Will Utah be ground zero for nationwide gay marriage?

posted at 8:41 pm on July 9, 2014 by Noah Rothman

On Wednesday, the state of Utah appealed a June 25 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which invalidated that state’s ban on gay marriage to the United States Supreme Court. If the court accepts the case, some legal experts say, it could lead to the legalization of same-sex marriage across all 50 states.

“Last month’s decision by the 10th Circuit was the first time a regional appeals court has made such a ruling in the year since the Supreme Court ordered the federal government to extend benefits to legally married same-sex couples,” a Reuters report read.

“Legal experts say the Supreme Court is likely to accept the case,” Talking Points Memo’s Sahil Kapur reported. “With lawsuits piling up, and gay marriage on an undefeated legal streak since the Court axed the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, the justices may plausibly hear the case in next term and decide it by June 2015.”

Since the nation’s highest court ruled on U.S. v. Windsor, a number of state-level bans on same-sex marriage have been overturned on constitutional grounds. Some legal scholars predict that, if the Court takes up Utah’s ban, it could go a step further and effectively legalize gay marriage from the bench.

“I also predict that the five justices in the majority in Windsor will be the majority to declare unconstitutional laws that deny marriage equality to gays and lesbians,” Dean of the University of California, Irvine Law School, Erwin Chemerinsky, told Kapur.


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

Vanceone on July 11, 2014 at 1:16 PM

We’re going to start with a little first-year law school.

The job of the courts is to answer questions, and the thing is they can only answer the exact question which they were asked. What this means is if a person feels that their Constitutional rights are being violated then they must cite which right it is they feel is being abridged by the government. The court then hears the evidence and must decide if that right they’ve been asked about is being violated or not. If another right is being violated and you don’t ask about it then the courts can’t rule on it. That’s why you see so many gay couples citing so many different rights when they bring these cases; I haven’t read all the decisions yet but aside from the big ones like Due Process and Equal Protection, couples have also claimed their rights to travel have been violated (don’t ask how or why) and the courts have not been sympathetic to that argument to my knowledge, but they throw it out there just in case they somehow lose on the Due Process and Equal Protection Claims they’ve still got a couple Hail Marys out there that might still salvage their claim.

Revisting Mormon history for the umpteenth time, Reynolds only alleged a violation of his First Amendment rights. Might things have gone differently if he had also alleged his Fourteenth Amendment rights were being violated? Perhaps, perhaps not, but the most relevant thing in extracting what we can from that ruling is that the case was judged on the merits of the First Amendment claim, and the Court ruled against him. Murphy v. Ramsey was also not a Fourteenth Amendment case; that particular case dealt with whether a law Congress passed violated Article I, Section 9 because it was an ex post facto law, and the Court ruled it was not. It’s not a question of the Fourteenth Amendment being “more powerful” than the First, it’s that when it comes to weighing the scope and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Mormon persecution of the late 19th century is irrelevant because, as far as I know, none of those defendants sought refuge in the Fourteenth Amendment. It is amply clear that that history is important to you, but that doesn’t mean it’s relevant in these cases at all.

To reiterate, all the history of the Mormon persecution dealt with their attempts to change the “one” part of the “one man & woman”, not the “man & woman” part. Lest we lose sight, number of parties in a marriage and gender of parties in a marriage are different issues.

I might be with you on not understanding one thing though. I’ve heard a lot from the opponents of gay marriage about how marriage is about producing children and that’s why we can’t let gay people do it. If it’s just about producing kids then, at least from what I’ve seen in the news, polygamists are pretty darn good at that. I’m at a bit of a loss as to how the “It’s all about kids!” crowd squares that notion with the resistance to polygamy they seem to have.

Say, is that your game? Are you a would-be polygamist who wants some declaration that marriage is about children because declaring that would strengthen the case for polygamists who want to have their unions recognized? I don’t mean any offense, it’s just that you seem really stuck on what happened to the Mormons back in the 1800s, and while I’ve heard a lot about the court cases they fought I don’t recall ever hearing an unkind word out of you about the practice of polygamy. Heck, you were aware of a fairly obscure news event a couple days ago where a bunch of polygamists were displaced by law enforcement. If you support an unpopular opinion you’re never going to change any minds by hiding what you believe. Are you just sympathetic to their plight or are there a couple potential wives waiting in the wings?

alchemist19 on July 11, 2014 at 7:29 PM

Gays require broken families in order to have progeny…

Vanceone on July 11, 2014 at 1:16 PM

.
Not sure ‘progeny’ is the best word for this thought (implies a direct descendant) but wonderfully succinct nonetheless.

The exception to the rule would be a lesbian who is artificially inseminated so the thought may not apply 100%.

Ricard on July 11, 2014 at 4:23 PM

.
Concur with Ricard ; … “wonderfully succinct” … but LONG . . . . .
.

Vanceone on July 11, 2014 at 1:16 PM

alchemist19 on July 11, 2014 at 7:29 PM

.
Holy balls . . . . . are you both trying to ‘upstage’ jaxisaneurophysicist, for that “bandwidth gluttony” award?

listens2glenn on July 11, 2014 at 7:44 PM

alchemist: I’m LDS, I’m very familiar with federal persecution of religious minorities that held differing views on marriage than the federal government.

Long story short: once gays get a constitutional right to marry, who prevails in a conflict between constitutional rights? The 1st Amendment right to have freedom of worship, or the gays right to marry?
Well, we all know how much protection the 1st provides to churches not in step with federal marriage law: None. Zilch. Nada. See Reynolds. When a gay couple goes to an LDS Temple, or a Catholic priest to get married, and is refused and sues, saying they have a constitutional right to get married, and that in their community a civil ceremony is second class–like a “colored water fountain” and that a civil ceremony is not even separate but equal, it’s separate and secondary–what is a judge going to do?

Gays have a right to equal ceremonies, right? Ergo, if the Mormons or Catholics offer marriage, they must offer the same marriage to gays as well. To do otherwise is a violation of equal protection. We know that the Feds can force businesses to service gays; we know that the Feds can force everyone to buy healthcare.
We know that according to Kennedy, there is no rational religious reason to be against homosexual marriages; it can only be “animus” or bigotry.
We know that Reynolds et. al. explain that churches cannot hide behind religious doctrine to explain their breaking of the laws; thus the state can force Jehovah’s witnesses to provide blood transfusions to their children.

Why would churches be allowed to refuse gays their constitutional rights? They don’t have any rational reason to, according to Kennedy. Doctrine is not enough.

So, I am afraid it is depressingly obvious that we will soon have judges ordering priests and ministers to marry gays–especially as “it’s only ten minutes of the priests time, but a life event for the gays” scale would tend to show that the “harm” suffered by a priest is minimal compared to the “shame and humiliation” suffered by the poor gay who is getting a second class civil certificate.

Unless you can come up with a compelling reason why churches should be allowed to refuse to honor gays constitutional rights of marriage, that is. And remember, Reynolds and the entire line of Mormon cases are all about how groups that refuse to follow the Fed’s definition of marriage are pretty much screwed. And that affects me, since I know how much evil the Feds can bring on disfavored religious groups–I have plenty of ancestors who suffered.

Thus, I fight against your view of “Gays have a constitutional right to marry!” because once you get that, then what protects my faith against fascist gays and liberals, of which there are many? A clash of constitutional rights is a different beast than a clash between the 1st amendment and some people who think they are entitled, like it is now.

Vanceone on July 11, 2014 at 9:43 PM

alchemist: I’m LDS, I’m very familiar with federal persecution of religious minorities that held differing views on marriage than the federal government.

That much was clear already. You didn’t answer my question though. Care to state unequivocally what your position is regarding whether or not polygamy should be legal?

Long story short: once gays get a constitutional right to marry, who prevails in a conflict between constitutional rights? The 1st Amendment right to have freedom of worship, or the gays right to marry?
Well, we all know how much protection the 1st provides to churches not in step with federal marriage law: None. Zilch. Nada. See Reynolds. When a gay couple goes to an LDS Temple, or a Catholic priest to get married, and is refused and sues, saying they have a constitutional right to get married, and that in their community a civil ceremony is second class–like a “colored water fountain” and that a civil ceremony is not even separate but equal, it’s separate and secondary–what is a judge going to do?

You’re misunderstanding what “gay marriage” as is currently being litigated in the courts entails. The one and only thing being decided is whether the state has to grant a civil marriage license. No more, no less. Their right to get a document from the state does not then automatically mean they have the right to compel any church they like to perform a wedding ceremony – though I do admit the thought of a gay couple getting married in the Westboro Baptist Church is funny. No church has ever been compelled directly or had their tax-exempt status threatened because they did not perform a ceremony. It didn’t happen in the 60s after the interracial marriage bans were struck down – and there were churches who had a religious objection to mixed-race couples – and it hasn’t happened in any of the 19 states where gay marriage is legal today.

Gays have a right to equal ceremonies, right?

No, they don’t. They have a right to a license from the state and that’s the beginning and the end of it.

Ergo, if the Mormons or Catholics offer marriage, they must offer the same marriage to gays as well. To do otherwise is a violation of equal protection.

No, they don’t. You’re confusing equal protection under the law with equal treatment in society. BIG difference.

We know that the Feds can force businesses to service gays;

They don’t though. There are states that do, and the feds do compel businesses to serve customers regardless of race but there’s no federal statute forbidding discrimination against gay people in the private sector.

we know that the Feds can force everyone to buy healthcare.

Different issue.

We know that according to Kennedy, there is no rational religious reason to be against homosexual marriages; it can only be “animus” or bigotry.

When the House report on DOMA says its purpose is to express moral disapproval of homosexuality then what would you call it?

Kennedy is concerned with the law. There is no rational legal-defensible reason to oppose gay marriage and that’s what the courts are dealing with. The rationality of religious reasons is another matter.

We know that Reynolds et. al. explain that churches cannot hide behind religious doctrine to explain their breaking of the laws;

Reynolds said “Because religion!” was not a license for an individual to break any law that’s contrary to their personal beliefs.

thus the state can force Jehovah’s witnesses to provide blood transfusions to their children.

Have they?

Why would churches be allowed to refuse gays their constitutional rights? They don’t have any rational reason to, according to Kennedy. Doctrine is not enough.

Did Kennedy say anything about religious doctrine in the Windsor ruling? If so please copy and paste the relevant sections. Not the animus part; I know that. Show me what Kennedy said about religious doctrine.

So, I am afraid it is depressingly obvious that we will soon have judges ordering priests and ministers to marry gays–especially as “it’s only ten minutes of the priests time, but a life event for the gays” scale would tend to show that the “harm” suffered by a priest is minimal compared to the “shame and humiliation” suffered by the poor gay who is getting a second class civil certificate.

Did this happen in the 60s after Loving, or has it happened in any of the 19 states where gay marriage is currently legal?

Unless you can come up with a compelling reason why churches should be allowed to refuse to honor gays constitutional rights of marriage, that is.

Listen. Very. Carefully.

The current round of lawsuits all ask same-sex couples be granted access to a legal arrangement, civil marriage They are NOT suing for a right to a religious ceremony. Because “religious marriage” and “civil marriage” are two distinct things. For many couples they are one in the same, but it is not necessarily so. The former is an institution created and administered by the churches and the latter is created and administered by the state. All of this, all of it, is all 100% about civil marriage only. Churches, when it comes to administering religious rites like a religious marriage ceremony, are protected from government interference by the First Amendment. When same-sex marriage is legal nationwide next year the churches won’t be affected in the remaining 31 states the same way they haven’t in the 19 where same-sex marriage is legal today. Period.

And remember, Reynolds and the entire line of Mormon cases are all about how groups that refuse to follow the Fed’s definition of marriage are pretty much screwed. And that affects me, since I know how much evil the Feds can bring on disfavored religious groups–I have plenty of ancestors who suffered.

Reynolds was about whether “Because religion!” was an acceptable defense for breaking the law. No one today is saying “Because religion!” is an excuse to break a law so Reynolds is irrelevant. How many more times must that be repeated?

Thus, I fight against your view of “Gays have a constitutional right to marry!” because once you get that, then what protects my faith against fascist gays and liberals, of which there are many? A clash of constitutional rights is a different beast than a clash between the 1st amendment and some people who think they are entitled, like it is now.

Vanceone on July 11, 2014 at 9:43 PM

There might be many liberals but no one is attacking your faith. The fight is about civil marriage, not religious marriage. You’re trying to fight a battle that isn’t even being contested.

alchemist19 on July 11, 2014 at 10:38 PM

There is no rational legal-defensible reason to oppose gay marriage and that’s what the courts are dealing with.

…I’m not even sure that makes linguistic sense…

Ricard on July 11, 2014 at 11:42 PM

They (pro-SSM activists) are NOT suing for a right to a religious ceremony. Because “religious marriage” and “civil marriage” are two distinct things.

For many couples they are one in the same, but it is not necessarily so.

The former is an institution created and administered by the churches and the latter is created and administered by the state.

alchemist19 on July 11, 2014 at 10:38 PM

.
That just comes right back to the pre-Warren Court societal standards of morality, which observed the “recognition of God”, versus the post-Warren Court “secularist” non-standards of morality.
.
I’m claiming the pre-Warren Court standards are superior.

You’re claiming the current non-standards are superior to the previous standards.

I say a clear majority of Americans are on my side of this issue.

You’re saying a clear majority of Americans are on the side you embrace.

We could both be wrong … but we can’t both be right.

listens2glenn on July 12, 2014 at 9:15 AM

I say a clear majority of Americans are on my side of this issue.

You’re saying a clear majority of Americans are on the side you embrace.

We could both be wrong … but we can’t both be right.

listens2glenn on July 12, 2014 at 9:15 AM

The US is not a democracy, so it doesn’t really matter which side holds the majority opinion.

In any case one side or the other is going to win, soon.

DarkCurrent on July 12, 2014 at 9:22 AM

listens2glenn on July 12, 2014 at 9:15 AM

.
The US is not a democracy, so it doesn’t really matter which side holds the majority opinion.

In any case one side or the other is going to win, soon.

DarkCurrent on July 12, 2014 at 9:22 AM

.
How, and by what means is the winning side going to win ?
.
SCOTUS didn’t have the final say in “Dred Scott v. Sandford”, and they won’t have the final say here, either.

That comment at 10:37 PM, December 19, 2013, is just the beginning of a greater, more intensified argument on down, and on the succeeding pages.

listens2glenn on July 12, 2014 at 11:01 AM

SCOTUS didn’t have the final say in “Dred Scott v. Sandford”, and they won’t have the final say here, either.

listens2glenn on July 12, 2014 at 11:01 AM

At the current rate of things, I’d say ISIS will have the final say.

Ricard on July 12, 2014 at 11:38 AM

Marriage is one man+ one woman. Period.
ANYTHING else is immoral and deviant.
No-I’m not Christian.
annoyinglittletwerp on July 9, 2014 at 9:59 PM

Actually (and historically), polygyny was a wide spread practice up until the 1880s in many countries. Marriage was accepted as either between one man and one woman or one man and many women. It also appears to be a practice that God accepted or tolerated (depending on your view) in the Old Testament.

Both historically and biblically, polygyny wasnt not considered immoral or deviant until only recently in world history.

Conservative Samizdat on July 12, 2014 at 11:09 PM

It also appears to be a practice that God accepted or tolerated (depending on your view) in the Old Testament.

Both historically and biblically, polygyny wasnt not considered immoral or deviant until only recently in world history.

Conservative Samizdat on July 12, 2014 at 11:09 PM

.
Polygyny was tolerated … for the same reason divorce was tolerated.
.
One of my favorite lines from Ben Hur :
.
Sheik Ilderim :“One God, that I can understand; but one wife? That is not civilized … It is not generous . . . . . do yourself a favor … and get many wives.”

listens2glenn on July 13, 2014 at 12:18 AM

listens2glenn on July 12, 2014 at 11:01 AM

.
At the current rate of things, I’d say ISIS will have the final say.

Ricard on July 12, 2014 at 11:38 AM

.
Like hang … not over here, they’re not.
.
In Europe ? … Maybe, the way they’re going.

listens2glenn on July 13, 2014 at 12:23 AM

Um, if we’re talking about state licensed unions then it doesn’t exist unless is has that license.

Um, and you are confusing a state sanction with legitimacy. I’m talking about a personal relationship, you’re talking about a state “title” for benefits. So for you, a marriage cannot exist, and shall never exist, without a state license. For hundreds, nay, thousands of years people got married without the benefit of a state license. The state decided to create licenses as a way to “discriminate” between types of marriages, to prevent incestuous marriages, bigamous marriages, polygamy, etc.,; to enforce stability of child rearing couples, to ensure that children have at least one parent that is responsible for them; and to help determine distribution of property between spouses and children. But if your relationship has no children, and it really only matters to you and your spouse, then you don’t need a license to be married as the state’s interest in it is minimal. That is “common law marriage”. And for example, in Pennsylvania about 15 years ago, the Commonwealth Court decided quite on its own that PA would no longer recognize common law marriages, and if it wasn’t licensed, it wasn’t a marriage. THAT is discrimination based on marriage, issued from on high by the type of brilliant Judges you so adore for whom nothing exists without govt. permission. In other words, I can’t be a doctor unless the states says I can, even if I have the knowledge, training and experience. In a doctor’s case, hat is to prevent harm to others, to verify that I am competent. Why is that now necessary for a concept “marriage” that is now becoming individually subjective?

All those rights, protections and privileges that come along with it can be pretty persuasive.

And that’s what the gays want – access to benefits that were designed to support a relationship they are not involved in. State benefits do not a marriage make – the actual relationship does, and it matters only to the people involved. The benefits were originally designed for married men and women with kids, and your right, now that the concept of “marriage” is becoming individually subjective, we should really evaluate whether any benefits are paid to it at all unless children are involved.

Is it news to you that a majority cannot vote away the rights of a minority?

Unless it’s Second Amendment gun ownership, of course. Or private property ownership.

Is it news to you that a minority cannot use a single judge to redefine a 1,000 year old existing concept that the state did not create? Oh, that’s right, now they can, no need to seek society’s acceptance when seeking society’s acceptance. It’s bootstrapping – I say my and my “spouse’s” relationship, whatever it is, is a “marriage” as I subjectively define it, and YOU have to accept that because I ave a right to “marriage”, which apparently includes redefining it to suit my whims. And thus, a judge has to buy that argument lest they “restrict my right”, and the judge further has to force everyone else to buy that argument. And we’re supposed to ignore what “marriage” is and has been since its inception because you came along 5 years ago and decided it should be expanded subjectively. Welcome to the subjectification of marriage, something that has slowly been done for 60 years, and now we’re seeing it in full swing.

If you want a homosexual relationship considered the same as a heterosexual one, then argue that issue in and of itself and get a result on that and argue that “marriage” should change to include that. And if it changes THEN the gays have a right to marriage (license) that is enforceable.

I’m repeating what the courts have said at various times in defining the scope of the Due Process Clause. But you knew that, right?

Yes, and none of that makes it “right” or “correct”. It just makes it “the law”. “Appeal to authority” and “precedent”, irregardless of its correctness. So what is marriage defined as now? The actual working definition? One which is apparently up to each individual judge. So is the judge simply looking to society (via state law or voter referendum) to decide what it is, or is he looking to each individual before him and their subjective definition, or is he making it up himself?

Define “marriage” – it is, historically, the union of one man and one woman. I can have a right to be a “doctor” (to do what is necessary to earn earn that title), but no one acknowledges plumbers as doctors, no matter how hard they stomp their feet. So gays want a redefinition and in turn, want the right.

You’re skating dangerously close to an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.

Is the fact “It’s always been that way,” sufficient legal justification in and of itself to continue doing anything?

No, I’m pointing out the fact that YOU are not defining marriage as a working term or concept. It’s becoming subjective and remaining fluid. And in turn, I am pointing out the gays’ bootstrapping argument where they subjectively consider their relationship a “marriage” from the jump and we all just accept that as of course without evaluating it. If you just accept it, then their “right to marriage” is violated. But if you first ask, “wait, what is marriage currently defined as”, it doesn’t include their relationship, and that issue must be decided first.

So how do you determine if a gay relationship is a marriage? Apparently the judges look to, wait for it, “traditional concepts in marriage”, you know, the “way its always been” to see if the relationship fits that, meaning “do they co-habitate, are they faithful, do they share expenses, do they merge property, do they hold themselves out as married in their current “Common law marriage”, so they have sex”, ergo, do they do “all the things married couples do”? THAT is also appealing to tradition, to the way its always been done. Of course, the judge firsts disregards “tradition” to get same sex marriage in the door, then he brings “tradition” back to justify its inclusion. Results in search of rationales.

The mating cry of the progressive is “Let’s CHANGE this, even if it works, and irregardless of the consequences!”

Even if this were correct you’ve negated your own point by admitting it’s not that way anymore. It’s nice when I don’t have to work very hard!

Yes, thank you for acknowledging that over the last 60 years, marriage has been broken down as a shared societal concept to it’s current level of subjective definition such that children, and opposite sex and cohabitation and faithfulness are no longer really required. So why does the state need to license, or support, such a fluid, subjective concept again? What’s the point?

Did you miss the part where I explain how the courts have been smart enough to see through this kind of specious reasoning in the past?

Yes, and again, none of that makes it “right” or “correct”. It just makes it “the law”. “Appeal to authority” and “precedent”, irregardless of its correctness. Each of us have several rights that are inherent in us that we may choose not to use, or may never use (right to self defense, right to vote, etc).

It’s not specious, it’s right on point (which is what pisses gays off) and AGAIN forces you to first define marriage before you decide to expand it. That’s the whole point here – you are seeking to expand, to redefine marriage, and YOU are denying that such a thing is happening, gaslighting people into thinking a new concept no more than 10 years old, “gay marriage”, was ALWAYS marriage. It wasn’t.

I was taught by a family law professor (and former family court judge) that there is no gay marriage. There is “traditional, complementary sex marriage” and now “same sex marriage”. That is how it is written when codified. Actual sexual relations need not apply. So creating “gay marriage”, in reality, doesn’t merge it into a current “right to marry”, it creates a NEW right to marry, a new type of marriage, same sex marriage, that must also apply to straights.

Did Loving announce a new right to interracial marriage, or did it say the existing right of marriage applied to interracial couples? Did Turner v. Safley announce a new right of prisoner marriage or did it say the right to marry applied even to the incarcerated? Did Zablocki announce a new right of deadbeat marriage, or did it say that the right to marry existed even if a person was financially destitute and unable to pay child support?

None of those things change marriage as it was always defined. None of them deal with same sex pairings, a “fundamental change in marriage cementing that child-rearing s no longer an issue in marriage). Interracial marriage is not the same as same sex marriage, not even close. Incarceration is a state enforced confinement – you can be married while imprisoned. You can be still married while poor (unless the state decides one day to make you re-up your marriage license every 5 years like a driver’s licenses, then I guess in that case your marriage would expire, per the state, and you’d be A-OK with that, since the state creates marriage now).

Again, NONE of those examples you cite fundamentally transform the concept of marriage like same sex marriage does. Again, gaslighting.

Whatever purpose it was created for, the way its been practiced leaves no logical or legally-justifiable barriers to same-sex couples. That’s why you keep losing.

Discrimination WITHOUT intent is still discrimination – and that is brainless. Typically holier-than thou and equally stupid – attributing ill motive where none exists. It’s why the Redskins team is on the ropes for being “racist” even though no one would name a their team after a concept they hate.

Again, thank you for acknowledging that over the last 60 years, marriage has been broken down as a shared societal concept to it’s current level of subjective definition such that children, and opposite sex and cohabitation and faithfulness are no longer really required. In all of human history, there has been no push, no call, for gay marriage until the recent decade. Yet it always, OBVIOUSLY, existed? Gaslighting. You celebrate this monumental defeat, this subjectification amd destruction of a shared concept, as a great victory. So why does the state need to license, or support, such a fluid, subjective concept again? What’s the point?

A majority of the country is self-centered gays? Hmm, learn something new every day!

No, a majority of the country are Stage One Thinkers that swallow whole any baited hook thrown their direction and go along with whatever is told them without critical, discriminating thought. A majority of the country are so self-involved and that they support the cause du jour so long it makes them “cool” or allows them to feel better than others. A majority of the country still thinks that if they like their doctor, they can keep him. A majority of the country voted twice for a malignant narcissist.

Eh, mostly true. Good thing no one’s talking about making a majority of the population homosexual, huh?

Depends on the causes of homosexuality which we still somehow side-step; grooming exists, and that can go a long way to increasing those numbers, huh?

I’m pointing out that sexual intercourse is primarily, biologically for procreation, and can be MADE recreational. Thus, it is normal and beneficial to have a majority heterosexual population. Anything other than that is by nature a deviation from the norm. LGBT groups hold the complete reverse (since their inclinations naturally foreclose child-rearing, hence the aversion to “hetero-normative” opinion). It’s also one of the reasons that birth control is seen as some biological imperative (rather than a recreational drug) and why abortion is so celebrated – its a way to broom reality when it comes a’knockin’.

Homosexuality is an act, now no longer criminalized.

Perhaps our disagreement is even more fundamental than I’ve realized. Is homosexuality something someone is or something someone does?

Again, Homosexuality is an act, now no longer criminalized. See Lawrence v. Texas. And when that act became legal (and lead to gay adoptions, civil unions, gay marriage, mainstream acceptance) it left a trail of legal breadcrumbs for the other sexual deviancy to follow.

An interesting list. There are apparently some hedonists out there I can’t begin to relate to. YMMV.

You can’t possibly be this ignorant of the myriad “causes” of behavior, including sexual activity. Nor the varying shades of hedonism. Wow, that’s revealing.

But I think we can safely agree the brain is a complex thing we don’t understand and since sexual orientation is buried there it’s difficult to trace the root of.

I think it’s root causes are, like, important to figure out first. And that’s why it shouldn’t receive any serious social or legal standing until we know what it actually is. But we already blew past that safeguard at warp speed.

Someone could teach you to be homosexual? O……K.

Again, research “grooming” of children at young ages during the onset of sexual development (usually the effect of pedophiles’ influence which disrupts healthy sexual development. Also, talk to an individual incarcerated for any lengthy period of time – I’d bet money that their “proclivities” have “changed”.

I admittedly don’t follow the science on this extremely closely but as I understand it female bisexuality is a real thing which would explain Anne Heche and the like but male bisexuality is extremely rare or non-existent. Women can go back and forth but men pretty much are what they are with no in-between and no going back.

Which goes to make it “mutable”, not immutable. And again, that seems to merit further research that the gays bear the burden of proof on. And that’s why it shouldn’t receive any serious social or legal standing until we know what it actually is. But we already blew past that safeguard at warp speed.

It depends on whether or not there is any inherent harm.

In a sane world, yes. But we don’t live in a sane world. That leaves the “born that way” argument which would at least remove it from a criminal context into a “protected disability”. You can’t criminalize someone for something they have no control over, right?

I hope it doesn’t take much to convince you that pedophilia is harmful to the children. There’s a sharp contrast between that and adult homosexuality because two consenting adult homosexuals being in a relationship together are doing nothing inherently harmful to anybody. That’s not only a distinction, it’s a huge one.

Distinction is discrimination, and “we” don’t “do” “discrimination” anymore.

I don’t argue for pedophilia, I argue against it by showing the path we as a nation are on, a path leading right to its door. These days, I’m sure “we” can find enough “experts” and “studies” and “judges” to agree that any harm in bestiality or pedo or necro is really just caused by “society’s view” on it? That’s cake walk these days. That’s why “we” expose children to sex at younger and younger ages via “sex education” and increasingly sexualized culture. To get them exposed to the ideas (and thus “curious”) at younger and younger ages. So ask yourself – is sex ed teaching the birds and the bees as it did in my day, or is it teaching S&M and fisting? Depends on the class, huh?

See – http://americansfortruth.com/2009/10/08/kevin-jennings-1997-transcript-promoting-homosexuality-in-schools-glsen-good-for-kids/

The fact they’re harmful to others is entirely relevant. It’s one of the things that separates them from heterosexuality and homosexuality.

As an ACT, yes, it separates them. But not as an INNATE, “from birth” sexual orientation. That’s why gays better find out what biologically or psychologically separates their sexual orientation from those other “orientations, or else they all end up “protected”.

If we were in court I could turn to the judge and say “Objection, relevance.” Get my “Sustained,” and give you a little smirk. Alas…

And yet we aren’t in court. Just keeping it real and bringing the topic back to biological/anatomical reality. Reality, the thing court’s don’t deal with and try to “style” away.

So you’re comfortable with the idea of a tyrannical majority voting away the Constitutionally-protected rights of the minority? What’s the point of protecting rights in the Constitution if 50% +1 of the voters or the legislature can take them away at will?

alchemist19 on July 10, 2014 at 5:40 PM

Nope. But why was DOMA (which essentially told the fed that marriage MUST be man-woman) so bad, but a federal judge telling states like PA that marriage must ALSO be woman-woman, and man-man, great? The right to marriage is a “constitutional right”. But it is not defined, and that is left to the states (and the people via the states). When it was defined, it meant one man, one woman. So, if you want man-man or woman-woman to be included, don’t assume it, explain it, and seek societal acceptance of it via voter referendum and legislation. Then when legislation/voter referendum says marriage now includes it, THEN a judge can so hold. And none of that should ever void “common law marriages”, which is a purest form of marriage.

The solution was, like it or not, always in voter referendum or legislation, not the courts. The Courts FORCE, and it turns people off.

Saltyron on July 13, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Saltyron on July 13, 2014 at 1:00 PM

.
Looks like you’re joining the competition for the “bandwidth gluttony” award . . . . . but I do like what you said.

listens2glenn on July 13, 2014 at 2:04 PM

listens2glenn on July 13, 2014 at 2:04 PM

Thanks. It’s a complicated issue that for too long has been dictated by “bumpersticker” slogans and rationales which are woefully insufficient at explaining it’s depth and breadth.

Saltyron on July 14, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4