Reminder from Pennsylvania: The Supreme Court has already basically legalized gay marriage

posted at 7:21 pm on May 20, 2014 by Allahpundit

Yesterday’s ruling striking down Oregon’s gay-marriage ban came from an Obama appointee. Today’s ruling striking down Pennsylvania’s ban comes from a Bush appointee, one whose confirmation was backed by Rick Santorum no less. Different judges, different political leanings, a slightly different legal posture (Oregon’s ban was part of the state constitution, Pennsylvania’s was merely a state statute, although each state’s AG refused to defend the law in court), but none of it mattered.

Like McShane in Oregon, Jones provided for no stay of his ruling, meaning it goes into effect immediately — and same-sex couples should be able to apply for marriage licenses immediately, although there is a three-day waiting period to get the license…

As to his legal conclusion, Jones wrote, “[W]e hold that Pennsylvania’s Marriage Laws violate both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because these laws are unconstitutional, we shall enter an order permanently enjoining their enforcement. By virtue of this ruling, same-sex couples who seek to marry in Pennsylvania may do so, and already married same-sex couples will be recognized as such in the Commonwealth.”…

In the order, filed moments later, Jones wrote the state defendants are “permanently enjoined” from enforcing the ban. He provided for no stay of his order, meaning it is effective immediately.

Lest you think this was a case of a judge grudgingly applying precedent with which he disagrees, Jones concluded his opinion by writing, “We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history.” You can read the entire opinion here, but look: The precise rationale doesn’t much matter at this point. If you follow these cases, you know how the due process and equal protection arguments go by now. The significance of the Oregon and Pennsylvania rulings isn’t their legal reasoning, it’s the dramatic dual reminder that the controversy surrounding this issue is all but done as a matter of federal jurisprudence. You may yet see a very conservative appellate judge somewhere in the system uphold a gay-marriage ban over the next few years as SSM makes its way back up to the Supreme Court, but that’ll be an outlier. Judge after judge will continue to strike down these bans, from the northwest to the northeast to the deep south. You know why? Because Anthony Kennedy left them little choice. Remember the key passages from last year’s Windsor decision, in which the Court ruled a part of DOMA unconstitutional:

DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives…

What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

Technically that ruling applied only to DOMA, a federal statute, and not to any state marriage bans. Technically you can read Kennedy as saying that it’s up to each state to decide whether gay couples should enjoy the “dignity and integrity of the person” that comes with having their marriage formally recognized. If a state wants to ban those marriages, so much for dignity and integrity. In reality, though, it’s a snap for lower-court judges to extend Kennedy’s logic to state bans on gay marriage too. If the Constitution protects gays’ moral and sexual choices, as Kennedy affirms, then their choice to marry logically is also constitutionally protected. Which means, by definition, that state bans are unconstitutional. Scalia, dissenting in the Windsor case, saw it coming from a mile away:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status…

By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court’s declaration that there is “no legitimate purpose” served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has “the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure” the “personhood and dignity” of same-sex couples, see ante, at 25, 26. The majority’s limiting assurance will be meaningless in the face of language like that, as the majority well knows. That is why the language is there. The result will be a judicial distortion of our society’s debate over marriage—a debate that can seem in need of our clumsy “help” only to a member of this institution.

In other words, said Scalia, the takeaway from the Windsor decision for lower-court judges wouldn’t be “the states can do what they like and the feds must comply with what each state decides,” it would be “gays have a fundamental liberty interest in marriage that no government, federal or state, may infringe.” What you’ve seen over the past few months in the drumbeat of pro-SSM federal rulings is Scalia being proved right. By the time the Supreme Court is asked to decide whether states can bay gay marriage, Kennedy will have a few dozen lower-court precedents implementing his Windsor reasoning to cite as support when he inevitably decides that gay marriage must be legal everywhere. Which, to give him his due, is tactically clever: He was understandably reluctant to be the deciding vote that makes SSM legal coast to coast in one fell swoop, so instead he planted a seed in Windsor which he knew lower courts would nurture for him. When this issue finally lands on his desk again, gay marriage will already be a court-enforced reality in dozens of states, with the public having had several years to adjust to it. All SCOTUS will have to do is rubber-stamp the lower courts. Minimal upheaval, minimal heat for Kennedy.


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

You’ll never be right until you admit you were wrong. From what I’ve seen, you’ll never admit you were wrong, no matter how obvious.

I can’t recall being wrong in one of these threads, at least on anything major.

Just like when you tried to claim there were no health risks in homosexuality, even though it’s been common knowledge for years.

There’s nothing inherently risky.

Or were you hoping no one wold remember that?

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2014 at 10:36 PM

If you want to go there and be made to look foolish, again, then I’m afraid I can’t stop you.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:06 PM

The children I know come from marriages that dissolved because the mother or father came out as gay. That is humiliating to the children and especially to the spouse.

monalisa on May 20, 2014 at 10:45 PM

If you want to argue that it’s a bad idea to give homosexuals a reason to conceal their sexual orientation and marry a member of the opposite sex then I’ll be right there with you supporting you.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:08 PM

alchemist, just leave and come back once and awhile. You were wrongfully accused tonight of wanting to spread the AIDS virus. Some of these people are just off their rockers.

SC.Charlie on May 20, 2014 at 10:59 PM

Actually, that’s quite scientific.

In spite of extraordinary research breakthroughs and new effective treatment and prevention, the HIV epidemic continues to chug along. There are 50,000 new HIV infections a year in the United States – a steady flow unchanged since 2007 (the peak was 130,000 a year in the mid-1980s). And the reasons are not so much medical as they are behavioural, psychological and cultural.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently announced that if HIV infections continue to rise at current rates, half of young gay men will have HIV by the age of 50. Infections have been increasing among young men who have sex with men, especially young, black men. Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, reports that a black gay or bisexual man in Atlanta who becomes sexually active at age 18 now has a 60 per cent chance of becoming HIV-positive by the time he turns 30.

Meanwhile, SC.Charlie, perhaps you should educate yourself on what your gay heroes were doing.

One longtime veteran of gay politics, Frank Kameny, said he would “advise fellow gays to lie” if the local blood bank officials proceeded with screening.

In New York, the National Gay Task Force rounded up virtually every gay leader in Manhattan to stand on the steps of teh New york Blood Center for a press conference denouncing efforts to screen donors. As he scanned the group, Michael Callen, a leader in the newly formed New York chapter of People With AIDS, relished the irony of the press conference. He knew that virtually every gay man there had had hepatitis B and that most had engaged in the kind of sexual activites that put them at high risk for AIDS. Not one of them could in good conscience donate blood, Callen thought, and here they were, exuding self-righteous indignation at the thought that someone would suggest they did not have the right to make such donations.

pp 238 – 239, And the Band Played On

In short, gays were deliberately giving blood, even though they were engaging in unsafe activities that they KNEW would contaminate the blood supply — and with a new bloodborne disease, HIV, already ravaging the population.

How mentally sick and deranged do you have to be to endanger peoples’ lives like that?

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 11:11 PM

I can think of several benefits to having citizens marry from the state’s perspective but I can’t and won’t attempt to get into the heads of all the legislators who ever voted to bring about civil marriage in the various states. What matters is what the state has considered qualified to enter into that legal status and assume the privileges and responsibilities so associated.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:05 PM

Translation: Too many of them have to do with children and childrearing, so you’re going to run away and hide.

Still no answer. Apparently you’re too frightened of how you were humiliated the last time you tangled with me and were exposed as a bigot attempting to exploit gays and lesbians.

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 11:13 PM

Alchemist1,

The argument that restricting marriage to one man and one woman is inherantly rational because opening it up to anyone else means opening it up to the point where it loses all definition as such.

Unless blink is here no one is arguing that marriage should be opened up to any conceivable couple, and even if blink is here then no one is seriously arguing that.

No rational argument can be made to restrict marriage in any way shape or form once it is opened up to gay couples.

You can’t think of a single reason to oppose incest that doesn’t somehow relate to gay people?

You just completely ignored everything else I said. Reading the 14th Amendment the way that you do in pure black and white and in such absolutist terms nullifies the rights of the majority to make any decisions to favor one thing over another and will result in end to end of all choices for all voters. It leads to the only choices being between different degress of vanilla. That is the only way for all people to be equal.

There’s a natural tension between the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the fact that laws are commonly forced to be discriminatory. That’s why the different tiers of scrutiny for equal protection claims have come into existence. Rational Basis is the most deferential to the states but so far they can’t even clear that low bar.

The courts narrowly define what types of arguments can be made in a court case. This restriction more than anything else has restricted the kinds of arguments that defenders of marriage have been allowed to make such as forcing them to claim some immediate measurable harm.

When immediate, measurable harm is being done to the couples being discriminated against then the state has to justify the discrimination. In many cases they can but in the event they can’t the laws get struck down.

The law is actually a blunt instrument ill equiped to decide what is truly rational. It is too narrow in its scope. This is why we used to have the right to legislate and to vote and other such quaint notions in order to decide the important questions for our society that the judiciary is incapable of properly deciding. That right is now so eroded as to be meaningless. Its every man for themselves now. Each person is their own moral universe and king. And its now the governments job to ensure that it happens.

Texene on May 20, 2014 at 10:52 PM

Do you think a majority has the right to vote away a person’s Constitutional rights?

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:13 PM

Which is why you won’t answer me.

That’s what makes your preening hilarious, alchemist19. You’re terrified of a gay man pointing out you’re a bigot and a liar and that your so-called “concern” for “gay rights” is nothing more than self-aggrandizement. – northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 11:00 PM

ND30 speaks, no one listens. That is appropriate. How many radio interviews have you given in the last year as a gay conservative? And, you talk of self-aggrandizement. You are a hypocrite.

SC.Charlie on May 20, 2014 at 11:14 PM

If you want to argue that it’s a bad idea to give homosexuals a reason to conceal their sexual orientation and marry a member of the opposite sex then I’ll be right there with you supporting you.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:08 PM

Actually, a responsible person who valued marriage would never have put themselves in that situation; only a selfish narcissistic person who was putting their own needs ahead of everyone else’s.

If you want to argue that gays and lesbians have to be given marriage because they’re too selfish and narcissistic to value the sanctity of marriage and instead would enter into lying sham marriages, go ahead.

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 11:15 PM

Ah yes, the “gender-based restriction” which justifiably leads to higher birth rates – which is in the state’s rational interest.

monalisa on May 20, 2014 at 11:00 PM

Then why doesn’t the state require procreation to access the legal status of civil marriage?

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:15 PM

Just like when you tried to claim there were no health risks in homosexuality, even though it’s been common knowledge for years.

There’s nothing inherently risky.

No health risks inherent in homosexual activities, including anal intercourse? You sure you want to claim that?

Or were you hoping no one wold remember that?

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2014 at 10:36 PM

If you want to go there and be made to look foolish, again, then I’m afraid I can’t stop you.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:06 PM

When you deny what is easily proven, you’re the one who looks foolish.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2014 at 11:15 PM

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 11:11 PM

These are not my heroes. You are just a young fool who thinks that anyone who is of “THAT” generation marched to the orders of a few.

SC.Charlie on May 20, 2014 at 11:17 PM

ND30 speaks, no one listens. That is appropriate. How many radio interviews have you given in the last year as a gay conservative? And, you talk of self-aggrandizement. You are a hypocrite.

SC.Charlie on May 20, 2014 at 11:14 PM

Probably more than you have. :)

And of course neither you or alchemist19 are going to listen, SC.Charlie; that’s a given. You’re too trapped in your own bigotry.

But who do you think does a better job of representing normal gay people; ones like you and alchemist who want judges overturning laws, executives and AGs refusing to enforce or defend laws, and bigoted gays forcing Christians to bake cakes and arrange flowers for them, or people like me, who actually stand on the Constitution and protect the rights of everyone?

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 11:17 PM

No health risks inherent in homosexual activities, including anal intercourse? You sure you want to claim that?

It’s no more inherently risky for homosexuals than it is for heterosexuals.

When you deny what is easily proven, you’re the one who looks foolish.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2014 at 11:15 PM

The irony of hearing this from someone who won’t let go of Mark Regnerus and Loren Marks is rich.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:18 PM

Then why doesn’t the state require procreation to access the legal status of civil marriage?

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:15 PM

Because procreation happens regardless of marriage; the point and purpose of marriage is to promote procreation taking place WITHIN marriage, where the resulting children have legal support, have people to care for them since they can’t, and are provided with benefits via their parents from the state.

Since gay-sex couples will never procreate, they will never have children, and thus there’s no need for the state to create legal or financial benefits for them. Also, presumably gays are adults and can care for themselves.

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 11:20 PM

Do you think a majority has the right to vote away a person’s Constitutional rights?

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:13 PM

So therefore laws banning incest, plural marriage, and child marriage and pedophilia are illegal, since they are “majorities voting away a person’s Constitutional rights”.

Or you could stop cheapening the term “Constitutional rights” and reserve it for ones that actually ARE in the Constitution — like freedom of religion.

Again, no answer. I guess you really can’t defend your statements.

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 11:22 PM

You can’t think of a single reason to oppose incest that doesn’t somehow relate to gay people?

What if the Windsors were sisters or brother and sister?

You keep arguing marriage “rights” when it is really marriage “benefits”. The Windsors used DOMA to argue an estate tax case. Instead of getting rid of the estate tax – which would be equal to all – we get this new definition of “marriage”. So why shouldn’t two sisters or a brother and sister who have inherited and built a family business together be able to get “married” so they can enjoy the same benefits as “otherwise qualified couples”?

monalisa on May 20, 2014 at 11:24 PM

What if the Windsors were sisters or brother and sister?

You keep arguing marriage “rights” when it is really marriage “benefits”. The Windsors used DOMA to argue an estate tax case. Instead of getting rid of the estate tax – which would be equal to all – we get this new definition of “marriage”. So why shouldn’t two sisters or a brother and sister who have inherited and built a family business together be able to get “married” so they can enjoy the same benefits as “otherwise qualified couples”?

monalisa on May 20, 2014 at 11:24 PM

An existing close relationship of a couple seeking access to civil marriage and the gender of the couple seeking access are different issues. Can you think of any reasons beyond simple moral disapproval why two sisters or a brother and a sister ought not be allowed to marry?

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:26 PM

It’s no more inherently risky for homosexuals than it is for heterosexuals.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:18 PM

LMAO.

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM))a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU.

In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) MSM and 12% among MSM overall.

Among all MSM, white MSM accounted for 11,400 (38%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among white MSM (3,300; 29%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.

Among all MSM, black/African American MSM accounted for 10,600 (36%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among black/African American MSM (4,800; 45%)occurred in those aged 13 to 24. From 2008 to 2010 new infections increased 20% among young black/African American MSM aged 13 to 24.

Among all MSM, Hispanic/Latino MSM accounted for 6,700 (22%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among Hispanic/Latino MSM (3,300; 39%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.

That not enough, alchemist19? You need more?

Health officials say syphilis has reached its highest level since 1995 with the increase all in men.

Syphilis remains far less common in the U.S. than many other sexually spread diseases. But there has been a steady rise in gay and bisexual men catching the disease. They account for most of the recent infectious cases.

Since 2005, the rate in men has nearly doubled.

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 11:27 PM

No health risks inherent in homosexual activities, including anal intercourse? You sure you want to claim that?

It’s no more inherently risky for homosexuals than it is for heterosexuals.

So how many heterosexuals engage routinely in anal intercourse, as a percentage?

Now how many homosexuals?

So why is it that AIDS is a gay disease, not a heterosexual disease. I remember years of predictions that it was about to break out into the heterosexual population, but somehow, it never happened.

You’re already looking foolish. You sure you want to dig that hole a little deeper?

When you deny what is easily proven, you’re the one who looks foolish.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2014 at 11:15 PM

The irony of hearing this from someone who won’t let go of Mark Regnerus and Loren Marks is rich.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:18 PM

The irony is that the Regnerus study rests on a much more solid statistical sampling than all the studies you want to claim are authoritative. Yet you’re quick to find fault with the Regnerus study, and only with the Regnerus study.

Your problem with the Regnerus study is that it didn’t come to the conclusion you wanted.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2014 at 11:27 PM

Alchemy pathetic. Still at it. ..sad loser.

CW on May 20, 2014 at 11:28 PM

P

robably more than you have. :)

And of course neither you or alchemist19 are going to listen, SC.Charlie; that’s a given. You’re too trapped in your own bigotry.

But who do you think does a better job of representing normal gay people; ones like you and alchemist who want judges overturning laws, executives and AGs refusing to enforce or defend laws, and bigoted gays forcing Christians to bake cakes and arrange flowers for them, or people like me, who actually stand on the Constitution and protect the rights of everyone? – northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 11:17 PM

I give no radio interviews, but my guess is you have given scores. I don’t have a twitter account. I guess you missed the other in another gay thread in which Ed Morrissey said that the state Attorney Generals should defend the laws passed by the legislature or people. I supported Ed Morrissey and do truly think that Attorney Generals are duty bound to do so.

SC.Charlie on May 20, 2014 at 11:28 PM

It’s no more inherently risky for homosexuals than it is for heterosexuals.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:18 PM

And then, the best one for showing how deluded the liar alchemist19 is:

HIV prevalence stood at 10.5% among 1889 young men who have sex with men (MSM) studied by the CDC in 21 US cities — a rate twice higher than that among adults across sub-Saharan Africa.

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 11:29 PM

If you want to argue that it’s a bad idea to give homosexuals a reason to conceal their sexual orientation and marry a member of the opposite sex then I’ll be right there with you supporting you.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:08 PM

Agreed. But from the child’s perspective, which is the superior union? I believe it is the male-female union, but maybe we should ask Bill DeBlasio’s children?

monalisa on May 20, 2014 at 11:31 PM

Well if I’m not here being right then who’s going to do it? That’s not rhetorical either.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 9:49 PM

Agreed. You are literally not here being right.

CapnObvious on May 20, 2014 at 11:34 PM

Agreed. But from the child’s perspective, which is the superior union? I believe it is the male-female union, but maybe we should ask Bill DeBlasio’s children?

monalisa on May 20, 2014 at 11:31 PM

The entertaining part of this is watching people like alchemist19 scream about the children of these sham marriages — which seems odd, when you consider the reason the one participant gave was that their sexual orientation prevented them from coupling with a member of the opposite sex.

So where did these kids come from? Spontaneous generation?

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 11:36 PM

Striking down gender bans will inevitably lead to striking down any bans. Once marriage is only about “two people who love each other”, there is really no legal leg to stand on for the state to decide some people can marry but others can’t. So, even if you are not bothered by your great neighbors Bob and John getting hitched (who could argue with that?), the larger social changes will cause a lot of upheaval in the years to come. The next couple of decades will see serious conflicts arise between competing “rights” and there will be good people who will suffer for what they believe.

The same thing happened with the introduction of birth control. The first oral contraceptives 50 years ago were only allowed to be given to married women with six or more children (who could argue with that?). That was followed by rapid expansion of acceptable recipients until we reached the current wide use by any reproductive age female. Affordable, accessible and effective birth control led to a complete societal re-think of what was appropriate sexual behavior. Rather than curb unwanted pregnancies and promote responsible sexual behavior, OCPs led to the Sexual Revolution, an explosion of sexual activity and pregnancies that didn’t slow down for several decades. You could even argue it led to where we are now with gay marriage.

inmypajamas on May 20, 2014 at 11:39 PM

And, I suppose that ND30 and his partner can switch at will from being gay to straight at any time, just like Bill Deblasio’s wife.

SC.Charlie on May 20, 2014 at 11:40 PM

ND30, you should run for political office. You certainly have the ego.

SC.Charlie on May 20, 2014 at 11:42 PM

And, I suppose that ND30 and his partner can switch at will from being gay to straight at any time, just like Bill Deblasio’s wife.

SC.Charlie on May 20, 2014 at 11:40 PM

What’s the incentive?

I have no reason or particular inclination to have sex with a woman, or to marry one.

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 11:43 PM

So how many heterosexuals engage routinely in anal intercourse, as a percentage?

Now how many homosexuals?

So why is it that AIDS is a gay disease, not a heterosexual disease. I remember years of predictions that it was about to break out into the heterosexual population, but somehow, it never happened.

You’re already looking foolish. You sure you want to dig that hole a little deeper?

HIV is more common amongst homosexual men but that doesn’t mean it’s an inherent risk. If two HIV-free homosexual men enter into a faithful, monogamous relationship then the odds of either of them ever contracting HIV through sexual contact is zero. If you’re really concerned about public health then you should be in favor of marriage rights for homosexuals.

It should also be worth pointing out that lesbians who are exclusive to other women are at no risk of transmitting HIV.

The irony is that the Regnerus study rests on a much more solid statistical sampling than all the studies you want to claim are authoritative. Yet you’re quick to find fault with the Regnerus study, and only with the Regnerus study.

You say stuff like that but every time I ask you to offer supporting evidence for your claim all I hear are crickets.

Your problem with the Regnerus study is that it didn’t come to the conclusion you wanted.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2014 at 11:27 PM

My problem is it’s a shoddy piece of work that was the result of an interest group buying a researcher to produce a study whose result was predetermined, and despite its well-known flaws is still being talked about as if it’s authoritative on a subject it didn’t even examine.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:44 PM

Agreed. But from the child’s perspective, which is the superior union? I believe it is the male-female union, but maybe we should ask Bill DeBlasio’s children?

monalisa on May 20, 2014 at 11:31 PM

Apparently as far as measurable outcomes go there’s no difference so long as the parents are stable and financially secure.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:47 PM

What’s the incentive?

I have no reason or particular inclination to have sex with a woman, or to marry one. – northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 11:43 PM

Of course you are a homosexual who fears commitment. You don’t need the states approval to get married.

SC.Charlie on May 20, 2014 at 11:49 PM

Good nite all. Let’s all live a long and happy life.

SC.Charlie on May 20, 2014 at 11:57 PM

HIV is more common amongst homosexual men but that doesn’t mean it’s an inherent risk. If two HIV-free homosexual men enter into a faithful, monogamous relationship then the odds of either of them ever contracting HIV through sexual contact is zero. If you’re really concerned about public health then you should be in favor of marriage rights for homosexuals.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:44 PM

Except for the fact that gays and lesbians and their leaders like Dan Savage brand monogamy and fidelity as “ridiculous”, “unnatural” and “destructive”, and instead promote and push promiscuity with multiple sexual partners.

So if you really cared about public health, alchemist19, you would attack and condemn gays and lesbians and their promiscuity. But instead you chose to lie and state that gays would be faithful and monogamous when their own leadership and media and spokespersons are stating the exact opposite.

Now of course you’ll just dishonestly run away again. You really aren’t capable of intelligent or rational debate, are you?

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 11:58 PM

Be damned what the people want…..The courts aren’t the only ones making a judgment call on marriage — so are American voters. And in the court of public opinion, the outcome isn’t nearly as one-sided. With gavels striking down state amendments faster than you can say “judicial activism,” most Americans haven’t budged from their support of natural marriage. If anything, the more openly liberals attack, the stronger the opposition becomes.

A new survey of battleground districts shows that a majority of voters are solidly in the pro-marriage camp, edging out the far-Left by four points. While the media looked the other way on the first two polls (Rasmussen’s and FRC’s), it will have a difficult time doing so here. This latest survey, commissioned by Politico, is already catching the attention of the chattering class, which wrongly assumed the debate was dead and buried. Unlike other outlets, Politico’s questioning was fairly straight-forward, asking simply, “Do you support or oppose allowing same-sex couples to marry?”

By 52-48%, voters opposed — but it may be the strength of their answers that’s telling. Conservatives had a seven-point advantage among those who felt “strongly” about their position. As a follow-up, Politico asked how much the issue of marriage would impact who they voted for in November. Sixty-two percent said it was “important” in determining which candidate they supported. In other words, marriage isn’t just a hot issue this election — it could be a deciding one.

Indiana State Rep. Kreg Battles (D) obviously thought so. After watching so many of his colleagues pay for their same-sex “marriage” support, the four-term leader dropped out of his reelection race late last week to avoid embarrassment. Battles, who outraged his district when he switched sides on marriage, was locked in a tight race with former state Rep. Bruce Borders (R), a pro-family conservative who was making Kreg’s betrayal a centerpiece of his campaign. As FRC found (and Rep. Battles learned), voters — especially Republican and Republican-leaning Independents, are looking for politicians who will stand up and fight the cultural elites and their radical agenda to redefine marriage. Obviously the media, the Left’s ring bearer in this debate, is a false measure of public opinion. Like too many moderate Republicans, the press is only seeing what it wants to see.

Everyone else’s eyes are wide open, thanks to the avalanche of attacks thundering down on anyone with a natural view on marriage — from network television and bank brokers to Internet companies and city councils. Even the President of the United States, who only recently hopped aboard the same-sex “marriage” express, is piling on with outlandish public statements against a sentiment he used to share. On the 10th anniversary of Massachusetts’s court-imposed same-sex “marriage,” the White House marked the day by railing against “homophobia” and “transphobia.” The same President who couldn’t be bothered to acknowledge Armed Forces Day found more than enough time to lecture Americans on an agenda tearing apart the very military he ignored. And if these polls are any indication, his heavy-handed approach is already backfiring — a fact the GOP would be wise to capitalize on.
Tony Perkins

Bullhead on May 21, 2014 at 12:06 AM

By 52-48%, voters opposed — but it may be the strength of their answers that’s telling. Conservatives had a seven-point advantage among those who felt “strongly” about their position. As a follow-up, Politico asked how much the issue of marriage would impact who they voted for in November. Sixty-two percent said it was “important” in determining which candidate they supported. In other words, marriage isn’t just a hot issue this election — it could be a deciding one.

Bullhead on May 21, 2014 at 12:06 AM

Do you not get how insane you sound? A decade ago, it wouldn’t even be close. Opposition to gay marriage would have been overwhelming. What has changed is that gays are being open about who they are, and the immorality of opposition to gay marriage has become obvious to more and more people.

thuja on May 21, 2014 at 12:12 AM

Do you not get how insane you sound? A decade ago, it wouldn’t even be close. Opposition to gay marriage would have been overwhelming. What has changed is that gays are being open about who they are, and the immorality of opposition to gay marriage has become obvious to more and more people.

thuja on May 21, 2014 at 12:12 AM

Yep, they’re being open about who they are, all right.

Liars and pigs and fascists.

northdallasthirty on May 21, 2014 at 12:16 AM

This is about Lefty judges, appointed for being Lefties, slanting a fuzzy decision their way.

The good news is, comes the day when people finally get tired of this, it can all be overturned.

Kind of like the ban on capital punishment.

formwiz on May 21, 2014 at 12:50 AM

Yep, they’re being open about who they are, all right.

Liars and pigs and fascists.

northdallasthirty on May 21, 2014 at 12:16 AM

You are certainly full of anger. There may be better ways to deal with it than hating gay people.

thuja on May 21, 2014 at 12:55 AM

Alchemists 14th amendment argument is rubbish for one easily understood point: if the 14th amendment was meant to apply to marriage, then the Mormons would have survived the 18th century.

Vanceone on May 21, 2014 at 1:03 AM

So how many heterosexuals engage routinely in anal intercourse, as a percentage?

Now how many homosexuals?

So why is it that AIDS is a gay disease, not a heterosexual disease. I remember years of predictions that it was about to break out into the heterosexual population, but somehow, it never happened.

You’re already looking foolish. You sure you want to dig that hole a little deeper?

HIV is more common amongst homosexual men but that doesn’t mean it’s an inherent risk. If two HIV-free homosexual men enter into a faithful, monogamous relationship then the odds of either of them ever contracting HIV through sexual contact is zero. If you’re really concerned about public health then you should be in favor of marriage rights for homosexuals.

It should also be worth pointing out that lesbians who are exclusive to other women are at no risk of transmitting HIV.

So if only the actuality were different, homosexuality would be no more risky than heterosexuality. But the actuality isn’t different, and homosexuals are many times more likely to be promiscuous, and many times more likely to have AIDS or HIV.

And this is your evidence for claiming that homosexuality is not inherently more risky.

Also, SSM is not marriage, and there is no reason to suppose that calling it marriage will make it more likely to produce monogamy. Such assertions are no more than wishful thinking at best.

The irony is that the Regnerus study rests on a much more solid statistical sampling than all the studies you want to claim are authoritative. Yet you’re quick to find fault with the Regnerus study, and only with the Regnerus study.

You say stuff like that but every time I ask you to offer supporting evidence for your claim all I hear are crickets.

Let’s compare. The H o_o ker study that was supposed to prove homosexuality was completely normal was based on a total, non-random, self-selected sample of 60 adults , and was not a blind study. The Regnerus study you declare to be discredited started with a random sample of 15,000, and from there he drilled down to find how many of them were children of homosexual parents, finding 163 who said their mothers had a same-sex relationship while they were children, and 73 who said their fathers did.

The problem that the Regnerus study actually had was that, even with a starting sample of 15,000, the number of children who had homosexual parents was still very low. This is the kind of problem you run into when doing research on fringe groups.

But the killer was that it was nearly impossible to truly eliminate the problem of instability in such homosexual homes, which is why homosexual advocates try to dismiss the study entirely.

But there is no reason to believe that real homosexual couples, as opposed to idealized samples, would not have the same instability that Regnerus found in his study. In fact, the very fact that his study found so much instability in a random sample strongly argues that the instability is normal.

And why would this be surprising, given that homosexual couples by definition are never the biological parents of ‘their’ children?

Your problem with the Regnerus study is that it didn’t come to the conclusion you wanted.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2014 at 11:27 PM

My problem is it’s a shoddy piece of work that was the result of an interest group buying a researcher to produce a study whose result was predetermined, and despite its well-known flaws is still being talked about as if it’s authoritative on a subject it didn’t even examine.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:44 PM

Pot calling the kettle black. But only if the pot is pure black, and the kettle is really a dingy white.

You want to say, “Look at the mote in the eye of this Regnerus study!!” Meanwhile, there’s a beam in the eye of the studies you love to cite.

Crickets, indeed.

Just for further irony, I don’t depend on any social sciences study to make up my mind about homosexual issues. The social sciences are too easily manipulated. The Kinsey studies have been clearly shown to be based on sloppy and fraudulent science, and yet they were strongly considered to be authoritative and the voice of science, even to the point of multiple states completely re-writing their laws about sexual assault based on the claim from the Kinsey Institute that the laws as written would make 90% of the men offenders. Sex education is taught to our kindergarteners across the country based on these fraudulent studies. Social sciences are an undependable foundation for social change.

But it’s too easy to take apart your claims that science is on your side. When a study comes out that is actually based on sound statistical sampling but doesn’t come to the conclusion you want, you fulminate and find fault.

You’re clearly one and the same with the homofascists who tried to destroy the career of Regnerus by alleging scientific misconduct. The University of Texas examined the allegations and found them false on their face, eliminating the need to do any further investigation.

Still, plenty of sociologists across the country took a very clear lesson: producing research that could be critical of homosexual agendas can be fatal to your career.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 21, 2014 at 1:42 AM

So if only the actuality were different, homosexuality would be no more risky than heterosexuality. But the actuality isn’t different, and homosexuals are many times more likely to be promiscuous, and many times more likely to have AIDS or HIV.

And this is your evidence for claiming that homosexuality is not inherently more risky.

Perhaps you should look up the word “inherent” before you stick your foot any further into your mouth.

Also, SSM is not marriage,

Says you.

and there is no reason to suppose that calling it marriage will make it more likely to produce monogamy. Such assertions are no more than wishful thinking at best.

Does marriage produce monogamy for heterosexuals?

Pot calling the kettle black. But only if the pot is pure black, and the kettle is really a dingy white.

You want to say, “Look at the mote in the eye of this Regnerus study!!” Meanwhile, there’s a beam in the eye of the studies you love to cite.

Crickets, indeed.

To quote the greatest president of my lifetime, there you go again.

What, specifically, is the beam in the eye of any, ANY of the studies conducted in the last eight years and cited by the ASA in any of their recent legal briefs? With as hesitant (fearful?) as you are to take advantage of the numerous opportunities I’ve given you to support your bold claims with a single shred of evidence it leads one to the conclusion that you’re making things up and hoping your bold yet seemingly-baseless pronouncements are blindly accepted as fact.

But, as per usual, I’m too smart for you.

Now I’ll sit and enjoy the sound of the crickets as you again fail to deliver any of the specific objections to back up your claims.

Just for further irony, I don’t depend on any social sciences study to make up my mind about homosexual issues. The social sciences are too easily manipulated. The Kinsey studies have been clearly shown to be based on sloppy and fraudulent science, and yet they were strongly considered to be authoritative and the voice of science, even to the point of multiple states completely re-writing their laws about sexual assault based on the claim from the Kinsey Institute that the laws as written would make 90% of the men offenders. Sex education is taught to our kindergarteners across the country based on these fraudulent studies. Social sciences are an undependable foundation for social change.

If you’re completely junking any and all social science (except Mark Regnerus and Loren Marks of course!) then I’m forced to ask what you’re going to substitute for rational and systematic inquiry. Your own personal gut feelings? Your religious views (or did I cover that in the last line)? What?

But it’s too easy to take apart your claims that science is on your side. When a study comes out that is actually based on sound statistical sampling but doesn’t come to the conclusion you want, you fulminate and find fault.

When have I done this? Don’t say Regnerus.

You’re clearly one and the same with the homofascists who tried to destroy the career of Regnerus by alleging scientific misconduct. The University of Texas examined the allegations and found them false on their face, eliminating the need to do any further investigation.

I’ve alleged he’s either stupid or a hack, and I’ve substantiated his study said nothing at all about the quality of parenting done by same-sex couples so it has no relevance in this matter.

Still, plenty of sociologists across the country took a very clear lesson: producing research that could be critical of homosexual agendas can be fatal to your career.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 21, 2014 at 1:42 AM

Can you at least be honest enough to acknowledge that Regnerus didn’t actually study parenting by same-sex couples or is your head buried too far in the sand (or perhaps someplace else) to even admit that much?

alchemist19 on May 21, 2014 at 2:11 AM

Wait till the Democrats Republicans throw the borders open. We’ll see how the “new citizens” feel about homosexuals. They won’t even bother with legislation, they’ll just attack them in the streets, as they do in much of the world.

DFCtomm on May 21, 2014 at 4:58 AM

Wait till the Democrats Republicans throw the borders open. We’ll see how the “new citizens” feel about homosexuals. They won’t even bother with legislation, they’ll just attack them in the streets, as they do in much of the world. – DFCtomm on May 21, 2014 at 4:58 AM

So you encourage violence against gays or just happy that does occur?

SC.Charlie on May 21, 2014 at 8:31 AM

This queer loses his freaking mind on these posts.

Spin Charlie. Become the Whirling Dervish.

Murphy9 on May 21, 2014 at 8:40 AM

Alchemist1,
The argument that restricting marriage to one man and one woman is inherantly rational because opening it up to anyone else means opening it up to the point where it loses all definition as such.
Unless blink is here no one is arguing that marriage should be opened up to any conceivable couple, and even if blink is here then no one is seriously arguing that.
No rational argument can be made to restrict marriage in any way shape or form once it is opened up to gay couples.
You can’t think of a single reason to oppose incest that doesn’t somehow relate to gay people?
You just completely ignored everything else I said. Reading the 14th Amendment the way that you do in pure black and white and in such absolutist terms nullifies the rights of the majority to make any decisions to favor one thing over another and will result in end to end of all choices for all voters. It leads to the only choices being between different degress of vanilla. That is the only way for all people to be equal.
There’s a natural tension between the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the fact that laws are commonly forced to be discriminatory. That’s why the different tiers of scrutiny for equal protection claims have come into existence. Rational Basis is the most deferential to the states but so far they can’t even clear that low bar.
The courts narrowly define what types of arguments can be made in a court case. This restriction more than anything else has restricted the kinds of arguments that defenders of marriage have been allowed to make such as forcing them to claim some immediate measurable harm.
When immediate, measurable harm is being done to the couples being discriminated against then the state has to justify the discrimination. In many cases they can but in the event they can’t the laws get struck down.
The law is actually a blunt instrument ill equiped to decide what is truly rational. It is too narrow in its scope. This is why we used to have the right to legislate and to vote and other such quaint notions in order to decide the important questions for our society that the judiciary is incapable of properly deciding. That right is now so eroded as to be meaningless. Its every man for themselves now. Each person is their own moral universe and king. And its now the governments job to ensure that it happens.
Texene on May 20, 2014 at 10:52 PM
Do you think a majority has the right to vote away a person’s Constitutional rights?
alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:13 PM

Yes, broadly it’s called democracy. Specifically, it’s called constitutional amendment.

Nutstuyu on May 21, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Still crickets from alchemist19.

Seems it runs away and hides when it’s confronted by an actual gay man with facts and evidence who points out repeatedly it’s nothing but a liar and malignant bigot.

northdallasthirty on May 21, 2014 at 9:34 AM

And, I suppose that ND30 and his partner can switch at will from being gay to straight at any time, just like Bill Deblasio’s wife.
SC.Charlie on May 20, 2014 at 11:40 PM

Yes they can CHOOSE to do so just like an alcoholic can choose to either make changes or give in to their urges.

Nutstuyu on May 21, 2014 at 10:04 AM

So, anyone get knocked up yet on this thread. There is a fix for that as well.

Bmore on May 21, 2014 at 10:05 AM

This queer loses his freaking mind on these posts.

Spin Charlie. Become the Whirling Dervish. – Murphy9 on May 21, 2014 at 8:40 AM

Thanks for calling me what I am, a queer. Which is still considered a slur, but it fine to use in my book. I am certainly not part of any PC police. Frankly, you all lose your minds over these gay threads. In both of these recent cases the state Attorney Generals refused to defend the law. I believe that both should have done so or recused themselves and let someone else defend the law. What is going to happen is that this is all going back to the Supreme Court quicker than expected. I vote Republican. End of my comments on this thread.

SC.Charlie on May 21, 2014 at 11:01 AM

There’s no such thing as ‘gay marriage’.
Its ‘same-sex’ marriage.
There are no laws preventing gays from marrying.
The laws we have prevent members of the same-sex from marrying.
2 straight men cannot marry each other.
2 straight women cannot marry each other.
Gay men & women are perfectly free to marry each other.
Straight men & women are perfectly free to marry each other.

Looking forward to the day when siblings declare their love for each other….and for their desire to marry each other.
They will look to gays and supporters of ‘same-sex’ marriage for their support.
(Because marriage should be allowed for any 2 adults who love each other and want to marry and it’s nobody’s business…blah-blah-blah….)

When that day comes (and it will), gays and supporters of ‘same-sex’ marriage will have a choice to make….

Can’t. Wait.

mjs28c on May 21, 2014 at 11:28 AM

In both of these recent cases the state Attorney Generals refused to defend the law. I believe that both should have done so or recused themselves and let someone else defend the law.

This is what scares me the most. We have already seen Holder decide, on his boss’s whims, not to defend laws he and his boss don’t like.

What’s next? What other laws are state AGs going to decide not to defend?

Missy on May 21, 2014 at 11:28 AM

Gay marriage is not banned or prohibited.

And if my dignity and well-being flow from state benefits and therefor have a right to government benefits then I’m being denied all sorts of things unlawfully.

This is a joke.

Kennedy wants us to believe the DOMA – a bipartisan bill signed into law by Bill Clinton – is at it’s core animated by hatred towards gays and it’s only purpose is to hurt them.

The 14th amendment was not interpreted this way 15 years ago.
But suddenly it is. This is obvious judicial activism and no one who cheers these rulings can correctly call themselves a libertarian or conservative who has any respect for your Constitutional order.

gwelf on May 21, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Because procreation happens regardless of marriage; the point and purpose of marriage is to promote procreation taking place WITHIN marriage, where the resulting children have legal support, have people to care for them since they can’t, and are provided with benefits via their parents from the state.

Since gay-sex couples will never procreate, they will never have children, and thus there’s no need for the state to create legal or financial benefits for them. Also, presumably gays are adults and can care for themselves.

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 11:20 PM

Well said.

gwelf on May 21, 2014 at 11:39 AM

In both of these recent cases the state Attorney Generals refused to defend the law. I believe that both should have done so or recused themselves and let someone else defend the law.

This is what scares me the most. We have already seen Holder decide, on his boss’s whims, not to defend laws he and his boss don’t like.

What’s next? What other laws are state AGs going to decide not to defend?

Missy on May 21, 2014 at 11:28 AM

Hey, it’s the new hotness in Attorney Generalism, from the top to the bottom, it seems.

Yeah, that oath to uphold that law and such notwithstanding, apparently its all the rage to simply ignore, not enforce, and not defend laws that you personally think are icky or something. You know, the same laws you knew would be your job to enforce and defend when you ran for office and took that oath…

Yeah, it seems as if you didn’t like the notion of having to enforce or defend those laws you might a) choose not to run for that office to begin with, b) appoint someone else in your office to handle it, or… oh hell, who are we kidding. Obeying laws, oaths of office, simply optional at this point.

Midas on May 21, 2014 at 11:41 AM

The same brilliant legal mind – Kennedy – that decided and wrote the concurrence for Kelo will also bring us gay marriage.

Nope – no egregious judicial activism here!

gwelf on May 21, 2014 at 11:46 AM

Do you think a majority has the right to vote away a person’s Constitutional rights?
alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:13 PM

Yes – please embarrass yourself again explaining how gays have a Constitutional right to government benefits but polygamists don’t.

gwelf on May 21, 2014 at 11:52 AM

Do you think a majority has the right to vote away a person’s Constitutional rights?
alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 11:13 PM

Yes – please embarrass yourself again explaining how gays have a Constitutional right to government benefits but polygamists don’t.

gwelf on May 21, 2014 at 11:52 AM

Hey, it’s all about consenting adults who wuv each other soooo much – don’t forget those wascally incestual welationships – they have Constitutional rights, too!

/

Midas on May 21, 2014 at 11:57 AM

The problem is not the principle of judicial review. The problem is that judicial review presumes rational jurists who construe according to the law, and not fools or political hacks. Striking down state constitutions that restrict marriage to one man and one woman as violating the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is absurd on its face.

There is only one remedy to this nonsense–appeal to a higher authority, one that is superior even to the U.S. Constitution. The authority that created the Constitution, which is now being warped and twisted to justify depravity. I’m talking about the people.

It’s time for a Convention, folks. Make it part of the 2016 campaign.

spiritof61 on May 21, 2014 at 12:00 PM

And the top two proposed amendments for said Convention:

1. Legal definition and recognition of marriage left to states
2. DOMA for the federal govt

spiritof61 on May 21, 2014 at 12:08 PM

Yes, broadly it’s called democracy. Specifically, it’s called constitutional amendment.

Nutstuyu on May 21, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Correct. Has there been an amendment passed this morning which stripped away equal protection and due process rights for homosexuals? It would come as a surprise given the difficulty involved in passing such an amendment and the short time since I last checked the news but if it has happened I’d be very interested in hearing about it.

alchemist19 on May 21, 2014 at 1:08 PM

The problem is not the principle of judicial review. The problem is that judicial review presumes rational jurists who construe according to the law, and not fools or political hacks. Striking down state constitutions that restrict marriage to one man and one woman as violating the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is absurd on its face.

Look, just because you don’t understand it…… ah, forget it.

There is only one remedy to this nonsense–appeal to a higher authority,

Here it comes, folks!

one that is superior even to the U.S. Constitution.

Wait for it. Wait for it!

The authority that created the Constitution, which is now being warped and twisted to justify depravity.

Please don’t let me down on this….

I’m talking about the people.

I wasn’t aware the people had ever surrendered their authority

It’s time for a Convention, folks. Make it part of the 2016 campaign.

spiritof61 on May 21, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Do you actually think such a convention would turn out in your favor?

And the top two proposed amendments for said Convention:

1. Legal definition and recognition of marriage left to states
2. DOMA for the federal govt

spiritof61 on May 21, 2014 at 12:08 PM

I can tell you’re really serious about this so let’s set aside our personal feelings on this matter and think about it seriously for a bit.

Opposition to same-sex marriage is a minority position in this country and the trend in the polling indicates that minority gets smaller every day. Let’s say the convention you want called for after 2016 – when, to reiterate, marriage rights for same-sex couples will be even more popular than it is right now – and amendment produced by that convention would have to be ratified by at least three quarters (that’s 38) states.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that by the time of this convention AP’s prediction will have come true and same-sex couples will have access to marriage in all 50 states. So when ratification gets to the states they will have the option to vote to basically rescind marriage rights for same-sex couples in some of the places where they would currently be enjoying them, and to strip away federal protection for same-sex couples in all 50 states. It would only take 13 states to refusing to ratify your amendments to kill them. Consider the following list: Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Minnesota, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Delaware. Those 17 states are either very blue, or they have a legislature that has recently voted to protect same-sex couples by granting them access to civil marriage who the proposed amendments would be stripping rights away from. If you still manage to sweep the other 33 states in order to get your amendment you would need the consent of at least five from that list of 17 I listed. While keeping in mind that your already-minority position is likely to be even less popular at the time of this proposed amendment/ratification, which five states on my list do you think you’re going to get?

alchemist19 on May 21, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Opposition to same-sex marriage is a minority position in this country

Yes, that’s why state constitutional referenda that outlaw it have to be struck down by federal judges. Liberal California voted to recognize marriage as being between one man and one woman. And guess what? The Golden State is right there on your list. Legislatures, governors, presidents–they all change.

Alchemist, you are engaging in some silly logical chicanery. On the one hand, you argue that the Constitution prohibits discrimination against homo “marriage” (which has been fine with constitutional jurisprudence for 150 years, by the way)and trumps the right of the people through representatives or direct referenda to legislate on the subject, and on the other you say that since people’s attitudes are “evolving” (read: being brainwashed by lefty propaganda) they will always be in favor of it and will never disallow it in the future. You forget that public opinion moves in different directions at different times. It is not one Long Progressive March toward the Left, as anyone who has studied American History knows.

The People made the Constitution. They are sovereign in a free state, not black-robed lefties legislating from the bench and declaring the law to mean whatever they say it means, reason, logic, and the clear language of the law notwithstanding. At the moment it seems to many of us that America’s hands are tied and that’s why you are crowing like an adolescent fool on this thread, but all it takes is a few brave conservative leaders to begin the process of unravelling the tangled, rotten knot that you are so confident will endure forever. Your arrogance is sickening, as is your cause.

spiritof61 on May 21, 2014 at 3:19 PM

Yes, that’s why state constitutional referenda that outlaw it have to be struck down by federal judges.

That’s happened because those referenda violated the federal Constitution.

Liberal California voted to recognize marriage as being between one man and one woman. And guess what? The Golden State is right there on your list. Legislatures, governors, presidents–they all change.

The voted narrowly in 2008. Maine voted for something similar in 2009 and then reversed themselves in 2012. You’re right that politicians change, but the change seems to be in one direction.

Alchemist, you are engaging in some silly logical chicanery. On the one hand, you argue that the Constitution prohibits discrimination against homo “marriage” (which has been fine with constitutional jurisprudence for 150 years, by the way)and trumps the right of the people through representatives or direct referenda to legislate on the subject,

The Constitution does protect that. Your argument about “150 years” is as disingenuous as the liberals crying after Heller that “for 220 years the Second Amendment didn’t guarantee the right of any individual to own a gun..” I didn’t fall for that trick when they used it and I won’t fall for it now when you do.

and on the other you say that since people’s attitudes are “evolving” (read: being brainwashed by lefty propaganda) they will always be in favor of it and will never disallow it in the future. You forget that public opinion moves in different directions at different times. It is not one Long Progressive March toward the Left, as anyone who has studied American History knows.

You’re linking two unrelated things and so accusing me of using them to support the same point. I will clarify what I meant.

The Constitution currently as written protects the right of same-sex couples to access the legal status of civil marriage in those states where opposite-sex couples have a legal right to that same status. So as long as we’re talking about the Constitution with no further amendments, public opinion is a non-factor in what is and is not Constitutional. If we’re talking about amendments though to change what the Constitution says then public opinion matters a lot. This is where the collapse in support for your position is in fact relevant. Because your position is unpopular it will be difficult for you to force a change to the Constitution such that it says what you wish it does. What’s in the Constitution right now (and immune to public opinion) and what you would like to put into the Constitution (totally dependent on public opinion) are two totally different things.

The People made the Constitution.

And they still have the power to change it.

They are sovereign in a free state, not black-robed lefties legislating from the bench and declaring the law to mean whatever they say it means, reason, logic, and the clear language of the law notwithstanding.

Just because you don’t like a decision doesn’t mean the judge was legislating from the bench. The language of the Pennsylvania law was clear, but the reasoning and logic (such as it was) behind it was unconstitutional and so the statute was struck down.

As a little FYI, you undermine you credibility on any issue when you say anything that is easily proven false. Your contention that the judge in this case was a “black-robed left{y}” for example. This judge is a Republican, nominated by Bush 43 on the recommendation of Rick Santorum. The judge in Kentucky was a Bush 41 appointee. The judge in Michigan was appointed by Reagan. Republican judges are striking down these state bans too so when you say something about how they’re all Democrats you make yourself look foolish. One final little kicker for you is the lawyer fighting Virginia’s ban is Bush 43′s lawyer who won the Bush v Gore case after the 2000 election.

At the moment it seems to many of us that America’s hands are tied and that’s why you are crowing like an adolescent fool on this thread, but all it takes is a few brave conservative leaders to begin the process of unravelling the tangled, rotten knot that you are so confident will endure forever.

A few brave conservative leaders can begin unravelling the tangled rotten knot? If that’s all it takes then is the problem with Mike Lee, Scott Walker, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz that none of those men are brave enough or that none of them are conservative enough?

Your arrogance is sickening, as is your cause.

spiritof61 on May 21, 2014 at 3:19 PM

My mind is as sharp as my wit and I’m not afraid to use either of them. I won’t be kowtowed to deny my intelligence by conservative sore losers any more than I will be to deny my achievements by liberal redistributionists. If my courage of my convictions and my intelligence are taken for arrogance then I guess that’s your decision to make. But if the cause I’m supporting bothers you that much then it seems the Western world is leaving you behind. If you’re that bothered by this phenomenon then I can suggest some places you can go to avoid it. Uganda comes to mind. Nigeria, perhaps. There are others though. In those places being a homosexual is still illegal so securing marriage rights for homosexuals in those places is still a long way off. You may find people and a culture a little more to your liking. If you do decide to go please make sure the door doesn’t hit you on the way out.

alchemist19 on May 21, 2014 at 4:13 PM

That’s happened because those referenda violated the federal Constitution.

No, they did not. Error 1.

The voted narrowly in 2008. Maine voted for something similar in 2009 and then reversed themselves in 2012. You’re right that politicians change, but the change seems to be in one direction.

This is your way of acknowledging the point. Error 2

The Constitution does protect that. Your argument about “150 years” is as disingenuous as the liberals crying after Heller that “for 220 years the Second Amendment didn’t guarantee the right of any individual to own a gun..” I didn’t fall for that trick when they used it and I won’t fall for it now when you do.

The Constitution does not prohibit discrimination in this, pure and simple. You just say that it does. That was easy, wasn’t it? Error 3

The Constitution currently as written protects the right of same-sex couples to access the legal status of civil marriage in those states where opposite-sex couples have a legal right to that same status.

No it does not. This is the primary, foundational error of all activist jurisprudence–the Constitution does not contain a hidden treasure trove of rights that leftist lawyers unearth as the decades pass. Error 4

The language of the Pennsylvania law was clear, but the reasoning and logic (such as it was) behind it was unconstitutional and so the statute was struck down.

This doesn’t even qualify as an error. It is just bullshit masquerading as logic. Better qualify it as Fail 1

Your contention that the judge in this case was a “black-robed left{y}” for example.

Read the whole paragraph. I was referring to left-wing “judicial activists” in general, not the exceptions you refer to. Many GOP appointees “go with the flow” once appointed; others “evolve” in their views. Only true leftist/Democrat judges never waver. Nice try on deflection, though. Fail 2

My mind is as sharp as my wit and I’m not afraid to use either of them.

Error 5, and a whopper. Hubris and doctrinaire stupidity don’t combine well. And don’t end up well either. You’ve got a great future in the Democratic Party, however. As for your Brave New World in America, take care. History teaches us again and again that the True Believers go to the wall very quickly.

See you on the barricades, sport.

spiritof61 on May 21, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Minimal heat for Kennedy? God’s ruling on this vile obscenity has already come down on centuries ago when He destroyed the Roman empire by it, and He won’t change it for Kennedy to escape his punishment in hell’s eternal flames where after a hundred million years the heat won’t get any less agonizing. He who laughs last laughs best, and God always laughs last. Anyone who fails to oppose the “homosex-” oxymoron fraud (exposed by the fine 2005 article “The gay invention” at http://www.touchstonemag.com “homo”=same+”sex”=opposite?) is merely a sodomite useful idiot too incompetent to functio in adult society but obviously quite at home as a member of the deranged lawless fascist group called SCOTUS for which the Founders provided us with the Second Amendment in order to cure such ravings, understanding from the French Revolution’s perverts that such would one day be a dire necessity.

russedav on May 21, 2014 at 5:56 PM

Someone please point me to the words of the Constitution that give anyone a right to marry or that give the national gov’t the power to regulate marriage. Hmm, crickets–neither are there. The national government has no place and no power in regard to domestic relations. However, it has already started the slippery slope slide, so federalism is no longer going to be allowed to work in this arena. At least not unless things change drastically in congress and the courts. Anyone who thinks that this will not lead to a complete abrogation of all limits and regulations on “marriage” is just whistling past the graveyard.

The issue is not whether homosexual adults should be able to form monogamous unions labeled marriage (clearly a good idea, if not morally, civilly and economically), but whether the national government of limited powers can force any particular domestic regime and everything attendant thereto down everyone’s throats, regardless of whether the people of any given state agree or not (i.e., DOMA was wrong and unconstitutional, too). That’s a fair definition of tyranny.

Polygamy and adult incestuous marriages are soon to follow the same path. If you don’t believe me, ask Scalia. Maybe that’s OK, but the people of each state should and constitutionally have the absolute power to decide that, without being hammered into submission by the imperial feds.

Ay Uaxe on May 21, 2014 at 6:28 PM

No, they did not. Error 1.

Does your copy of the Constitution not have the Fourteenth Amendment in it either? It seems to be a common problem around here these days.

This is your way of acknowledging the point. Error 2

The list I made was of legislatures that are unlikely to vote for a Constitutional amendment that resurrects DOMA, and if you recall the California legislature earlier voted to legalize same sex marriage. It’s normally the legislatures that vote on ratifications of federal Constitutional amendments and not the general populace. You know that though, right? Or is your Constitution missing that part, too?

The Constitution does not prohibit discrimination in this, pure and simple. You just say that it does. That was easy, wasn’t it? Error 3

The Constitution does not explicitly prohibit discrimination but it does explicitly prohibit the denial of equal protection under the law. It’s the latter that is the problem for your side of the issue.

No it does not. This is the primary, foundational error of all activist jurisprudence–the Constitution does not contain a hidden treasure trove of rights that leftist lawyers unearth as the decades pass. Error 4

The Equal Protection Clause isn’t hidden. It’s right there clear as day in simple English in the Fourteenth Amendment. Since your Constitution doesn’t seem to have the Fourteenth Amendment in it I can understand your confusion though.

This doesn’t even qualify as an error. It is just b******* masquerading as logic. Better qualify it as Fail 1

If you’re finally the person who can present a legally-defensible and logically-consistent reason for a prohibition on allowing same-sex couples access to the legal status of civil marriage then please share it with me and every other governor or attorney general who’s been losing in court lately.

Read the whole paragraph. I was referring to left-wing “judicial activists” in general, not the exceptions you refer to. Many GOP appointees “go with the flow” once appointed; others “evolve” in their views. Only true leftist/Democrat judges never waver. Nice try on deflection, though. Fail 2

So if they’re appointed by Democrats they’re judicial activists but if they’re Republicans they’re either “going with the flow” or “evolving”? You personally are qualified to judge this, I’m sure.

Well now that I think about it since your Constitution doesn’t have Fourteenth Amendment in it I can understand it seeming a little like judicial activism when rulings are based on it.

Error 5, and a whopper. Hubris and doctrinaire stupidity don’t combine well. And don’t end up well either.

Even if I’m not as clever as I think I am that still makes me a darn sight better than most.

You’ve got a great future in the Democratic Party, however.

Not my style at all. I’m a pretty down-the-line conservative on most every issue but this one. There are exceptions but I’d be willing to guess you and I probably agree 90% of the time.

As for your Brave New World in America, take care. History teaches us again and again that the True Believers go to the wall very quickly.

See you on the barricades, sport.

spiritof61 on May 21, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Stop being so fatalistic. I’m guessing the inevitable SCOTUS case will come next year, and within a few years everyone will be wondering what the big deal ever was. There will undoubtedly be a few holdouts who never ever come around but this is going to end up as a giant nothingburger. If “the institution of marriage” or “the family” in general or the Republic or whatever were really so frail that letting two women marry brings the whole thing crashing down then we were already dead beforehand.

alchemist19 on May 21, 2014 at 7:21 PM

Robert Plant’s take.

Akzed on May 21, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Someone please point me to the words of the Constitution that give anyone a right to marry or that give the national gov’t the power to regulate marriage.

The right to marriage is usually taken as part of the due process clause in the (several) cases where SCOTUS has ruled on it.

Hmm, crickets–neither are there.

Don’t tell me you’ve got one of those Constitutions that omits the Fourteenth Amendment, too.

The national government has no place and no power in regard to domestic relations.

Did the Supreme Court make a mistake when it struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage in 1967?

However, it has already started the slippery slope slide, so federalism is no longer going to be allowed to work in this arena.

Federalism is still fine, you just can’t use federalism as a cover to violate anyone’s Constitutional rights. If New York State passed a ban on handguns that the people of that state voted for and the courts stepped in to strike it down I have a sneaking suspicion that New York’s cries of “Federalism!” would fall on deaf ears, as they should.

At least not unless things change drastically in congress and the courts. Anyone who thinks that this will not lead to a complete abrogation of all limits and regulations on “marriage” is just whistling past the graveyard.

You’re about 50 years late with that slippery slope, Virginia.

The issue is not whether homosexual adults should be able to form monogamous unions labeled marriage (clearly a good idea, if not morally, civilly and economically), but whether the national government of limited powers can force any particular domestic regime and everything attendant thereto down everyone’s throats, regardless of whether the people of any given state agree or not (i.e., DOMA was wrong and unconstitutional, too).

Leaving aside whether or not you can ram your religious agenda down someone’s throat, the Fourteenth Amendment in its prohibiting the States from depriving citizens of due process and equal protection did indeed give the national government license to enforce and protect the rights of the citizens in any state. And it was the states that gave the national government the power to do so when they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.

That’s a fair definition of tyranny.

A fairer definition of tyranny would be allowing people’s Constitutional-protected rights to be trampled on.

Polygamy and adult incestuous marriages are soon to follow the same path. If you don’t believe me, ask Scalia.

Why would I ask Scalia? He’s been dead wrong on those so far, as has everyone else who’s predicted the exact same slippery slope to the exact same consequences. Massachusetts has had legal same-gender marriage for over a decade now. How far are they on the road to legally recognizing polygamous unions or incestuous ones?

Maybe that’s OK, but the people of each state should and constitutionally have the absolute power to decide that, without being hammered into submission by the imperial feds.

Ay Uaxe on May 21, 2014 at 6:28 PM

Find a copy of the Constitution that has the Fourteenth Amendment in it. When a person’s Constitutional rights are being violated by any state government it is the responsibility of the national government to step in an protect the citizenry, just like they’re doing here.

alchemist19 on May 21, 2014 at 8:57 PM

Robert Plant’s take.

Akzed on May 21, 2014 at 8:10 PM

If you’re so sure that the hellfire and brimstone will be along any day now (despite their conspicuous absence in Canada, Western Europe or the states where gay couples can already get married in this country) then perhaps you should join whatshisface in Uganda or Nigeria or wherever you go to set up shop.

If you need any help packing your bags just say the word and I’d be more than happy to oblige!

alchemist19 on May 21, 2014 at 8:59 PM

Technically, you don’t give a crap what happens as long as you get your way.

And for all those that talk about incestuous and polygamous marriages being impossible, why? There’s no reason not to allow for them.

Incest? Marriage is not about children or sex, it’s about “love” and “choice”.

Polygamy? Marriage is not definable in terms of parties. It’s just a contract, allowable under conditions of competence and free choice.

Regardless, you don’t give a crap about marriage as an institution. You don’t give a crap about what this might mean in terms of the implications. You want your way. Like spoiled teenagers, you’ll have your way. You simply don’t care. You are swollen with your own pride, and you are convinced that nothing you think is right can be wrong.

Unfortunately, the rest of us will have to pay for your arrogance.

spmat on May 21, 2014 at 10:16 PM

What’s the point of having Constitutionally-protected rights if any legislative governing majority can trample on them at will?

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:37 PM

Bullshiat – of course there is a constitutional right to marriage – but what is “marriage”? A union between man and woman.

Gays already have a right to marriage as it has always been defined, the same right I have as a heterosexual. There is no denial of equal protection, no denial of a constitutional right.

But they don’t want THAT right, they want a new one, the right to redefine marriage to what THEY subjectively want it to be – “same sex marriage”. They don’t want to earn social recognition over time simply by living their lives – they want to have this new definition forced on everyone, top down via the courts by a govt. that mistakenly believes it creates marriage rather than recognizes it.

And in turn, they give heterosexuals that same new right – the right to same sex marriage. And all of the combinations that includes. If marriage isn’t for child-rearing, or even for sexual relations, and is simply a contract between people, then you legally can’t restrict it to incestuous couples, people marrying purely for economic gain, people of varying ages, or multiple persons. How DARE you to even try! Every time you do, you betray and ignore the very same legal rationales that won gays these rights, sticking fingers in your ears and screaming “LA LA LA” to avoid hearing the truth of what you’ve done, ignoring the consequences of your actions.

You denial of this truth is so very, very old. And you simply won’t see it until it’s rubbed in your face like dogshiat.

Saltyron on May 22, 2014 at 12:02 AM

Bullshiat – of course there is a constitutional right to marriage

Glad we’ve got that established.

– but what is “marriage”? A union between man and woman. Whatever the state arbitrarily defines it as.

FIFY

Gays already have a right to marriage as it has always been defined, the same right I have as a heterosexual. There is no denial of equal protection, no denial of a constitutional right.

Sorry, Virginia, that line of specious reasoning has never cut it before and it’s not about to start.

But they don’t want THAT right, they want a new one, the right to redefine marriage to what THEY subjectively want it to be – “same sex marriage”.

That’s not the way the courts have ruled in previous marriage cases. Loving didn’t create a new right of interracial marriage (whereas before everyone enjoyed the same right to marry within their own race so no denial of equal protection?) but rather stated that the existing right of marriage extended to same sex couples. There’s a bit of a difference there.

They don’t want to earn social recognition over time simply by living their lives – they want to have this new definition forced on everyone, top down via the courts by a govt.

Edie Windsor had been with her partner for over four decades. They simply lived their lives and the government refused to grant that social recognition brass ring you seem to be suggesting is available but in fact isn’t because other people want to cram their religious proscriptions down everyone else’s throats.

that mistakenly believes it creates marriage rather than recognizes it.

The state does create civil marriage.

And in turn, they give heterosexuals that same new right – the right to same sex marriage.

Not a new right, it’s an existing right to marriage. And since you’re admitting that there is a right to marriage, what’s the point of a right that cannot be reasonably accessed, as the right of marriage cannot be by homosexuals. You’re not suggesting that if they are to enjoy this right that they must conceal their sexual orientation and dupe and unsuspecting heterosexual of the opposite sex, are you?

And all of the combinations that includes.

Such as?

If marriage isn’t for child-rearing, or even for sexual relations, and is simply a contract between people, then you legally can’t restrict it to incestuous couples,

If marriage is for child-rearing then why has the state never made it a necessary qualification for marriage?

people marrying purely for economic gain,

That’s perfectly legal right now so long as the people doing it are of the opposite sex.

people of varying ages,

That’s not illegal now either so long as both parties are competent to consent to the marriage contract.

or multiple persons.

If child rearing is a part of marriage and given the propensity of polygamy to produce children then why shouldn’t polygamy be legalized now regardless of the whole question of marriage rights for same-sex couples?

How DARE you to even try!

Try which one? You packed so much fail into that list I’m not sure where to start.

Every time you do, you betray and ignore the very same legal rationales that won gays these rights, sticking fingers in your ears and screaming “LA LA LA” to avoid hearing the truth of what you’ve done, ignoring the consequences of your actions.

Is the slippery slope the only consequence you’re speaking of or are there others?

You denial of this truth is so very, very old. And you simply won’t see it until it’s rubbed in your face like dogshiat.

Saltyron on May 22, 2014 at 12:02 AM

This “truth” has been standard operating procedure of the prophets of gloom and doom (or hellfire and brimstone?) for some time now, going back to at least 1948 and so far they’ve always been proven false. The social conservative fear of Biblical marriage (i.e.: incest and polygamy) is somewhat puzzling to me but I don’t doubt its veracity. But in the proud tradition of “The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf!’”, the howls from The Irrationals Who Cry “Polygamy!” has lost a great deal of its effect by now.

alchemist19 on May 22, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Marriage: Where Do We Go From Here?
The pro-marriage case can win — if we don’t give up on it.

By Ryan T. Anderson

Anderson has written another excellent analysis of marriage, the current political climate, and what should be done next to make the case for marriage—real, conjugal marriage between a man and a woman. He has been at the front of this battle, and is a co-author of What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, and the William E. Simon Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

From page 2:

The courts seem intent on disregarding the democratic process and usurping authority away from citizens and their representatives. But the Court will be less likely to usurp the authority of citizens if it is obvious that citizens are engaged in this democratic debate and care about the future of marriage. This is what Justice Scalia predicted: The Court will do whatever it thinks it can get away with. And as recent events in the lower federal courts suggest, judges seem to think they can get away with a lot.

From page 4:

Most Americans are unaware that there are two competing visions of marriage on offer in this debate, but my experience on dozens of college campuses during the past year suggests there is hope here. On almost every campus I visited, including such elite law schools as Stanford and NYU, students came up to me afterward to say that they had never heard a rational case for marriage. Christians would say that they always knew marriage was between a man and a woman, but never knew how to defend it as a policy and legal matter — that they knew what the Bible revealed and the church taught, but lacked a vocabulary for articulating what God had written on the heart. Now they could better explain how faith and reason went together; how theology and philosophy, the Bible and social science all pointed to the same truth.

INC on May 22, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4