Texas’s ban on gay marriage struck down by federal judge

posted at 6:41 pm on February 26, 2014 by Allahpundit

The silver lining in theory for SSM opponents is that this’ll give Greg Abbott a little something extra to run on in a very red state. In practice, though, the polling is sufficiently mixed — 37 percent of Texans supported gay marriage and another 28 percent supported civil unions as of last year — that Abbott’s chosen to keep things low-key out of the gate:

Here’s the ruling. By now, if you’ve read one of these decisions, you’ve read ‘em all. Sometimes they find a violation of equal protection, sometimes they find a violation of equal protection and of due process insofar as the right to marry is “fundamental.” Sometimes they find that gays are a “suspect class” deserving of special protection for purposes of EP analysis, sometimes they skip that part and find that bans on gay marriage have no rational basis and therefore it doesn’t matter how you classify gays. The judge in Texas, a Clinton appointee, took the latter route in both cases. The basic point is always the same, though: Federal courts don’t see any compelling reason to restrict marriage to straights only. Procreation’s not compelling because marriage isn’t limited to child-bearing straights. The idea that gay marriage will discourage marriage generally isn’t compelling, partly because there isn’t enough evidence and partly because the no-fault-divorce revolution shows that most states are fine in other contexts with making it easier for marriages to split up. The definitional argument, that “marriage” necessarily means opposite genders, was dismissed by the court in today’s decision this way:

tex

The only semi-novelty in the Texas ruling is that the court also reached the question of whether Texas is required to recognize gay marriages recorded in other states, a subject that doesn’t always come up in these cases. Answer: Yes, for all the same reasons listed above, which means that the main ruling on Texas’s own marriage law is largely irrelevant. If state A has no choice but to recognize a gay marriage recorded in state B, then its options are either to rescind recognition of out-of-state marriage altogether, keep the status quo and force its gay residents to take a vacation to get married, or simply legalize the practice itself. None of those are ideal if you oppose SSM.

If you want to read something new and interesting on this subject rather than slog through another cookie-cutter court ruling, have a look at Pew’s new survey of changing American attitudes on this subject. Lots of interesting results in the crosstabs, some of them counterintuitive. For instance, although support for SSM has risen steadily, that doesn’t mean the trend lines move the same way on every question:

natl
discrim

I would not have guessed that, as the nation gradually finds gay marriage more acceptable, it finds a federal solution less acceptable and actually perceives more discrimination against gays even as their rights expand. On the other hand, some results are very intuitive. The first one here is the big one:

friend
beliefs

The more people realize that they have gay friends, the more opposition to gay marriage softens. That’s the whole political strategy to “coming out.” It works.


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

With that background, well I just wanted to brag about having such a young wife, how will same sex marriage affect my family? I AM NOT TROLLING as I am fuzzy about all the gnashing of teeth over this issue.

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 8:48 PM

First off, would you agree with the premise that the unions of:
1. man/woman
2. man/man
3. woman/woman

are conceptually unique from one another?

anuts on February 26, 2014 at 8:54 PM

With that background, well I just wanted to brag about having such a young wife, how will same sex marriage affect my family?

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 8:48 PM

A extreme example, but how would your family react to you marrying your son?

sentinelrules on February 26, 2014 at 8:56 PM

There’s that bigotry, divisiveness, hate speech and poor sentence structure and grammar from the typical leftist again…

Skywise on February 26, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Rrrrraaaaaaaciii…No, wait…Biiiiiiiigooooooot! I’m not a leftist, but you certainly argue like one.

Bandit13 on February 26, 2014 at 8:57 PM

With that background, well I just wanted to brag about having such a young wife, how will same sex marriage affect my family?

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 8:48 PM

A extreme example, but how would your family react to you marrying your son?

sentinelrules on February 26, 2014 at 8:56 PM

For tax reasons…

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 8:58 PM

So, you’re ok with legalizing polyandry, polygyny, and plural marriages. Right?

blink on February 26, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Yes.

dieudonne on February 26, 2014 at 9:01 PM

Oh, is this where you tell me your sound moral rationale for why polygamy is “bad” or is this part of a tantrum where you’ve been shown to be a hypocrite so you’re going to get all huffy about how homosexual marriage is just as good as heterosexual marriage but polygamy isn’t.

I’ve beaten it to death in the past but I’m happy to cite it if you missed it.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/06/supreme-court-puts-stay-on-same-sex-marriage-in-utah/comment-page-5/#comment-7619674

The argument you just threw a hissy fit over above… I know reading more than a tweet’s worth of text is hard but try to stay with me.

That wasn’t even mild annoyance, let alone a hissy fit.

Awww… you’re so smart and clever… aintcha..

Exceedingly! :)

I’m talking ramrodding homosexual marriage as if it’s just as natural as heterosexul marriage. Which is it isn’t and isn’t naturally sustainable…

Is it being ramrodded (in your view) because it’s being ramrodded or because it’s not as natural (again, in your view)?

Why wouldn’t allowing homosexuals to marry each other be sustainable?

Not as clever as you think you are.

Skywise on February 26, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Being as clever as I think I am would be an exceptionally high bar to clear. ;)

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 9:03 PM

There’s that bigotry, divisiveness, hate speech and poor sentence structure and grammar from the typical leftist again…

Skywise on February 26, 2014 at 8:45 PM

.
Rrrrraaaaaaaciii…No, wait…Biiiiiiiigooooooot! I’m not a leftist, but you certainly argue like one.

Bandit13 on February 26, 2014 at 8:57 PM

.
Oh … I knew you couldn’t stay away from this thread !

You’ve been away much too long, and you were “over due”.

listens2glenn on February 26, 2014 at 9:05 PM

No, the only thing I fear is the fact that now children have three or more legal parents which will be a disaster for children and the family court system. The only thing I fear is that people are losing their first amendment rights and their property rights.

I don’t fear private relationships. Again, I don’t think the state should be involved. That being said, I think state licensing is exclusionary. I don’t buy that excluding incestuous couples, polygamous groups and gays is unequal protection. What I have said though, if you make that argument then you open that door for all other types of “consensual adult” marriage. It is the legal conclusion to the argument.

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 8:32 PM

The same slippery slope fears were expressed around Lawrence when it came to legalizing homosexual sex and more than a decade later those fears have been shown to be baseless. If Lawrence didn’t open the floodgates to legalizing the physical act of incest then why should SSM open the floodgates to incestuous marriage (or pick your societal ill)?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 9:06 PM

What if it isn’t “abuse”?

Skywise on February 26, 2014 at 8:54 PM

Is there something non-obvious about the story that I’m missing? Did age of consent laws in Florida mean that the relationship was legal until one of the girls had a birthday? Some sort of Romeo and Juliet law that applies? Would it have been legal if they had been straight? Was it illegal because they were gay? It was a brief article and I’ve not heard of the case before now.

dieudonne on February 26, 2014 at 9:07 PM

Esthier on February 26, 2014 at 8:15 PM

I can see why you were missed. Nice post.

I don’t have the patience to try to rationalize with these clowns on here, though. To me there’s only one way to deal with fascists and it’s coming sooner than later, and I’m looking forward to it.

8 weight on February 26, 2014 at 9:08 PM

cozmo, I used to buy Runza’s the day before I went back to San Diego on the plane and ate them the next day…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 9:09 PM

You don’t know Texas or Texans.

10th is big down here. Washington DC is broken.

Gig Em’

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 8:42 PM

My friends from UT all make fun of the Aggies for, among other things, not having a law school and I’m seeing they have a point.

I don’t doubt the 10th Amendment is big is Texas but that doesn’t change the fact that the 10th doesn’t grant the states the ability to deny equal protection to its citizens.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 9:11 PM

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 9:09 PM

There is a place in Lincoln that will FedEx them. Haven’t done it in a while. Thinkin’ about it real hard.

Sterzing’s used to UPS us a case every month. The whole Nebraska part of the family finally tired (more like started having to eat healthier)of them.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 9:15 PM

My friends from UT all make fun of the Aggies for, among other things, not having a law school and I’m seeing they have a point.

I don’t doubt the 10th Amendment is big is Texas but that doesn’t change the fact that the 10th doesn’t grant the states the ability to deny equal protection to its citizens.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 9:11 PM

No you just said Abbott would be a fool to argue the 10th.

I said you don’t know Texas or Texans.

You come back with a what…nothing.

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 9:21 PM

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 9:15 PM

Are you German Lutheran? Bierocks (Runza’s) are an old German recipe…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 9:21 PM

Answer the question. Was it abuse?

blink on February 26, 2014 at 9:15 PM

To the best of my knowledge the 14 year old was not able to consent to either sex or marriage. That means laws were broken. She appears to have plead no contest to the crimes. Where is the controversy? Was she, in fact, older than the age of consent in Florida?

dieudonne on February 26, 2014 at 9:23 PM

To the best of my knowledge the 14 year old was not able to consent to either sex or marriage. That means laws were broken. She appears to have plead no contest to the crimes. Where is the controversy?

dieudonne on February 26, 2014 at 9:23 PM

Where? The homosexual community was supporting Hunt.

sentinelrules on February 26, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Quit talking about tasty sammiches!

Murphy9 on February 26, 2014 at 9:27 PM

No you just said Abbott would be a fool to argue the 10th.

I said you don’t know Texas or Texans.

You come back with a what…nothing.

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 9:21 PM

Because he would be a fool to argue against SSM on 10th Amendment grounds. It’s not a matter of what I do or don’t know about Texas or Texans, it’s a matter of what you and/or Abbott don’t know about the Constitution.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 9:28 PM

I will never quite figure out the system here for promoting posts to the left column.

Bmore on February 26, 2014 at 9:33 PM

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 9:21 PM

German…half

Lutheran?…I don’t really know. Been deist as long as I can remember.

Yep, that is the recipe. Though nowdays I cheat and use pizza dough. The rolled up stuff in a can.

But c’mon, a Runza is one of those spur of the moment guilty-ish pleasures.

Heritage stuff…mmm, peppernuts.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 9:33 PM

Answer the question. Was it abuse?

blink on February 26, 2014 at 9:36 PM

if they were having sex, yes.

dieudonne on February 26, 2014 at 9:39 PM

Are you German Lutheran?

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 9:21 PM

Found it.

I guess I am Church of Christ. It was bugging me so I had to find it.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 9:45 PM

Found it.

I guess I am Church of Christ. It was bugging me so I had to find it.

cozmo on February 26, 2014 at 9:45 PM

I just cannot read all them blue caps. Too much for me…

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2014 at 9:51 PM

That poll must have been taken in Austin. Here in Fort Worth we are pretty ticked. Hopefully the 5th circuit will overturn this San Antonio idiot of a judge. They really are all on trying to turn Texas blue or in this case hot pink.

neyney on February 26, 2014 at 9:55 PM

Equal? As in the same?

Ummm…

Fill one deserted island with male couples. Fill another deserted island with female couples. Fill yet another deserted island with male-female couples. At the end of a hundred years, go back to those islands. Which ones will be void of human life and which one will have a range of generations flourishing? (And which one will need some sort of formal recognition of lines of descendants for inheritance rights, some sort of formal recognition of relationship status to protect the child-bearing partner from abandonment by the non-child-bearing partner, some sort of formal recognition of relationship status so orphaned children can be assigned new parental figures, etc., etc., etc.)

Equal? Umm…no. So equal protection as applied to these unequal pairings is actually the granting of undeserved and unnecessary privileges to a state-favored group…which is actually unequal protection.

butterflies and puppies on February 26, 2014 at 9:57 PM

No you just said Abbott would be a fool to argue the 10th.

I said you don’t know Texas or Texans.

You come back with a what…nothing.

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 9:21 PM

Because he would be a fool to argue against SSM on 10th Amendment grounds. It’s not a matter of what I do or don’t know about Texas or Texans, it’s a matter of what you and/or Abbott don’t know about the Constitution.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 9:28 PM

This is an election…and Abbott will win.

You know nuthin’

From his campaign page…

“He is one of the nation’s leading advocates for stopping the federal overreach of the Obama Administration, a defender of the Constitution, and a conservative to the core: Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.
Few leaders have amassed a record of defending state sovereignty like Greg Abbott. Abbott has filed more than two dozen lawsuits against the Obama Administration. He has taken on burdensome EPA regulations and succeeded. He fought ObamaCare all the way to the United States Supreme Court. He has stood on the solid ground of the 10th Amendment to protect local classrooms, and individual freedom.
A husband and father, Greg Abbott understands the importance of preserving Constitutional, traditional values – like faith, family and freedom for future generations. That’s why as the state’s chief law enforcement official, Abbott has made protecting children, families and values the focus of his administration.”

- See more at: http://www.gregabbott.com/bio/#sthash.PuqtasqT.dpuf

Sen. Ted Cruz (Another Texan)

“WASHINGTON, DC — U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, released the following statement in response to a federal judge ruling Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional:

“Today’s ruling by a federal judge, invalidating Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage, is a troubling display of judicial activism. Our Constitution leaves it to the States to define marriage, and unelected judges should not be substituting their own policy views for the reasoned judgments of the citizens of Texas, who adopted our marriage law directly by referendum. The court’s decision undermines the institution of marriage, and I applaud Attorney General Abbott’s decision to appeal this ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=962

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 10:03 PM

That poll must have been taken in Austin. Here in Fort Worth we are pretty ticked. Hopefully the 5th circuit will overturn this San Antonio idiot of a judge. They really are all on trying to turn Texas blue or in this case hot pink.

neyney on February 26, 2014 at 9:55 PM

Texans don’t like some pissant liberal judge overturning referendums.

Nope!

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 10:07 PM

Because he would be a fool to argue against SSM on 10th Amendment grounds. It’s not a matter of what I do or don’t know about Texas or Texans, it’s a matter of what you and/or Abbott don’t know about the Constitution.
alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 9:28 PM

You keep bringing up a point that you even argue against. Slow down and think. Quit emoting and you might actually find some consistency in your principles and arguments.

anuts on February 26, 2014 at 10:11 PM

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 10:03 PM

Note they never said anything specifically about overturning SSM on 10th Amendment grounds.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 10:19 PM

You keep bringing up a point that you even argue against. Slow down and think. Quit emoting and you might actually find some consistency in your principles and arguments.

anuts on February 26, 2014 at 10:11 PM

Oh boy! Someone new!

The point I brought up is that citing the 10th Amendment is not grounds for a state to deny equal protection. I brought it up because someone said this:

He’ll use the 10th amendment to make his case so that the issue is about the voters of Texas…not some Judge.

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 8:29 PM

That is wrong, I called them on it and explained why. I also would suggest you take your own advice on emoting. If you get your own facts straight it will help you decide when to and when not to criticize someone else.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 10:26 PM

Note they never said anything specifically about overturning SSM on 10th Amendment grounds.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 10:19 PM

Perry and Abbott are conservative political allies. Cruz is on board supporting Abbott.

“A long list of Republican lawmakers echoed the governor’s sentiments, either through official statements or social media. All four candidates running for lieutenant governor decried the ruling as well…”

The Governor of Texas did in his statement.

“Texans spoke loud and clear by overwhelmingly voting to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in our Constitution, and it is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens. The 10th Amendment guarantees Texas voters the freedom to make these decisions, and this is yet another attempt to achieve via the courts what couldn’t be achieved at the ballot box. We will continue to fight for the rights of Texans to self-determine the laws of our state.”

Abbott is the Atty. General and will appeal the case.

“As attorney general, Abbott will be tasked with defending the state’s ban when it goes before an appeals court later this year. Abbott expressed optimism that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals would honor previous rulings and overturn Wednesday’s decision.”

http://capitalroundup.twcnews.com/category/greg-abbott/

Sen. Cruz chimes in about judicial activism and federal over-reach & applauded Abbott’s decision to appeal the case.

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 10:39 PM

One is forced to conclude that America’s experiment with democracy is drawing to a dismal close: State constitutions — and voter-approved changes to same — are simply nullified and swept away by judicial rulings.

It doesn’t really matter how We, the People, may feel (and vote) about such matters; the courts overrule us. Sure, you may think your vote matters — but that’s only until the courts rule us out of order.

It’s not much of a stretch, too, to posit that federalism is also a passing fancy. It’s just a matter of time until “the several States” are reduced to little more than quaintly-named provinces which are little more than outposts of the Federal government.

Paul_in_NJ on February 26, 2014 at 10:46 PM

Sorry, but I am not going to make any comment tonight on this thread. I am taking a rest while everyone else fights a senseless battle.

SC.Charlie on February 26, 2014 at 10:49 PM

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 10:39 PM

You’re not listening.

Perry cited the 10th Amendment but Perry was never the sharpest knife in the drawer so it’s not surprising he would be so Constitutionally ignorant. In the quotes you’ve posted Abbott himself never said anything about invoking the 10th Amendment in his defense of the law. If you want to see the amendment upheld then you should be thankful Abbott is smarter than Perry because if he weren’t and Abbott were to in fact follow Perry’s advice he would be laughed out of court.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 10:59 PM

That is wrong, I called them on it and explained why. I also would suggest you take your own advice on emoting. If you get your own facts straight it will help you decide when to and when not to criticize someone else.
alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 10:26 PM

In the headlines thread you brought up the 14th Amendment but also argued against polygamy. Here:

Polygamy’s rather disastrous history provides ample reason to discriminate against it. Yet no one can stand in court and present solid evidence similarly against allowing same-sex couples to legally access civil marriage. That’s why the former will remain illegal once SCOTUS has struck down the bans on the latter.
alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 4:28 PM

You are arguing against one kind of union being called “marriage” while maintaining the position that us arguing against another kind of union being called “marriage” violates Amendment 14.

anuts on February 26, 2014 at 11:10 PM

i realized that traditional marriage supporters should rename themselves to Biblical marriage supporters. “traditional marriage” sounds like we only support man/woman marriage because it’s the tradition. but i support it because the Bible shows that God clearly intended marriage to include one person of each sex.

so those are my personal beliefs about what marriage is. but as for government, i am for government no longer defining marriage at all. it would be complicated but i think it’s the best option for everyone. government shouldn’t take a side in the “what is marriage” debate.

Sachiko on February 26, 2014 at 7:18 PM

Actually, we need to stop adding any qualifiers to “marriage”. Marriage is marriage is marriage. It has always been between man and woman since the beginning of recorded time, no matter how decadent the society was or how many marriages society allowed a person to be in at one time.

Nutstuyu on February 26, 2014 at 11:29 PM

SC.Charlie on February 26, 2014 at 10:49 PM

One less troll to deal with.

Nutstuyu on February 26, 2014 at 11:30 PM

So this is another example why the government should not be involved in marriage. They cannot resist social engineering.

btw, for those who haven’t been in Texas all that long and have never, ever visited Austin, more or less lived here, please don’t try to speak authoritatively on what Austin’s lifestyle demographic may be.

I swear, you’d think I couldn’t walk around outside without scraping some gay and/ir hipster off the bottom of my shoe.

NativeTexan on February 26, 2014 at 11:57 PM

anuts on February 26, 2014 at 11:10 PM

Indeed. The issue is no one (myself included) can come up with a rational basis for denying same-sex couples access to the legal status of marriage, which is why we keep seeing court rulings like the one in Texas today. In contrast to same-sex couples, there is a rational basis for excluding polygamous arrangements. It’s not polygamy that violates the Fourteenth Amendment, it’s the non-recognition of same-sex couples that does. Non-recognition of polygamy does not violate the 14th though because of the rational basis for its restriction that does not exist with same-sex couples.

alchemist19 on February 27, 2014 at 12:07 AM

Just pointing out the obvious. The fact that you call it a storybook says it all.

Well, not quite all. That’s why I added the extra word.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 26, 2014 at 7:53 PM

I’m not intolerant of religious people at all, I just don’t roll over and play dead when they act like the United States is a theocracy and not a Constitutional republic. You’re absolutely entitled to your personal moral code but the government does not and should not strictly adhere to the teachings of any particular religion when interpreting the Constitution. Do you disagree?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 8:01 PM

My position is utterly reasonable and founded on facts and science. Anyone who disagrees with me is a theocrat trying to enforce his morality on me.

Oh, wait. That’s your usual ploy.

Did we have a theocracy in 1790? 1820? 1860? 1910? 1940? At exactly which point did marriage become an expression of theocracy?

You throw the word out, but it’s meaningless jabber, because we didn’t have a theocracy before and we won’t have one now.

If you want to find the foundation of laws for our country, you can look at two sources: 1) Christian morality 2) natural law.

But natural law leads inexorably to rejecting unnatural marriages where one of the sexes is missing. We would understand natural law to recognize that men and women by nature marry and reproduce, and raise their children.

Two men can’t do that. Oh, they can come up with their own substitutes. They can substitute rectal stimulation for actual intercourse, adoption for procreation, and pretend what they wind up with is a marriage.

But this is what marks you for a bigot. An atheist or agnostic doesn’t necessarily believe SSM is good just because normal marriage happens to also line up with Christian morality. They can recognize the value of marriage according to natural law without ever deriving that value from the Christian faith.

But the atheists and agnostics who hate Christianity can’t accept normal marriage without going on about theocracy. Like your comment about the “thousand-year-old storybook,” it’s a tell.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 27, 2014 at 12:10 AM

anuts on February 26, 2014 at 11:10 PM

Indeed. The issue is no one (myself included) can come up with a rational basis for denying same-sex couples access to the legal status of marriage, which is why we keep seeing court rulings like the one in Texas today.

alchemist19 on February 27, 2014 at 12:07 AM

False. Just because you refuse to admit the rational basis does not make the basis irrational. It makes you wrong.

Marriage is mating. Mating includes the forming of emotional and social bonds, interdependency, and children.

Rectal stimulation is not mating. Sex play is not sexual intercourse.

The reason marriage is between a man and a woman is because the human race has two sexes. The reason it’s between ONE man and ONE woman is because intercourse involves one organ from each.

It’s a lifetime commitment, because children result, and need to be raised properly in a stable, loving home by their biological parents if at all possible. Also, those children will ultimately grow up, and have marriages and children of their own.

Now declare that marriage is between two guys. It all breaks down. Each attempted fix breaks something else.

Two guys can’t reproduce. So they have to adopt someone else’s children, or involve a third party — of the opposite gender — in order to have children. The moment that two guys seek out a woman to produce a child, they admit that their so-called marriage is a sham. They don’t have the same kind of marriage that normal people have, in spite of all pretense, because you can’t have children with two people of the same sex.

And however they manage to get children, it’s impossible for those children to be raised by their biological parents, because two guys can’t have a child without involving someone else.

So they pile on the list of broken fixes, if you will.

– Adoption or surrogates to get children that are not theirs biologically,
– Legal awarding of parental rights because, not being the biological parents, some court will have to step in and declare who are the legally recognized parents.
– Pressure on the children to present a happy face to the public, even though what evidence we do have shows pretty much that children do better with their biological parents, and these poor children are being cheated of their biological parents from he beginning by the same people who want to be their legal parents.
– Which, of course, means the children are being raised by people who do not have their children’s best interests at heart.

But none of that matters when you’re trying to build a progressive paradise! What’s important is that homosexual couples can pretend to be normal, no matter how it affects the children.

The only “rational” conclusion is that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that anyone claiming otherwise is not rational.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 27, 2014 at 12:48 AM

alchemist19 on February 27, 2014 at 12:07 AM

You’re arguing exclusivity for one while claiming equal protection for the other. Exclusivity and equal protection are incompatible with each other.

anuts on February 27, 2014 at 12:52 AM

What will have to be dealt with now, since gay marriage seems to have won the day is how do you deny “rights to marry” to everyone as they choose? Polygamy? How do you use a ruling such as this to deny a person marrying multiple partners, even of different sexes? How do you deny an adult marrying a 12-year old? Sure, there are laws against that now, but how will they stand up against charges of due process and right to marry? No, the people of this country are going to rue what has been wrought.

Techster64 on February 27, 2014 at 12:57 AM

alchemist19 on February 27, 2014 at 12:07 AM

Strawman.

Buy a copy of What Is Mrriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.

Read this:

The Constitutionality of Traditional Marriage
By John C. Eastman

Read this:

Marriage Matters, and Redefining It Has Social Costs
by Ryan T. Anderson

What is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what are the consequences of redefining marriage? Adapted from testimony delivered on Monday, January 13, 2014 to the Indiana House Judiciary Committee.

INC on February 27, 2014 at 12:59 AM

Techster64 on February 27, 2014 at 12:57 AM

Marriage has been rendered meaningless. This is the age of anti-wisdom.

anuts on February 27, 2014 at 1:10 AM

Indeed. The issue is no one (myself included) can come up with a rational basis for denying same-sex couples access to the legal status of marriage, which is why we keep seeing court rulings like the one in Texas today. In contrast to same-sex couples, there is a rational basis for excluding polygamous arrangements. It’s not polygamy that violates the Fourteenth Amendment, it’s the non-recognition of same-sex couples that does. Non-recognition of polygamy does not violate the 14th though because of the rational basis for its restriction that does not exist with same-sex couples.

alchemist19 on February 27, 2014 at 12:07 AM

You are absolutely wrong.

Your linked statement in another thread didn’t even come close to providing a rational basis using the same standards as you apply to SSM. You are obviously not applying the same standard.

And you certainly don’t even come close to showing a rational basis for excluding polyandry.
Or even mixed groups like 2 guys and 2 girls.

You can’t form a rational basis that excludes these people and demands SSM.

It can’t be done. You haven’t done it.

And Kennedy’s Windsor cases shows why.
Look at his reasoning. His reasoning is that we need to grant SSM the “protections” of legalized marriage to grant their relationships dignity and especially for the children being raised by such unions.
This reasoning obviously applies to polygamists. They have kids and their relationships deserve “dignity” from the state just as much as SSM couples do.

You can trot out all of the same arguments used to argue for SSM and apply them with equal force to polygamy. We need to bring these relationships out of the shadows! (particularly for polygamy – they’re actually illegal). We need to allow these people full participation in society. If we give these relationships benefits and “protections” their children will do better and their relationships will flourish which serves the states interests yada yada yada. Every.single.argument. for SSM applies directly to polygamists and any other group.

gwelf on February 27, 2014 at 1:13 AM

Indeed. The issue is no one (myself included) can come up with a rational basis for denying same-sex couples access to the legal status of marriage, which is why we keep seeing court rulings like the one in Texas today. In contrast to same-sex couples, there is a rational basis for excluding polygamous arrangements. It’s not polygamy that violates the Fourteenth Amendment, it’s the non-recognition of same-sex couples that does. Non-recognition of polygamy does not violate the 14th though because of the rational basis for its restriction that does not exist with same-sex couples.

alchemist19 on February 27, 2014 at 12:07 AM

You’re also being very disingenuous because – as has been pointed out repeatedly – when others use tradition and history and culture to claim a rational basis for preferring traditional marriage you immediately dismiss it because “tradition” is somehow a dirty word (Scalia schools you on this point).

But when you need to find a “rational basis” for excluding polygamists, polyandrists, 2 guys and 2 gals, or whatever you go right to an appeal to tradition and history. Wasn’t your exact statement something like “history shows polygamy is harmful”? Wow, an appeal to history and tradition. The very thing that you insist cannot be applied to SSM.

gwelf on February 27, 2014 at 1:18 AM

My position is utterly reasonable and founded on facts and science. Anyone who disagrees with me is a theocrat trying to enforce his morality on me.

Oh, wait. That’s your usual ploy.

While I do try to found my positions on facts and science, not everyone who disagrees with me is a theocrat. melle, for example, is not a theocrat. She’s just plain wrong about everything but she’s not a theocrat.

Did we have a theocracy in 1790? 1820? 1860? 1910? 1940? At exactly which point did marriage become an expression of theocracy?

As soon as you try to base government behavior off the Christian Bible or any other religious text.

You throw the word out, but it’s meaningless jabber, because we didn’t have a theocracy before and we won’t have one now.

If you want to find the foundation of laws for our country, you can look at two sources: 1) Christian morality 2) natural law.

You’re saying we’re not a theocracy then advocating for theocratic principles in the very next paragraph. I’m almost speechless. Christian morality is NOT the foundation for law in this country, the Constitution is! And there’s no mention of the Christian or any other god or holy text in the Constitution.

But natural law leads inexorably to rejecting unnatural marriages where one of the sexes is missing. We would understand natural law to recognize that men and women by nature marry and reproduce, and raise their children.

Two men can’t do that. Oh, they can come up with their own substitutes. They can substitute rectal stimulation for actual intercourse, adoption for procreation, and pretend what they wind up with is a marriage.

The problem with trying to reduce marriage to a natural law argument is that we’ve never made reproduction a condition for marriage. That’s part of why you can’t seem to win a court case.

But this is what marks you for a bigot. An atheist or agnostic doesn’t necessarily believe SSM is good just because normal marriage happens to also line up with Christian morality. They can recognize the value of marriage according to natural law without ever deriving that value from the Christian faith.

I do recognize the value of marriage. That’s why I want everyone to be able to do it, including homosexuals.

But the atheists and agnostics who hate Christianity can’t accept normal marriage without going on about theocracy. Like your comment about the “thousand-year-old storybook,” it’s a tell.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 27, 2014 at 12:10 AM

The same people who come down on Anthony Kennedy for citing animus in his Windsor opinion are here claiming how people who don’t subscribe to their (mistaken) belief about the role religious-based morality in the United States government all hate Christianity. If irony were made out of strawberries we would all be having a lot of smoothies right now.

alchemist19 on February 27, 2014 at 1:57 AM

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 27, 2014 at 12:48 AM

I’ve picked different forms of this argument apart for you before but if you think you’ve got something here then call the attorney general of Michigan ASAP so he can read this in court at the ongoing trial there so as to persuade the judge before another ruling goes against you.

alchemist19 on February 27, 2014 at 2:03 AM

gwelf on February 27, 2014 at 1:13 AM

If you look out from between you legs you might still be able to see my point where it flew over your head. I didn’t make a case for excluding polyandry, I said there is historically never enough of it to balance out polygyny. Reread the post again; odds are there was more of it you didn’t understand either.

Every argument for SSM translates directly to polygamy? False. Just off the top of my head, prohibiting same-sex marriage deprives homosexuals of any realistic possibility to ever be married. Prohibiting polygamy still lets everyone have at least one legal partner whereas prohibiting same-sex marriage means a certain class of people will never have any.

alchemist19 on February 27, 2014 at 2:18 AM

You’re also being very disingenuous because – as has been pointed out repeatedly – when others use tradition and history and culture to claim a rational basis for preferring traditional marriage you immediately dismiss it because “tradition” is somehow a dirty word (Scalia schools you on this point).

But when you need to find a “rational basis” for excluding polygamists, polyandrists, 2 guys and 2 gals, or whatever you go right to an appeal to tradition and history. Wasn’t your exact statement something like “history shows polygamy is harmful”? Wow, an appeal to history and tradition. The very thing that you insist cannot be applied to SSM.

gwelf on February 27, 2014 at 1:18 AM

Swing and a miss! Strike two!

First off, you need to read up on what the argumentum ad antiquitam logical fallacy is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

My argument was not limited to “Because it’s always been this way,” and leave it at that. That’s what your side does and that’s not enough. I examine the historical track record of events and draw conclusions based on that. That’s a bit different.

alchemist19 on February 27, 2014 at 2:34 AM

You’re saying we’re not a theocracy then advocating for theocratic principles in the very next paragraph. I’m almost speechless. Christian morality is NOT the foundation for law in this country, the Constitution is! And there’s no mention of the Christian or any other god or holy text in the Constitution.
alchemist19 on February 27, 2014 at 1:57 AM

Two corrections.
1) Theocracy is not rule by men that draw their wisdom to govern from religion. Theocracy is rule by God. The only true theocracy, EVER, was of the ancient Israelites before they insisted on subjecting themselves to an earthly monarch. Please stop using the word incorrectly, because you are contributing to the corruption of our language and the misuse of the term as a pejorative. Theocracy is a good, because in a true theocracy, society is governed by the Perfect Good (God).

2) You have very obviously never read the entire text of the U.S. Constitution, else you would know that God–specifically, the Christian God–is mentioned by one of His solemn titles. I can tell that you’ve never taken an effort to make a serious study of Western Civilization, otherwise, how could you have overlooked the longstanding tradition of Western governments to date documents according to the anno Domini? How very foolish you appear now!

TXJenny on February 27, 2014 at 6:02 AM

Also…

The problem with trying to reduce marriage to a natural law argument is that we’ve never made reproduction a condition for marriage.
alchemist19

Procreation has never been, is not now, nor will it ever be a condition for marriage according to Natural Law. Procreation is the primary purpose for marriage, but it has never been regarded as the sole purpose. That is why barren couples are still validly married even should they never produce offspring, and it is why even elderly persons may marry without violating Natural Law. The one thing that has always been required for a marriage to be valid under law, however, is that both parties have the ability to consummate the marriage. Even now, the inability or failure to consummate a lawful marriage is grounds for annulment. And as you well know, homosexuals cannot consummate a marriage, because they do not possess the necessary organs. The act of sodomy, by the way, does not and cannot consummate even a natural marriage, nor has it ever been considered to do so.

As for your ridiculous claim that same-sex unions are superior to polygamy, that’s utterly false. Although both same-sex unions and polygamy violate Natural Law, polygamy does not violate the primary end of marriage: procreation of offspring; polygamy’s fault lies in its inability to fulfill the secondary end of marriage, because it lessens the value of the women in society, and it induces jealousy, envy, anger, and oftentimes impedes to some degree the fulfillment of the primary end of education of offspring. Thus, it turns out that same-sex unions are in every way inferior to marriage, both monogamous and polygamous. The problem is, once Natural Law is abrogated for the sake of homosexuals, it will inevitably be abrogated to permit every sort of unnatural union, including polygamy.

TXJenny on February 27, 2014 at 6:37 AM

SC.Charlie on February 26, 2014 at 10:49 PM

One less troll to deal with. – Nutstuyu on February 26, 2014 at 11:30 PM

Nutstuyu, if you would read my posts on this issue I am really on your side of the fence. The Radical Gay Left should not be demanding services for gay wedding from people of faith or any other person who might feel ill at ease in doing so. They should have the common decency to patronize gay friendly businesses. Frankly, I am just worn down by all the posting on this issue.

SC.Charlie on February 27, 2014 at 7:40 AM

Nanny state struck down again! Good day to be a friend of liberty.

Grindstone on February 27, 2014 at 7:56 AM

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 10:39 PM

You’re not listening.

Perry cited the 10th Amendment but Perry was never the sharpest knife in the drawer so it’s not surprising he would be so Constitutionally ignorant. In the quotes you’ve posted Abbott himself never said anything about invoking the 10th Amendment in his defense of the law. If you want to see the amendment upheld then you should be thankful Abbott is smarter than Perry because if he weren’t and Abbott were to in fact follow Perry’s advice he would be laughed out of court.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2014 at 10:59 PM

“Since Garcia’s ruling, multiple Texas politicians have spoken out in opposition to it.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Governor Rick Perry both pointed to the Tenth Amendment in their reactions. Abbot, who claims his office plans to appeal the ruling, said, “The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled over and over again that states have the authority to define and regulate marriage. The Texas Constitution defines marriage as between one man and one woman.”

Governor Perry had a similar sentiment and said in a statement, “Texans spoke loud and clear by overwhelmingly voting to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in our Constitution, and it is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens. The 10th Amendment guarantees Texas voters the freedom to make these decisions, and this is yet another attempt to achieve via the courts what couldn’t be achieved at the ballot box. We will continue to fight for the rights of Texans to self-determine the laws of our state.”

Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst registered his unhappiness with the ruling as well.
“I am a longtime defender of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, which is why I led the effort to pass the Defense of Marriage Act back in 2003 and pressed for a Constitutional amendment in 2005. Once again, an activist federal judge has unilaterally attempted to undermine the will of the people of Texas who affirmed this amendment with 76% of the vote. I am insisting that the state of Texas appeal this ruling to protect our time-tested, traditional Texas values.”

Texas Values President and attorney Jonathan Saenz also spoke up in opposition to the decision, as well. He said, “This ruling by unelected federal Judge Orlando Garcia is the most egregious form of judicial activism of our generation. This hollow victory and clear attack on morality and the rule of law will not stand in Texas. This is just the beginning of an epic battle that the Texas people will ultimately win in name of the only true and lawful definition of marriage; one man, one woman.”

Garcia’s decision is the most recent in a string of wins for same-sex couples around the United States. Similar decisions were made by federal courts in Kentucky, Virginia, and Oklahoma during recent weeks…”

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/02/26/Federal-judge-strikes-down-Texas-gay-marriage-ban

workingclass artist on February 27, 2014 at 8:25 AM

If you look out from between you legs you might still be able to see my point where it flew over your head. I didn’t make a case for excluding polyandry, I said there is historically never enough of it to balance out polygyny. Reread the post again; odds are there was more of it you didn’t understand either.

Every argument for SSM translates directly to polygamy? False. Just off the top of my head, prohibiting same-sex marriage deprives homosexuals of any realistic possibility to ever be married. Prohibiting polygamy still lets everyone have at least one legal partner whereas prohibiting same-sex marriage means a certain class of people will never have any.

alchemist19 on February 27, 2014 at 2:18 AM

Swing and a miss! Strike two!

First off, you need to read up on what the argumentum ad antiquitam logical fallacy is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

My argument was not limited to “Because it’s always been this way,” and leave it at that. That’s what your side does and that’s not enough. I examine the historical track record of events and draw conclusions based on that. That’s a bit different.

alchemist19 on February 27, 2014 at 2:34 AM

Bravo. You could not have demonstrated your hackery and disingenuousness (or are you just really really lacking in self awareness?) in any better a fashion.

Good job.

gwelf on February 27, 2014 at 8:35 AM

Here’s a taste of alchemists “not appealing to tradition:

So based on the historical track record of polygamy and the social ills associated with a lot of men with little hope of ever getting married we have a rational basis to restrict the practice of polygamy. There are other problems associated with it but this is one of the more cut-and-dry, and more than sufficient to justify the prohibition.

OMG! If everyone got a gay marriage then civilization would die out!

Seriously, you’d like to think you’re not making an appeal to history or tradition and just extrapolating what polygamy would do to society but you’re full of crap and everyone can see that.

Just another example right here:

Every argument for SSM translates directly to polygamy? False. Just off the top of my head, prohibiting same-sex marriage deprives homosexuals of any realistic possibility to ever be married. Prohibiting polygamy still lets everyone have at least one legal partner whereas prohibiting same-sex marriage means a certain class of people will never have any.

alchemist19 on February 27, 2014 at 2:18 AM

Well, gays can get a marriage too! It just has to be with someone of the opposite sex. If it’s good enough for the polygamists to be restricted then it’s good enough for the gays. And if “procreation” isn’t a compelling state interest in marriage then the number of partners sure isn’t.

Please keep responding. Each time you do you reveal your hypocrisy and how shallow your reasoning really is.

gwelf on February 27, 2014 at 8:40 AM

alchemist,

If as you say you’ve never said polyandry should be restricted then are you also saying you don’t think that 2 guys + 2 gals should be restricted?

What about mother and daughter? Or father and son?

Are you really only arguing that polygamy should be restricted but everything else I listed should be sanctioned by the state?

gwelf on February 27, 2014 at 8:42 AM

Federal courts don’t see any compelling reason to restrict marriage to straights only. Procreation’s not compelling because marriage isn’t limited to child-bearing straights. The idea that gay marriage will discourage marriage generally isn’t compelling, partly because there isn’t enough evidence and partly because the no-fault-divorce revolution shows that most states are fine in other contexts with making it easier for marriages to split up. The definitional argument, that “marriage” necessarily means opposite genders, was dismissed by the court in today’s decision this way:

You don’t really think these are legitimate, do you? The state never had to recognize marriage in the first place. And now they’re forced to accept a definition that no one has ever heard of before the 21st century?

If the state can’t set up marriage criteria because it’s “discriminatory” then it can’t set up any criteria for anything. So give me veteran benefits now! Marriage benefits for singles! It’s discrimination!

bossmanham on February 27, 2014 at 8:52 AM

I knew this was coming, just not so quickly. Pray for Texas, and for our country. This will not be good.

Ward Cleaver on February 27, 2014 at 9:03 AM

I’m not going to be surprised when one morning soon I wake up and the headline is: “Federal Judge suspends States Rights and Constitution. Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal.”

oldroy on February 27, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Did we have a theocracy in 1790? 1820? 1860? 1910? 1940? At exactly which point did marriage become an expression of theocracy?

As soon as you try to base government behavior off the Christian Bible or any other religious text.

So, all of the above, according to your standard.

You throw the word out, but it’s meaningless jabber, because we didn’t have a theocracy before and we won’t have one now.

If you want to find the foundation of laws for our country, you can look at two sources: 1) Christian morality 2) natural law.

You’re saying we’re not a theocracy then advocating for theocratic principles in the very next paragraph. I’m almost speechless. Christian morality is NOT the foundation for law in this country, the Constitution is! And there’s no mention of the Christian or any other god or holy text in the Constitution.

No, I’m saying we’re not a theocracy, and then you’re trying to define any recognition of morality that lines up with Christian morality as theocracy, and trying to claim I’m contradicting myself.

But if we accept your standard of theocracy, we’ve always been a theocracy. So how can we be about to become one?

Yes, Christian morality is the primary foundation for law in this country. The Founding Fathers did not consider that to mean theocracy, because they considered that you could also quite successfully base our morality on natural law. So whether you accepted that morality based on your faith, or based on natural law — that is, whether sacred or secular — there was a moral foundation.

But natural law leads inexorably to rejecting unnatural marriages where one of the sexes is missing. We would understand natural law to recognize that men and women by nature marry and reproduce, and raise their children.

Two men can’t do that. Oh, they can come up with their own substitutes. They can substitute rectal stimulation for actual intercourse, adoption for procreation, and pretend what they wind up with is a marriage.

The problem with trying to reduce marriage to a natural law argument is that we’ve never made reproduction a condition for marriage. That’s part of why you can’t seem to win a court case.

Reproduction has always been part of marriage. The fact that reproduction is not always successful is just part of life. To then declare that reproduction has nothing to do with marriage is absurd.

The same standard would lead to the conclusion that procreation is not part of sex, because sex does not always result in procreation.

The reasoning is ludicrous and childish, which is the more embarrassing because it’s being published with a certain amount of pride by supposedly educated people.

But you can make any argument work when you redefine terms to suit your argument. We see this already with marriage. The plaintiffs in this case made the same argument that I’ve made multiple times: that SSM redefines marriage to create a new type of marriage between the same sexes. And the judge simply declares that it’s not a new type of marriage, because the “traditional” type of marriage is just a subset of what marriage really is.

What makes this redefinition of marriage more correct than the original definition of marriage? On what basis?

More and more, judges simply define it as they wish, and want us to accept it because they say so. It is the definition of arbitrary.

And here’s the irony for these judges. Judicial rulings are based on 1) the text of the law and 2) precedent

These judicial rulings override the text of the law without precedent.

If these judges were to act according to precedent and the text of the law, there would be no discussion today. The first suit would have led to a simple statement that it was not up to judges to set aside the state of law as it exists, and that the people had the power to change their law through referendum and legislation if it was inadequate.

But this is what marks you for a bigot. An atheist or agnostic doesn’t necessarily believe SSM is good just because normal marriage happens to also line up with Christian morality. They can recognize the value of marriage according to natural law without ever deriving that value from the Christian faith.

I do recognize the value of marriage. That’s why I want everyone to be able to do it, including homosexuals.

No, you want to create a new type of marriage and pretend once again that it’s the same thing.

But the atheists and agnostics who hate Christianity can’t accept normal marriage without going on about theocracy. Like your comment about the “thousand-year-old storybook,” it’s a tell.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 27, 2014 at 12:10 AM

The same people who come down on Anthony Kennedy for citing animus in his Windsor opinion are here claiming how people who don’t subscribe to their (mistaken) belief about the role religious-based morality in the United States government all hate Christianity. If irony were made out of strawberries we would all be having a lot of smoothies right now.

alchemist19 on February 27, 2014 at 1:57 AM

You’re missing the irony. The same people who hate Christianity — as has been made plain multiple times — are the ones calling Christians haters and bigots. The animus Kennedy claims is the basis for opposition to SSM is actually found in the people pushing for SSM.

It does not require animus to homosexuals to reject the idea that marriage applies between two men or between two women.

On the other hand, to demand to overturn the accepted meaning of marriage is far more likely to be an expression of animus.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 27, 2014 at 9:56 AM

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 27, 2014 at 12:48 AM

I’ve picked different forms of this argument apart for you before but if you think you’ve got something here then call the attorney general of Michigan ASAP so he can read this in court at the ongoing trial there so as to persuade the judge before another ruling goes against you.

alchemist19 on February 27, 2014 at 2:03 AM

You’ve “picked it apart” in the same sense that you’ve found “no rational basis” to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

That is, you haven’t accomplished either.

On the contrary, the natural law argument I made did not require any reference to scripture or the Christian faith. It doesn’t contradict the Christian faith, because the natural order was created in the first place by God. God is the author of marriage. But even if you don’t believe in God, you can still examine the world around you and come to the same conclusions.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 27, 2014 at 10:07 AM

alchemist is an idiot. He ignores the fact that “rational basis” is whatever someone wants it to be.

The same “rational basis” alchemist uses for polygamy can be used for same-sex marriage.

blink on February 27, 2014 at 10:10 AM

alchemist is a pretty impressive endless loop of a double standard.

“rational basis” only means what he says it means, except for polygamy when he can’t even apply his own standards.

He totally ignores polyandry, 2 guys + 2 gals, mothers + daughters, fathers + sons, etc.

He goes to China to make some claim about polygamy being potentially maybe disastrous if a whole bunch of factors line up. And he thinks this provides a “rational basis” to exclude people from something he considers to be a “fundamental right” (even though as melle pointed out earlier, it’s more of a fundamental right to procreate and not to government bennies).

On the one hand he has no real evidence and very flimsy reasoning for why polygamy should be excluded and on the other he doesn’t even try to refute all of the arguments made for polygamy using the same reasoning applied to SSM (it’s for the children in these unions, grant them dignity and protection, it serves the state’s interest of intact relationships and “families” etc).

gwelf on February 27, 2014 at 10:24 AM

With pleasure.

Your point appears to be that two gays getting married will not in the least affect your family, and therefore there should be no law prohibiting it.

Now, let’s expand that.

Explain to us how two siblings or a parent and child getting married affects your family.

Explain to us how children getting married to adults affects your family.

Explain to us how adults marrying farm animals or inanimate objects affects your family.

Explain to us how people marrying multiple partners affects your family.

If you cannot provide a clear and concrete example for each, then by your own logic and argument, all laws restricting marriage must be abolished.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 8:54 PM

Yep. This is what I call the “subjectification” of marriage, meaning, marriage becomes whatever each individual says it is. It loses it’s shared traditional religious, legal and social definition with each new variation.

I’m not talking about you and your lover just “holding yourself out as married” to people and considering each other married, because people can just ignore that relationship because it has no real effect on them. I’m talking about where the same lovers (gay, incest, underage, multiple) are seeking SOCIAL/GOVT. recognition of it, to FORCE people to care, to honor it, for money, legal support, social recognition, etc.

No “discrimination” means “no definition”. And in turn, your own marriage as you define it (with the personal/traditional standards of male and female, committed, living together, birthing children, etc.) becomes “old and busted”. Adam and Steve swing proudly, they’re “married” and now THEY consider your marriage passe. And they want that idea taught to kids, or expressed in media, law, etc. I.E. infidelity should no longer have the same weight as a divorce ground, since gays would likely get too easily caught up in it. So, for example, if YOU value commitment in marriage, but they openly and proudly screw around with other people regularly, they don’t want their “marriage” to be considered not as “good” or “preferable” as yours, so YOURS and your customs and standards are gonna have to go. That has the effect of social/legally cheapening your marriage – if any one can call themselves “doctor” and not meet the accepted requirements, then the title means nothing.

So you say “my marriage is mine & my wife’s, I don’t care if it is socially cheapened!” Well, the irony here is that if marriage is just between two people, and its no one’s business to tell others what it should be, then there is nothing “special” about it to deserve govt./social recognition, support, enforcement or benefit. It becomes glorified roommates or friends, which the state has no interest in. Why “license” doctors when anyone can bestow the title upon themselves? So why the big push by homosexuals for social acceptance?

So for the average homosexuals on the street, maybe they do just want to be married/civilly unified without the social hoopla. But for the agenda-setters, the arm-flailers, the line-steppers, the radicals, its a mean to an end, my hetereo friend, a means to an end - upending conventional social morals to lessen or eliminate what THEY themselves can never be, all to massage their damaged self-image.

Saltyron on February 27, 2014 at 10:28 AM

alchemist is like a losing debate team that refuses to go home after getting their butts kicked – yet they don’t change their arguments at all. Hilarious.

blink on February 27, 2014 at 10:28 AM

His kink must be masochism.

The sad thing is, ignorami like him are winning in court.

Saltyron on February 27, 2014 at 10:43 AM

alchemist is like a losing debate team that refuses to go home after getting their butts kicked – yet they don’t change their arguments at all. Hilarious.

blink on February 27, 2014 at 10:28 AM

And this is true of most liberals, on most topics. Their points and policies and philosophies are handily destroyed by reality and common sense and history, yet they never give up or change.

No amount of rational discourse matters; they must simply be destroyed.

Midas on February 27, 2014 at 11:02 AM

they must simply be destroyed.

I’ll take firing squad over gas chamber, assuming I get a choice.

lostmotherland on February 27, 2014 at 11:09 AM

Court decisions are always in-line with social norms. alchemist has simply exposed himself as a bigot whose mindset is stuck back in 2008.

He also makes it obvious that he wants to use the law to force HIS morals on everyone else.

blink on February 27, 2014 at 11:29 AM

And that’s the big takeaway here.

Judges aren’t impartial and objective arbiters of the law and the written word of the constitution. They are heavily influenced by social norms.
And they’re usually clever philosophers who can get the legal process and structure to produce whatever results they prefer.

gwelf on February 27, 2014 at 11:33 AM

alchemist is an idiot. He ignores the fact that “rational basis” is whatever someone wants it to be.

The same “rational basis” alchemist uses for polygamy can be used for same-sex marriage.

blink on February 27, 2014 at 10:10 AM

um shouldn’t your side be defending polygamy on the basis of the freedom to practice ones religion in good conscience? why do you oppose protecting polygamy from government intrusion?

brushingmyhair on February 27, 2014 at 11:37 AM

um shouldn’t your side be defending polygamy on the basis of the freedom to practice ones religion in good conscience? why do you oppose protecting polygamy from government intrusion?

brushingmyhair on February 27, 2014 at 11:37 AM

I don’t think polygamy should be criminalized.

I don’t think the state should license their relationships either – they shouldn’t interfere. Just like gay couples.

And I certainly don’t think the Constitution demands the state recognize gay or polygamous marriages.

gwelf on February 27, 2014 at 12:09 PM

gwelf on February 27, 2014 at 12:09 PM

so the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all? all currently state recognized marriage should be voided or discontinued?

brushingmyhair on February 27, 2014 at 12:18 PM

why are you opposed to polygamy?

brushingmyhair on February 27, 2014 at 12:27 PM

thats to blink.

brushingmyhair on February 27, 2014 at 12:27 PM

so the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all? all currently state recognized marriage should be voided or discontinued?

brushingmyhair on February 27, 2014 at 12:18 PM

I’d prefer that the state get out of marriage as much as possible. Some involvement is probably necessary because they produce children who have rights and parents have obligations to their children.

But it’s ridiculous to claim that the 14th amendment – or any other part of the Constitution – demand that states recognize gay marriages.

The states are well within their authority to define marriage for purposes of state benefits and “protections”.

gwelf on February 27, 2014 at 12:30 PM

But it’s ridiculous to claim that the 14th amendment – or any other part of the Constitution – demand that states recognize gay marriages.

why is that ridiculous? what about the states that recognize SSM?

brushingmyhair on February 27, 2014 at 12:38 PM

I’m NOT opposed to polygamy. I’m in favor of marriage equality. That means that everyone has the right to marry as they please.

Do you support marriage equality?

blink on February 27, 2014 at 12:29 PM

im not stupid. you’re lying. you do not support polygamy or marriage between fathers and daughters or people marrying animals.

alchemist is an idiot. He ignores the fact that “rational basis” is whatever someone wants it to be.

i think this shows your true feelings.

brushingmyhair on February 27, 2014 at 12:43 PM

why is that ridiculous? what about the states that recognize SSM?

brushingmyhair on February 27, 2014 at 12:38 PM

States can choose to recognize SSM. Like I said – it is well within the power of the states to decide what marriage is in terms of state benefits and protections. They can choose to recognize gays, polygamists, incest, whatever. Or not. It’s up to the legislative process in that state.

Why is it ridiculous? Go and read the 14th amendment. It says that a state is required to offer equal protection of the laws and due process when the state is going to deprive you of life, liberty or property. The state not granting you a relationship license does not deprive you of life, liberty or property.

If you want to claim that it does because denying “benefits” and “protections” like those of state marriage is like depriving them of life, liberty or property – ok fine. Then you also have to strike down the tax code and the entitlement state which treats citizens unequally. But the courts won’t be consistent.

But it’s ridiculous to interpret the 14th this way because the 14th amendments promise of equal protection and due process did NOT give blacks or women the right to vote. The 15th and 19th amendments did. So, we’re supposed to believe that the 14th amendment demands states recognize gay marriage because of “equality” and “due process” but not the right to vote for blacks and women?

gwelf on February 27, 2014 at 12:49 PM

alchemist is an idiot. He ignores the fact that “rational basis” is whatever someone wants it to be.
i think this shows your true feelings.

brushingmyhair on February 27, 2014 at 12:43 PM

It’s not just blinks feelings – it’s true.

rational basis – or substantive due process – is a completely extra-constitutional and modern construct that’s ever evolving that does in fact serve to allow justices to provide some reason to come to the conclusion they want to regardless of the law and the actual words and meaning of the constitution. And even judges sometimes know that they can’t even use the distortions of “rational basis” to get the result they want and remain consistent – which is why Kennedy punted and said in the Windsor case that it’s all due to hatred (thus absolving him of the exercise of trying to actually address the rational basis for traditional marriage). Go read the Scalia dissent in Windsor – it’s very enlightening.

gwelf on February 27, 2014 at 12:52 PM

i wasn’t arguing for or against “rational basis,” the point was blink is pretending to be for some sort of pure marriage equality. i believed that statement showed how he really felt.

brushingmyhair on February 27, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7