God.

This country was founded by Christians. That’s tough for you to deal with, isn’t it?

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 10:44 AM

What fundamental right was at stake in Loving v. Virginia?
libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 10:18 AM

From an equal protection standpoint Loving was completely distinguishable from the gay marriage argument.

tommyboy on January 15, 2014 at 10:55 AM

You seem to be arguing that because our nation has failed to live up to the standards enshrined in the Constitution in the past, that it doesn’t have to now.

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 10:33 AM

No. But the left’s practice of reading “standards” into the constitution that aren’t there is part of the problem.

If the 14th amendment really was written the way progressive prefer to read it then the 15th and 19th amendments would never have been necessary (and never would have been created because the 14th would have been sufficient).

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 10:55 AM

There is no such thing as a right to get married. All rights are individual, and it takes TWO consenting adults to marry. If you cannot find a consenting adult to marry you, it sucks to be you.

For all intents and purposes, a state doesn’t have to recognize any marriages. It does, however, have to recognize contracts.

Oklahoma never needed a constitutuional amendment to prevent gay marriage. It was written into the Oklahoma Constitution when it was first drafted and accepted back in 1909. Section I-2, (the second paragraph of the Oklahoma Constitution, by the way) states the following:

SECTION I-2
Religious liberty – Polygamous or plural marriages.
Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of the State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; and no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. Polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.

Take note of the part I highlighted in bold. Plural means more than one of a kind. If you have more than one of each sex in a marriage, it’s a plural marriage.

All we need to do is get the Oklahoma Legislature to read the Oklahoma Constitution once in a while.

Woody

woodcdi on January 15, 2014 at 11:01 AM

No. But the left’s practice of reading “standards” into the constitution that aren’t there is part of the problem.

For example the entirely made up constitutional doctrine of “substantive due process” which was imposed on the 14th despite and in opposition to the clear language of the amendment.

tommyboy on January 15, 2014 at 11:05 AM

From an equal protection standpoint Loving was completely distinguishable from the gay marriage argument.

tommyboy on January 15, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Why?

I don’t get diseases from being a Christian.

Not having a disease is a condition of marriage now? You people really *are* trying to find a way to reinscribe exclusion based upon pre-existing conditions aren’t you?

Just salvation from a loving God.

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 10:44 AM

That’s awesome, and not relevant to marriage law.

This country was founded by Christians. That’s tough for you to deal with, isn’t it?

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Not really. I am quite sure they did not intend for it to be a theocracy despite their religious beliefs.

So, if the state actively prevented interracial marriages that would be a violation of rights. But a marriage license is not really something you have a “right” to.

Huh?

Now, I’m glad that our society has made a lot of progress in it’s acceptance of interracial marriages (though it looks like you lefties have a lot of self policing to do on that front: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/368491/fox-news-reporter-responds-bigoted-slurs-about-his-interracial-marriage-andrew-johnson). But I don’t think there is an absolute demand in the constitution to allow interracial marriage.

Then you concede its a popularity contest and all of this wailing and gnashing from the right is sour grapes about shifts in public opinion. We agree!

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 11:17 AM

So what lib free is saying is that “Sucks to be Mormon, then. Too bad!”

Pretty sure I didn’t say that.

Your argument explicitly states that the protections of the 14th amendment depend on popular sentiment.

Welcome to American history since the Civil War. You may want to take a gander at the history of black civil rights *After* the passage of teh 14th Amendment.

Which is why we fight this tsunami of Gay rights legislation. Because as a Mormon, I know EXACTLY how much protection and regard the Federal government will give my rights as a member of a church on the “wrong” side of marriage debate. I have no desire to lose my right to vote because I hold that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Yet that is exactly what happened to my ancestors when they found themselves on the “wrong” side of the debate.

I don’t really buy into slippery slope arguments. They tend to be made by people who have no real grievance, but are trying to find a way to rationalize what they *feel* is happening, versus what is happening before them.

Surely that won’t happen again! Right? Right? Well, I mean GLAAD and the other gay mafia groups have explicitly shown that they wish to punish any “dissent” from their views. And since they are running the country now, in a few years I am 100% convinced they are going to start punishing the “wrong” religions.

The rhetoric coming out of the gays towards the LDS church and Christianity in general is exactly the same kind of rhetoric directed at the Mormons in the 1800s. I want to stop this train BEFORE it gets to the “Shipping Mormons and Christians to reeducation camp” stage, like GLAAD and co. want to do.

Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 10:41 AM

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 11:22 AM

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 11:17 AM

You admitted that you cannot prove that homosexualy has genetic origins, therefore, you cannot, and never could, use Loving as a basis for your argument.

And, you just admitting that the promiscujity of homosexuality leads to disease.

Additionally,the majority of homosexual relationships over last 2 years or less.

Tell us once again, why your cause should be given the use of the term “marriage”, which means, since Biblical Times, one man and one woman?

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 11:22 AM

You admitted that you cannot prove that homosexualy has genetic origins, therefore, you cannot, and never could, use Loving as a basis for your argument.

Have you read the Loving decision?

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Here’s the next question: Gays and their supporters maintain that SSM is required by the 14th Amendment, but that Polygamy is not.

The only reason polygamy is not is because of the 1800′s era Mormon cases–Reynolds and so forth. Presumably, Gays hold they are good law.

So: Since Reynolds and company pretty much held that the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments did not protect the practice of unusual marriages; and in fact you can lose your property, your right to vote, and your freedom by being jailed for either participating in or even believing that unusual marriages should be legal–isn’t all of that good law? Still? Or is Reynolds and its progeny–which says that religions cannot break the law–still good law? Presumably, and especially, the gay lobby would strenuously insist that religions have to obey the law.

If it is good law still, then why do gays get special rights? Why are Mormons legally jailed and get no protections from the Constitution but that same Constitution grants all of those rights to gays? When did Gays become so special, and above the rest of us? After all, until 1976 it was legal to murder Mormons in Missouri.

And Congress repealed the Edmund-Tucker act; it has never been declared unconstitutional to dissolve churches that push polygamy or to jail practitioners. Congress could reenact it today, right? So why do Gays get special privileges, while it’s still legal, if Congress wanted to, to jail Mormons? Besides, I guarantee you that the gays would strive very hard to support a new Edmund-Tucker act basically criminalizing being Mormon. We are, after all, one of their boogeymen.

Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 11:24 AM

And, you just admitting that the promiscujity of homosexuality leads to disease.

No you simpleton, I “admitted” that being Christian doesn’t give you a disese, because duh. And asked whether having a disease (whatever the cause) should be a barrier to marriage. That’s going to screw up a few folks….

Additionally,the majority of homosexual relationships over last 2 years or less.

No evidence for this claim, but also, its not relevant.

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 11:26 AM

So, if the state actively prevented interracial marriages that would be a violation of rights. But a marriage license is not really something you have a “right” to.

Huh?

Yup, that’s right. No one has a right to get married. All rights are rights of the individual. To get married, you need a consenting adult to join you in marriage.

Woody

woodcdi on January 15, 2014 at 11:27 AM

From an equal protection standpoint Loving was completely distinguishable from the gay marriage argument.

tommyboy on January 15, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Why?
libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Because in Loving one class of people were denied marriage rights enjoyed by another – Whites could marry whites but blacks couldn’t marry whites. With gay marriage laws the laws appy to everyone equally – everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex and nobody can marry a member of the same sex. There is no equal protection argument as there was in Loving. Gays have the exact same marriage rights as normal people.

tommyboy on January 15, 2014 at 11:28 AM

May God help me for jumping back into this thread, but having read through the comments that came in overnight…and while I was here…I gotta ask just one question to those against gay marriage:

What is the one most important and relevant reason, as you see it, to be against SSM?

I realize it’s not always about just one reason to be for or against something, but just for the sake of this discussion, try to pick one reason that trumps all the others.

JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 11:29 AM

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?

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 9:42 AM

And that’s a problem with the new moral calculus that judges have adopted. I read that in Massachusetts, a male gay couple–where neither participant is actually capable of having a child–if that couple “has” a baby, the non-biological “parent” does not need to adopt. It’s part of making marriage types “equal”.

However, in seeing that we don’t snuff marriages that don’t produce children (like an NBA defender), marriage is not about child-bearing. So it’s odd that equality of attribution for parentage is required on the basis that two people can enter a contract that has “nothing” to do with the actual contract itself.

In addition, paralleling the novel (and stupid argument) in the Utah case, we can imagine a government where not only are you assigned a mate by the state, but are assigned a certain number of mates. But that’s not the way we extol the virtues of marriage or unmarriage. Thus the “right to marry” is no more that marrying the people that you want to marry, since we also do not ban divorce and re-marriage. And thus it is not about limiting the people that you are allowed to marry, and why wouldn’t a right come in the form that you most desire?

Thus we have instituted a very liberal form of law: The musings of the holder of an authoritarian, aristocratic office which happens to convince themselves at the time of the decision, that a thought experiment is the appropriate way to deny the right of self-government.

Axeman on January 15, 2014 at 11:30 AM

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 11:26 AM

So, how did HIV/AIDS spread so quickly thoughout the “gay community” in San Francisco and other cities in America?

Sharing breath mints?

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 11:31 AM

So, how did HIV/AIDS spread so quickly thoughout the “gay community” in San Francisco and other cities in America?

Because of the large number of sexual partners the average gay man had before the disease was introduced to the population. I’m sorry….how is this relevant to the question of gay marriage? If this is just about you airing your disgust for homosexuality, your feelings that thoe who die of AIDS “deserve” it and your sense of moral superiority about your own sex life that’s fine. But all of that is stuff unrelated to gay rights.

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 11:32 AM

What is the one most important and relevant reason, as you see it, to be against SSM?JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Genesis 2:21-25 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

1 Corinthians 7:2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

Hebrews 13:4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

You asked.

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 11:35 AM

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 11:32 AM

You’re the one who would not admit to the fact of homosexual promiscuity leading to disease.

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 11:36 AM

The next logical step in the corruption of marriage: Same sex siblings should be allowed to get married.

There is no compelling reason to deny it. No logical reason at all given the existing ‘reasoning’ of the Courts. There can only be animus.

The only way to stop this train wreck is to get government out of marriage altogether.

It should be illegal for government to discriminate in any way on the basis of marital status. Not in tax law. Not in inheritance. Nothing.

Single people should get equal treatment under the law

Marriage is sacred. Get government’s lecherous paws off of it.

fadetogray on January 15, 2014 at 11:42 AM

2 questions:

On what basis should the state recognize and confer benefits upon any relationship or contract?

If 2 “consenting adults,” regardless of sex, (and despite the age old understood definition of the term), have the “right” to enter into “marriage”, a contract with a demonstrable positive effect on society, on what basis is the government allowed to not recognize and to deny benefits to ANY contract between two (or more) consenting adults?

questionmark on January 15, 2014 at 11:44 AM

You asked.

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 11:35 AM

That I did, kj.

Thanks for the honest response. The thing is, and Bill O’Reilly put it best, if your main basis for being against SSM is the bible, you will not win. Not on the secular, constitutional level.

JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Because in Loving one class of people were denied marriage rights enjoyed by another – Whites could marry whites but blacks couldn’t marry whites

LOL! You’re an idiot. It was just as illegal for whites to marry non-whites as it was for non-whites to marry whites. In other words. Everyone had the same rights or lack of rights under miscegination laws. Could you all try a bit harder?

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 11:49 AM

May God help me for jumping back into this thread, but having read through the comments that came in overnight…and while I was here…I gotta ask just one question to those against gay marriage:

What is the one most important and relevant reason, as you see it, to be against SSM?

I realize it’s not always about just one reason to be for or against something, but just for the sake of this discussion, try to pick one reason that trumps all the others. – JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Jetboy, you are wasting your time discussing this issue time and again with the same people. The only post other than this one was to a post made to our gay friend ND30, who allies himself with all antigay posters on HotAir.

SC.Charlie on January 15, 2014 at 11:51 AM

What is the one most important and relevant reason, as you see it, to be against SSM?

It increases the discrimination against single people and thereby adds more support for maintaining and increasing that discrimination.

fadetogray on January 15, 2014 at 11:58 AM

JetBoy: Because currently gay rights and religious freedom are incompatible, by choice of the gay rights lobby. They have shown no inclination, in fact the very opposite, that tolerance is anything other than “Submit to our will in everything.”

Gays are all too eager to persecute those who disagree with them. They try to get them fired, force them to compromise their faith (see, e.g. business owners who are forced out of business); they push to make even criticizing gays and their lifestyle violations of “anti discrimination laws” that never apply to them.

I’m Mormon. I know what it is like living under an oppressive governmental regime hostile to my faith’s definition of marriage. Gays are achieving complete control of the governmental policy, and they are hostile to my faith’s definition of marriage. GLAAD and company are more than eager to start jailing, confiscating property, etc. They openly admit that they believe the 1st amendment does not protect against gay rights.

And the “regular” gay people do nothing to stop it. They do nothing to stop the gay activists. You yourself have been guilty on numerous occasions of siding with gay violence against Christians. The “Cross of Taunt.”

Gay groups fight against any attempt to exempt churches from being forced to perform gay ceremonies. Why shouldn’t we take them at their word? Why should we just stand idly by while gays achieve all the political power to punish the rest of us? When should we stand up and say, “NO!” ?

Already in California and Massachuessetts, the state school system forces children to treat gays as preferred lifestyles. They are taken to SSM ceremonies without parent permission. Speaking up for traditional marriage is hate speech. If you don’t approve of one guy shoving his penis into another guys anus, you are a bigot with nothing worthwhile to say and therefore should be silenced.

Canada, England–both have jailed religious preachers just from reading from the Bible. Homosexual behavior is a sin. That will never change. But gays hate that, and are trying to force the rest of us to call it a good thing.

Can you, JetBoy, categorically guarantee that GLAAD and the rest of the gay grievance gang will be happy with governmental recognition of SSM? That they will never go farther? Just remember, the gay lobby swore up and down that civil unions were all they would ever demand.

Clearly they lied. Why should we trust them? Why shouldn’t we trust they will do as they say, which is to drive Christian religion out of the public square and, if possible, force them to marry SSM in violation of their tenets?

Whose rights are more important, JetBoy? My rights as a Mormon (or Catholic, or Baptist…) to not be thrown in jail for believing that homosexual behavior is a sin? Or the rights of two men to indulge their deviancy and the rest of us must be forced to approve? The gay lobby is making us choose. I’d rather make my choice now, when it is still possible. Instead of ten years from now when the gays have succeeded in seizing all power.

Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 12:00 PM

JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 11:48 AM

O’Rielly is a bloviator, not a Supreme Court Justice.

There’s only One Opinion on this issue that matters to me.

And…75% of the citizens in Oklahoma agree with me.

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 12:02 PM

LOL! You’re an idiot. It was just as illegal for whites to marry non-whites as it was for non-whites to marry whites. In other words. Everyone had the same rights or lack of rights under miscegination laws. Could you all try a bit harder?

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 11:49 AM

No, you just make my point. My example just show one side of the equation for bevity. Each side is a denial of equal protection. Whites could not marry blacks but blacks could – denial of equal protection. Blacks could not marry whites but whites could – denial of equal protection. Each instance one group enjoyed rights the other was denied. No suce situation with laws against gay marriage. Each side has the exact same rights – neither side is denied a marriage right the other enjoys. You don’t understand equal protection jurisprudence. This point has been raised in many briefs and decisions on this issue.

tommyboy on January 15, 2014 at 12:04 PM

So, if the state actively prevented interracial marriages that would be a violation of rights. But a marriage license is not really something you have a “right” to.

Huh?

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Marriage is outside the state. The state may choose to recognize some marriages and not others. DethMetal makes this point often and he’s absolutely correct: gays can get married in every state in the union. Getting government recognition and benefits for that relationship are a completely different matter.
You have a fundamental right to marry whomever you wish. You don’t have a right to government recognition and benefits.

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Jetboy, you are wasting your time discussing this issue time and again with the same people. The only post other than this one was to a post made to our gay friend ND30, who allies himself with all antigay posters on HotAir.

SC.Charlie on January 15, 2014 at 11:51 AM

Believe me, I know.

I try to avoid the obvious trolls…they know who they are. But I think getting down to the crux of everyone’s biggest reason for opposing SSM is important, even tho I’m pretty sure what the most common answer will be.

JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 12:05 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.

ZachV on January 14, 2014 at 9:29 PM

As many or more straight men “lie to their spouses about their sexual orientation”. They pretend that they are happy with their aging spouses, but what really gets their motor running is some hot young girl.

And when they start “telling the truth about themselves” and act on their attraction, and leave their spouses, many or more families are ripped apart. But that’s because “not being true to your attractions” is what is wrong, here, right?

Society would be a lot further along if we were all true to what gets us stiff, right?

Axeman on January 15, 2014 at 12:06 PM

May God help me for jumping back into this thread,

JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 11:29 AM

.
NO WAY !
.

. . . . . but having read through the comments that came in overnight…and while I was here…I gotta ask just one question to those against gay marriage:

What is the one most important and relevant reason, as you see it, to be against SSM?

JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 11:29 AM

.
Because homosexuality is an ‘abnormality’, of such that the open, accepted practice thereof is detrimental to societal good.
The fact that it constitutes an abnormality is “self-evident.”

Unfortunately, the “open, accepted practice thereof being detrimental to societal good,” is NOT so self-evident to way too many people.

The biggest problem faced by those who oppose “openly accepted homosexuality” is producing an explanation as to ‘how, and in what way’ it is detrimental to societal good.
.

I realize it’s not always about just one reason to be for or against something, but just for the sake of this discussion, try to pick one reason that trumps all the others.

JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 11:29 AM

.
No doubt, the number of reasons are as varied as the number of individual people.

listens2glenn on January 15, 2014 at 12:11 PM

tommyboy on January 15, 2014 at 12:04 PM

And currently, one class of people have the right to marry in accordance with their sexual orientation and another class of people do not. The exact same thing.

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 12:11 PM

What is the one most important and relevant reason, as you see it, to be against SSM?

I realize it’s not always about just one reason to be for or against something, but just for the sake of this discussion, try to pick one reason that trumps all the others.

JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Here’s my libertarian based reasons:

The state has no interest in gay marriages.
It also has too much interest in traditional marriages at the moment as well.

An interpretation of “equal protection” to include government benefits is a further surrender to the progressive notion of positive rights – that you have a “right” to have the government provide things for you instead of “negative” rights envisioned by the founders of individual liberty.

And additionally given the sorry state of “anti discrimination” laws in our country the gay mafia already has too ability to use the power of the state to persecute fellow citizens and state recognition of gay marriages will only intensify that.

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 12:12 PM

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Polygamists, pedophiles, and other sexual deviations don’t, wither. Are they each a “class” of people, also?

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 12:15 PM

The next logical step in the corruption of marriage: Same sex siblings should be allowed to get married.

fadetogray on January 15, 2014 at 11:42 AM

Screw same-sex siblings! That violates the rights of same-sex parents to marry their above-age same-sex progeny!! But perhaps with parental consent, they could marry minors as well–does the state want to interfere in the rights of parenthood?!?!?!??!?!!!! (Fascists!)

People just need to stop being so uptight about who screws who. Pant.er will tell you, you’ll all be swept away, if you don’t adjust.

And before Achemist docks me for a facetious argument. Does he really think that a hypothetical argument like “the state could assign marriage partners and satisfy our ‘right’ to marry” are much better?

Axeman on January 15, 2014 at 12:16 PM

And currently, one class of people have the right to marry in accordance with their sexual orientation and another class of people do not. The exact same thing.

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Both have the right to marry. The state only has an actual interest in one class of these people and not the other and so it recognizes their relationship and gives them benefits.

Or are you going to start arguing that one class of citizen cannot be taxed at a different rate than another class of citizen?

Because if you want to argue that the state cannot treat anyone or any “class” of person differently than any other in any regard then I’ll support you.

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Jetboy, you are wasting your time discussing this issue time and again with the same people. The only post other than this one was to a post made to our gay friend ND30, who allies himself with all antigay posters on HotAir.

SC.Charlie on January 15, 2014 at 11:51 AM

I’m anti gay now?

And you hate the poor because you don’t like the entitlement state that gives them benefits?

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 12:17 PM

JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Return question for you:

What is the one most important and relevant reason, as you see it, to be for sex outside of marriage between one man and one woman.

questionmark on January 15, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Libfree and JetBoy and etc. have not explained why the Constitution forbids Polygamy, (which they claim SSM doesn’t allow, and they are all quite comfortable saying it should remain illegal). But it does, and all the measures taken by the Feds in the 1800′s to stamp out polygamy were presumably legal, and still are. Yet the same constitution that forbids polygamy and allows the state to strip the right to vote, to have property by confiscating it–that same constitution demands we force states to marry gays.

Nice racket, really. Mormons should be jailed for supporting polygamy, and Mormons should be jailed for refusing to marry gays. Either way, Mormons are looking at jail time.

Along with all other Christians, of course. At least the ones that still believe in the concept of sin.

Oh? What gay group demands jailing those who disagree with them? How about GLAAD and those gays who sue anyone who do not jump to their whims?
How about the gays in Canada and England who have managed to jail Pastors? But the 1st Amendment, right?

Tell me how much protection the 1st amendment gave the Mormons when THEY had disfavored marriage plans. Tell me how much protection the 1st amendment gave the Boy Scouts when they ran afoul of the gays. Tell me anywhere recently a judge has denied the gays anything they have asked for.

Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 12:18 PM

And currently, one class of people have the right to marry in accordance with their sexual orientation and another class of people do not. The exact same thing.

libfreeordie on January 15, 2014 at 12:11 PM

And there is a class of people whose sexual orientation is criminalized in Utah (and America) and you and your fellow “equality” advocates couldn’t care less about them.

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 12:20 PM

If your sex is genetically assigned and we someday figure out how to determine orientation shortly after conception, how will that affect both this topic and the abortion topic.

Discuss.

Youngs98 on January 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM

JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 11:48 AM

O’Rielly is a bloviator, not a Supreme Court Justice.

There’s only One Opinion on this issue that matters to me.

And…75% of the citizens in Oklahoma agree with me.

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 12:02 PM

I’m not here to praise or criticize Bill O…I merely quoted him on this particular issue we’re discussing here. There are times where Bill O is spot-on correct, and other times where he’s a “bloviator” that is wrong…see the MKH vs. O’Reilly threads, I side with The Hammer on pot decriminalization.

JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 12:26 PM

What is the one most important and relevant reason, as you see it, to be against SSM?

JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 11:29 AM

The right to adopt kids.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3037846/posts

Time will come to pay for all these abominations, because homosexuality was always correlated with the abuse of young boys since antiquity.

Criminal history is full of cases of homosexual abuse of young people followed by crime: Fritz Haarmann, Andrei Chikatilo, Jeffrey Dahmer, Juan Corona, Huang Yong, the Australian ring I escape the name now.

For a mere % of population, for sure it has an abnormal percentage of killers. All they have to do now is apply for adoption of a foreign kid time and time again.

Regards from Eastern Europe. Communism had only one good thing around here, it punished this perversion as a crime.

But registering yourselves as such is a good thing, funny that!

Rookie on January 15, 2014 at 12:29 PM

JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Return question for you:

What is the one most important and relevant reason, as you see it, to be for sex outside of marriage between one man and one woman.

questionmark on January 15, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Oh, and my answer to your question for the most part matches KJ’s.

questionmark on January 15, 2014 at 12:32 PM

JetBoy refuses to answer the very pertinent question I and others have posed him: Why shouldn’t we fight a movement that states its goal is removal of any “dissent” and explicitly states that our rights to worship are inferior to their desires?

Why can the Feds jail Mormons for polygamy but we have to marry gays?

Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 12:32 PM

JetBoy: Because currently gay rights and religious freedom are incompatible, by choice of the gay rights lobby. They have shown no inclination, in fact the very opposite, that tolerance is anything other than “Submit to our will in everything.”

Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Thank you for the answer.

For right now, I just want to focus on the main reasons for opposing SSM. You hit on some great, relevant points there, and I want to address them. And I will…I promise, in just a little while.

PS: I don’t think I’ve ever known that you’re LDS…you might have mentioned it from time to time, but either I didn’t see it or my brain no work so good.

JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 12:34 PM

JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 11:29 AM

This has gone about, I think, as you predicted it would. It also highlights why Lawrence may end up being one of the most significant SCOTUS cases in a long time. It’s not only that the court got it right, but that it got it right for the right reasons.

alchemist19 on January 15, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Why can the Feds jail Mormons for polygamy but we have to marry gays?

Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Polygamy isn’t a federal crime, is it? (I’m legit asking) If you’re referring to Warren Jeffs, he’s in jail for charges relating to the sexual assault of children and not polygamy.

alchemist19 on January 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Oh, and my answer to your question for the most part matches KJ’s.

questionmark on January 15, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Thank you. I’ll get to your question shortly.

JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Rookie on January 15, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Even if everything you say is true, IIRC, adoption by gay single people is already legal in 49 states, if not all 50. In some states a gay cohabitating couple can’t always both adopt the same child but any single gay person living alone can.

alchemist19 on January 15, 2014 at 12:47 PM

If your sex is genetically assigned and we someday figure out how to determine orientation shortly after conception, how will that affect both this topic and the abortion topic.

Discuss.

Youngs98 on January 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM

I would postulate it won’t affect it at all.

Pro-choice libs are generally already in favor of gay rights so finding out their daughter is going to be a lesbian shouldn’t affect their decision to have the child at all, and if pro-lifers and really as pro-life as they say they are then finding out shouldn’t suddenly turn them pro-choice.

If you do consider yourself pro-life and would still kill your own daughter in the womb because you found out she was going to be a lesbian then I would suggest you need to reevaluate your priorities.

alchemist19 on January 15, 2014 at 12:50 PM

The right to adopt kids.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3037846/posts

Time will come to pay for all these abominations, because homosexuality was always correlated with the abuse of young boys since antiquity.

Rookie on January 15, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Thank you…as much as your entire comment turns my stomach (to put it mildly), more than any other on this topic…or any topic…I’ve seen in all my years on HotAir, I will address the points you made give you kudos for for the honest answer.

This has gone about, I think, as you predicted it would. It also highlights why Lawrence may end up being one of the most significant SCOTUS cases in a long time. It’s not only that the court got it right, but that it got it right for the right reasons.

alchemist19 on January 15, 2014 at 12:37 PM

See Rookie’s comment…that one I did not expect.

It increases the discrimination against single people and thereby adds more support for maintaining and increasing that discrimination.

fadetogray on January 15, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Thank you.

Because homosexuality is an ‘abnormality’, of such that the open, accepted practice thereof is detrimental to societal good.
The fact that it constitutes an abnormality is “self-evident.”

listens2glenn on January 15, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Thank you.

Here’s my libertarian based reasons:

The state has no interest in gay marriages.
It also has too much interest in traditional marriages at the moment as well.

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 12:12 PM

Thank you.

___________

I promise I’ll get into everyone’s more detailed opinions.

JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 12:54 PM

alchemist19 on January 15, 2014 at 12:50 PM

So, homosexuality can be proved getically? Please cite your soure and share it with us.

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 12:55 PM

“genetically”

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 12:55 PM

alchemist–you really have no clue about the federal government’s battle with the LDS church in the 1800′s, do you? Utah was a territory, not a state. They were under direct federal control.

Yes, polygamy was made illegal under federal law. I don’t think it was ever repealed. Look up the Edmund-Tucker Act.

The persecution of the LDS church by the Federal Government puts the lie to any claim by the gays that the US Constitution mandates their particular deviation from standard marriage.

The Supreme Court in a series of cases held that Mormons pretty much had no civil rights at all. Including the right to vote, or even to be free. Thousands of Mormons were jailed, their church was dissolved, their property was confiscated, they lost several rights regarding to court testimony. And more. Utah was treated as a conquered state, like Germany or Japan after world war II. Indeed, the Federal Government sent an actual army to attack Utah at one point–an entire quarter of the US Army.

All of this was constitutional. The 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments were all active and did NOTHING to protect the Mormon church and its members. It was all legal–whatever the Feds wanted to do, they got to do.

Warren Jeffs is nothing compared to what happened to the LDS church in the 1800′s.

The Feds WERE nice enough to eventually decide that Mormons could vote and go to church again, though. How nice of them. Until the gays decide to bring it all back, of course.

Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 12:57 PM

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 12:55 PM

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 12:55 PM

I was answering a hypothetical (Note their use of the word “If” to begin their comment) where someone else posited the sexual orientation of a person could be known while they were still in the womb.

alchemist19 on January 15, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Edmunds-Tucker was repealed in 1978.

Even if everything you say about the history of the LDS church is true (I’m not saying anything about it one way or the other) then is the fact the federal government screwed up in the past and behaved unconstitutionally a good reason to continue behaving unconstitutionally now? Should they not learn from their mistakes and try not to repeat them?

alchemist19 on January 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM

alchemist19 on January 15, 2014 at 1:01 PM

If you do consider yourself pro-life and would still kill your own daughter in the womb because you found out she was going to be a lesbian then I would suggest you need to reevaluate your priorities.

alchemist19 on January 15, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Uh huh. Actually, you were attacking Christians, as you always do.

In real life, there is not proof that homosexuallity is genetic in cause.

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM

What is the one most important and relevant reason, as you see it, to be against SSM?

I realize it’s not always about just one reason to be for or against something, but just for the sake of this discussion, try to pick one reason that trumps all the others.

JetBoy on January 15, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Here’s my libertarian based reasons:

The state has no interest in gay marriages.
It also has too much interest in traditional marriages at the moment as well.

An interpretation of “equal protection” to include government benefits is a further surrender to the progressive notion of positive rights – that you have a “right” to have the government provide things for you instead of “negative” rights envisioned by the founders of individual liberty.

And additionally given the sorry state of “anti discrimination” laws in our country the gay mafia already has too ability to use the power of the state to persecute fellow citizens and state recognition of gay marriages will only intensify that.

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 12:12 PM

Additionally the gay movement is behind “equality” not because they want “liberty” (for one thing there is no liberty flowing from government benefits) but they’re really interested in using the power of the state to enforce societal acceptance.
Even in places like California where civil unions existed that wasn’t enough because the real goal for the movement is not the “benefits” from a marriage license – it’s the power to bend the state to persecute people. Individual gay couples may have no interest in this larger agenda and may only want government benefits but they give the gay mafia much of their power by supporting them.

gwelf on January 15, 2014 at 1:10 PM

Uh huh. Actually, you were attacking Christians, as you always do.

In real life, there is not proof that homosexuallity is genetic in cause.

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM

Ummmm, I’m attacking people whose political convictions aren’t really their convictions when push comes to shove. Not all Christians are pro-life and not everyone who’s pro-life is a Christian.

Are you one of those people who claims to be pro-life but would abort your own daughter if IF! it could conclusively be proven she’s a lesbian while she’s still in the womb?

alchemist19 on January 15, 2014 at 1:15 PM

alchemist19 on January 15, 2014 at 1:15 PM

Your hypothetical presumes that orientation or attraction is an immutable trait.
Which it most definitely is not.

22044 on January 15, 2014 at 1:18 PM

alchemist19 on January 15, 2014 at 1:15 PM

Nope. Are you one of those people who attacks Christian Conservatives because you feel their viewpoints affect your own selfish view of “freedom”?

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 1:21 PM

alchemist19 on January 15, 2014 at 1:15 PM

Oh, and by the way, hoomsexuality has not proven to be genetic, no matter how hard you wish it to be so.

kingsjester on January 15, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Alchemist-the Edmund Tucker act was not the act that criminalized polygamy. That happened long before. The Edmund Tucker act just put the teeth into enforcement.

That said, it puts you into an impossible spot. You strenuously maintain that polygamy is illegal, immoral, and there is a rational basis for prohibiting it. The Feds agreed in the 1800′s. Yet NOW you say that the same Constitutional language that permitted the Feds to jail Mormons and strip them of their right to vote also demand we recognize SSM. Which is it? If you state the Feds got it wrong back then, why are you opposed to polygamy today? If they were right back then, then how can you justify what they did to the LDS faith and its members as being constitutional but that the same Constitution demands gay marriages?

You should read Reynolds v. US sometime. The entire rationale for banning polygamy and not allowing the 1st amendment to protect the Mormons is all about the traditions of marriage and so forth–arguments that you reject when it comes to SSM.

So pick your poison, alchemist–either the Feds were horribly, grossly wrong in the 1800′s with what they did to the Mormons and polygamy should be legal, or SSM has no basis today either.

Vanceone on January 15, 2014 at 1:23 PM

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

Why not have a constitutional amendment to redefine marriage libfreakordie? Oh that’s right, any constitutional amendments about marriage are the stuff of whackos…

Nutstuyu on January 15, 2014 at 1:26 PM

Livefreakordie, if I can have one wife and three kids, what’s so different or wrong with having two wives and two kids??

Nutstuyu on January 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM

antigay posters on HotAir.

SC.Charlie on January 15, 2014 at 11:51 AM

Who said anything about being anti joy or happiness? We’re just not in favor of dangerous, unhealthy, unnatural sexual activity.

Nutstuyu on January 15, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7