February 14, 2013

"41 states prohibit same-sex marriage. But only 20 of those 41 states have filed briefs in support of the constitutionality of Proposition 8."

"Indiana is the lead party on a brief for 19 states, and Michigan filed a brief of its own."
Compare this level of state participation with, for example, the amicus brief filed by all 49 other states in Maryland v. King (to be argued February 26), in support of Maryland’s argument that a state does not violate the Fourth Amendment by collecting and analyzing the DNA of persons who have been arrested for, but not convicted of, a criminal offense....

It is further significant, I think, that in 12 of those 21 non-filing states, constitutional amendments prevent the recognition of same-sex marriage via the ordinary political process.  All but one of those amendments was ratified from 2002 through 2008, in anticipation that popular majorities might soon support a change in state law... 

286 comments:

1 – 200 of 286   Newer›   Newest»
edutcher said...

There's a big difference between the state and the people.

People in Asia and Africa understand this better than we do.

Glen Filthie said...

My daughter is gay. You cannot sell me the politically correct bullshit.

I see gay parades with half naked men clad in diaper waving rubber dildoes around and screaming. I saw the floppy topless lesbians with huge guts and chains. And I saw scads of screaming hetro morons egging them on.

I don't care how many morons line up in a row to say that' healthy and acceptable. Anyone that does has rocks in their head. I live in the real world and I will call 'em as I see 'em - the judiciary and politicians be damned. Those idiots went off a moral and ethical cliff two decades ago and it shows.

Mitchell the Bat said...

Fear of boycotts?

Andy R. said...

Gay marriage is a foregone conclusion. Victory will either come at the Supreme Court (preferable, and most likely), or shortly after on a state by state basis.

Now, the interesting question is how long Republicans will continue to fight it, and how much damage they will do to themselves as they slouch away from their bigotry. (Ditto the Catholic Church.)

Glen Filthie said...

My daughter is gay. You cannot sell me the politically correct bullshit.

I see gay parades with half naked men clad in diaper waving rubber dildoes around and screaming. I saw the floppy topless lesbians with huge guts and chains. And I saw scads of screaming hetro morons egging them on.

I don't care how many morons line up in a row to say that' healthy and acceptable. Anyone that does has rocks in their head. I live in the real world and I will call 'em as I see 'em - the judiciary and politicians be damned. Those idiots went off a moral and ethical cliff two decades ago and it shows.

Andy R. said...

My daughter is gay. You cannot sell me the politically correct bullshit.

Do you think she should be allowed to get married?

Revenant said...

Is your daughter one of the floppy topless lesbians with a huge gut and chains?

Michael said...

Andy R: Gay "marriage" is definitely in our future. But, as you well know, it will not be marriage marriage. You can, for example, have a constitutional amendment that says that a cat is a dog. But it will not transform the cat and it will not diminish the dog.

chickelit said...

If only a minority of States vocally support the constitutionality of a State's right issue, wouldn't it behoove the Court to favorably hear the minority State's side? This just upholds their counter-majoritarian tradition when individuals and agreived minorities are involved.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Andy R. said...

Do you think she should be allowed to get married?

Of course she should be, and always has been, allowed to get married. I doubt very much that she will ever find a man that she wants to commit to spending the rest of her life with.

chickelit said...

I'm reacting to the argument presented that just because one party is an apparent "minority" (20 out of 41) it is somehow less worthy.

creeley23 said...

Would anyone care to summarize the point the author is making?

I'm reminded of confusing political articles filled with double and triple negatives, e.g. A opposes the repeal of bill B prohibiting the regulation of C in jurisdiction D but not in jurisdiction E.

Andy R. said...

Andy R: Gay "marriage" is definitely in our future. But, as you well know, it will not be marriage marriage.

If you're curious about why marriage equality is winning, it's because outside of bigotry, these are the sorts of silly arguments that people make in favor of banning gay marriage.

Andy R. said...

Of course she should be, and always has been, allowed to get married. I doubt very much that she will ever find a man that she wants to commit to spending the rest of her life with.

Speaking of dumb arguments against marriage equality...

mccullough said...

So it's not the states' statutes or constitutions that reflect the view of the people of those states on gay marriage, it's whether the attorneys general of those states sign an amicus brief?

How is this for a dog that didn't bark: none of those states has introduced a statute or proposed an amendment to repeal their marriage laws to permit gay marriage.

So it's 41-9. When did gay marriage become a constitutional right: 1868? 2004? 2008? 2012? Since no one thinks its 1868, how can 9 states and divided public opinion create this right? Would 3 states be enough? 3 of the original states?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

But only 20 of those 41 states have filed briefs in support of the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

Maybe that's because people in government don't like the idea of voters limiting the power of people in government.

A few small government types get elected or appointed, but the incentive structure works against this. People who want to wield as much government power as possible have vastly greater incentive to pursue public office than those who prefer limited government.

chickelit said...

Speaking numerical majorities and minorities -- I'm cheered by VDH's piece identifying three bright spots in America's future: farming, energy and high tech. Thankfully 2 of the 3 are only remotely correlated with "urban values."

Andy R. said...

To speak to the point of the linked article, obviously Republicans have started ducking gay marriage as an issue. While many elected Republican officials still seem to oppose it, they are doing their best to avoid talking about it, as being a bigot about marriage equality has obvious electoral downsides.

There is not going to be much of a fight left if the people opposed to gay marriage won't speak up about it (i.e. avoiding filing briefs when it comes up in front of the Supreme Court).

You have to feel bad for all the rubes in the Republican Party who want to get their hate on at the gays but are being abandoned by the party leaders who have realized that bigotry is an electoral loser. Maybe they can have a big fight about it in the 2016 primary and the Christianists can threaten to quit the party when they see that their anti-gay bigotry is no longer welcome in this country, or the Republican Party.

Lem said...

Whats going on with Obama's executive order pen?... must be running out of ink... do to republican budget cuts.

chickelit said...

The only thing worse than a Christianist is a Sullivanist.

Renee said...

In the 20 states, how are their marriage laws written differently then in others?

Even before Goodridge, Massachusetts had a good public policy the correlated to a one man/one women model in its laws. Back in 2000, in Massachusetts, I was required blood tests for pregnancy related conditions before I was allowed to be married to a man. I was/am still proud we had protections on sexual orientation that were added to our laws in 1988, but never could we foreseen how it would be applied to marriage.

Marriage laws had a consistent precedent relating to the issue of fertility and the needs of children, even if some heterosexual couples never did have children themselves.

Remember Goodridge was only 4-3, it wasn't a slam dunk in favor of gay marriage.

The link comes from the fertility industry. When you have suburban fertility clinics offering egg/sperm donor and surrogacy, it changed the rules. Children no longer had an protection in who they were or a right to know their mother and father.

Sure we could redefine marriage, we're free to define words as we choose but we are indeed losing something. I feel horrible that so many people have a response to 'so what', when we see the devastation that large percentages of father-absence creates in children.


Ignorance is Bliss said...

Andy R. said...

Speaking of dumb arguments against marriage equality...

It's not an argument against marriage equality, it is an argument for discrimination, which I fully support.

The purpose of the word marriage is discrimination. ( That's why the word marriage has a definition. ) We use the word, and its definition, to discriminate between those relationships that meet the definition, and those that don't.

People who support same sex marriage don't want to end discrimination. They just want to move to the other category, while not having to meet the definition of that category.

Inga said...

"You have to feel bad for all the rubes in the Republican Party who want to get their hate on at the gays but are being abandoned by the party leaders who have realized that bigotry is an electoral loser."

2/14/13, 2:02 PM

So true. Yet one still hears that they lost the election because they just weren't conservative ENOUGH.

dbp said...

"All but one of those amendments was ratified from 2002 through 2008, in anticipation that popular majorities might soon support a change in state law..."

No. In anticipation that judges would "discover" such a right in their constitutions. Obviously.

Michael said...

Andy R: I am actually in favor of gay "marriage" but I want to make it clear that it will not be marriage marriage and you know that as well as any other gay person inhabiting this universe.

Andy R. said...

I want to make it clear that it will not be marriage marriage and you know that as well as any other gay person inhabiting this universe.

No I don't. You'll have to explain what you're talking about and not just keep repeating the same inanities.

dbp said...

Marriage marriage is legal recognition of a union which can usually create human beings.

Marshal said...

All but one of those amendments was ratified from 2002 through 2008, in anticipation that popular majorities might soon support a change in state law...

Is this true? Or were they passed in anticipation left-liberal activist judges would decide on behalf of popular majorities?

Michael said...

Andy R: Real marriage is between a man and a woman and is a sacrament in many religions. The marriage you will be entitled to is a civil union with a different word, "marriage", used to describe it. Won't be real marriage. As you know. Gay marriages wont be able to produce children. You can adopt them, love them, provide for them, argue and fight with them, pay for them to be well schooled and raise them as well as you can. But you will not be able to produce them from the sexual union of the partners in marriage.

Lem said...

If Obama Had a Gay, Illegal Immigrant, Football-Playing Son Who Looked Like Trayvon Martin...

Inga said...

dbp, perhaps old folks who marry and are beyond child bearing years shouldn't be allowed marriage rights?

madAsHell said...

I'm a tri-sexual in a same sex marriage. I keep wanting to try something new, but we keep having the same sex.

Andy R. said...

You can adopt them, love them, provide for them, argue and fight with them, pay for them to be well schooled and raise them as well as you can. But you will not be able to produce them from the sexual union of the partners in marriage.

Does this apply to a heterosexual marriage when one or both of the partners is infertile?

Or are the straight infertile people in a marriage marriage because other straight people have sex and have kids and so the infertile folks get grandfathered in?

I realize that you might think this way, but, obviously, what goes on in your head has no bearing on the lives of gay people that get married.

Michael said...

Andy R: You don't seem to get my point. You are going to be able to get married. You are going to be able to enjoy all the benefits and downsides of being married. I am in favor of that. I am a supporter of love. I think you will get that soon. But you will not have the same kind of marriage that heterosexual couples have. You can tit for tat all day long but that one little problem with gay marriage is going to bug the shit out of you forever. Live with it. Enjoy. Relax. You will be able to get married. Legally. All over this great land. But you and your partner will not be able to produce a child of your love. Alas, it goes with the very idea of gay marriage.

chickelit said...

Call: You have to feel bad for...

and Response: So true. Yet one still hears...

Those are two examples of meaningless preambles which precede and signal subsequent vacuous claims.

It's like typewritten head nodding.

Andy R. said...

If Obama Had a Gay, Illegal Immigrant, Football-Playing Son Who Looked Like Trayvon Martin...

Good article, but I think the author is glossing over the relative popularity of the positions as an explanation for steps 7 and 8. I think it's overly simplistic to look at an issue like marriage equality or immigration and say that the public pressure is because Democrats/Obama are better at mobilizing. It's because the country is genuinely supportive of Obama's position on those issue.

It's weird advice for a conservative to tell Republicans to fight harder on issues in which they are out of step with America. Is there really something good that can come out of the conservative grassroots trying to push their elected officials to put up more of a fight about gay marriage? How exactly do they think that is going to work out?

Andy R. said...

But you and your partner will not be able to produce a child of your love.

Do you apply this same logic to straight infertile couples that adopt? Do you think they aren't married as much? Do they not love their children as much?

And for gay people who aren't interested in having children, will they ever notice the difference? There are plenty of gay people (and straights) who aren't interested in having children. Other than that, is there any difference in the marriages?

Seeing Red said...

Hmmm, we should apply Roberts standard for Obamacare to gay marriage.

If the people of the states vote against it, why should it go to the courts?

Colonel Angus said...

I'm quite sure one homosexuals experience the wonders of divorce and the legal wranglings thereof, they'll realize the grass isn't necessarily greener.

It's a non-issue for me. Let them 'marry'. The so called sanctity of marriage lost its luster when we have a 50% divorce rate and the celebrity set pretty much makes a mockery of the institution anyway. Letting a bunch of queens and dykes Exchange vows isn't that big a deal.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Speaking of dumb arguments against marriage equality..

You can't make two completely different 'things' equal no matter how you want it to be.

A mule will never be equal (or the same as) a horse.

dbp said...

"dbp, perhaps old folks who marry and are beyond child bearing years shouldn't be allowed marriage rights?"

Inga, hence the word "usually". It would be a bit intrusive for govt. to be doing fertility tests, no?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

That being said. Go get married. I don't care. Be happy.

Just realize that your status is not equal and will never be equal.

Inga said...

Michael must consider Althouse and Meade's marriage not a marriage marriage, heh.

But they adopt dogs!

Revenant said...

as being a bigot about marriage equality has obvious electoral downsides.

If you live in the San Francisco bay area, sure. Otherwise, not so much.

Michael said...

Andy R: There is no "logic" to the fact that biologically same sex couples cannot procreate. It is a fact. I will try and spell this out in a way that you will quit trying to make it something it is not. There is only one difference between gay and straight marriage. Gay marriage can never, repeat never, produce children from the sexual union of the spouses. There are straight couples who are infertile but infertile is the operative word and clarifies the difference between a very fertile pair of men married to each other and infertile members of opposite sexes. None of this, understand, has anything to do with love, only with what gay marriage cannot create. Sorry.

chickelit said...

And for gay people who aren't interested in having children, will they ever notice the difference? There are plenty of gay people (and straights) who aren't interested in having children. Other than that, is there any difference in the marriages?

I believe that something special should be reserved for the men and women who chose to have children against the odds (besides a childcare credit). It is after all what we need more of, not less.

To the extent that gay marriage reduces the dreadful promiscuity and spread of disease among gay males-- I'm for that too.

Andy R. said...

Just realize that your status is not equal and will never be equal.

Equal before the law is good enough for me. Your fantasies about why gay people can't have an equal marriage doesn't concern any of the married gay people that I know.

For the record, are you in agreement with Michael (that having a child from the uterus of one of the members of the marriage created with the sperm of the other member of the marriage) is the special part of marriage and infertile straight couples are engaging in some weird substandard version of marriage?

Revenant said...

It would be a bit intrusive for govt. to be doing fertility tests, no?

That's really your position? That we only recognize childless heterosexual marriages because fertility tests are "a bit intrusive"?

Inga said...

Michael: "Nanny nanny boo boo, you can't have biological children!"

furious_a said...

Victory will either come at the Supreme Court (preferable, and most likely)...

Yes, because Roe v. Wade and Gore v. Bush settled their respective issues in a poltically acceptable manner.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

One of the definitions of "a marriage" in art is the combining of two DIFFERENT materials to create a new whole thing. Married metals for example, "Original jewelry and precious metal sculpture by Kendall Murakami, featuring a marriage of two or more different types of metal.

Each piece is pounded, heated, and forged together, ..


A marriage of a man and a woman, two different materials that get forged together.

A marriage of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman...NOT two different materials. Not that this 'marriage' of same to same cannot be happy. It just isn't the definition of marriage and it is not an equally interchangeable concept.

Wish all you want. That mule will never be a horse.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

For the record, are you in agreement with Michael.

Not necessarily. I've given you the definition of marriage as it has been defined by society for several thousands of years now.

Michael said...

Inga: You are a nurse. You will know then that all children are biological. You will also know that the guts of marriage have long ago been hollowed out so we are talking about something that might well be a vestigial rite. You can think that there is some splendid brilliance in your arguments about infertility and older couples negating the thesis that marriage is , or once was, fundamentally about children. But you would be wrong. There will be gay marriage. I am for gay marriage. It would be pretty if gays could have children together. But they cannot.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Andy R. said...

Equal before the law is good enough for me.

So, you're not asking for much. Just changing the definition of the fundamental building block of society.

Andy R. said...

Michael: I think you probably realize that while people might share your opinion, it is rapidly being discredited. That kids today are growing up in a world where they can't see or understand the difference between a gay and straight marriage. That they see families of all kinds raising kids (or not raising kids). Your comments about marriage marriage wouldn't make any sense to them.

Eventually we'll live in a world, where basically no one will think there is a difference between gay and straight marriages, except perhaps religious bigots who cling to their outmoded beliefs. There will probably be some bitter old people who try to explain that there are some differences between gay and straight marriage, and younger people will look at them with a mix of amusement and contempt, and wonder how people can think such things. Hopefully one day you've change your mind and recognize that it doesn't matter whether kids from adoption or some other means.

It's a great future we're building together. I'm glad you support civil legal marriage equality.

Bryan C said...

Andy R.'s right. Although, if gays want something they can count on, it's much better to enact it state-by-state than by Supreme Court fiat. Doing things the right way isn't always easy or quick.

Polygamy won't be too far behind. I'm not saying that as a slippery-slope argument. It'll just be clear by then the state has no business banning any kind of marriage, so long as it's entered into voluntarily.

Lem said...

For every day that same-sex marriage is not the law of the land, hundreds of thousands of gay couples go to bed hungry for sex. Perhaps you know a sufferer. It could be your neighbor, the lady that plays bingo with grandma, your banker, your baker, your candle stick maker.

Please help end gay sex hunger.

Revenant said...

that having a child from the uterus of one of the members of the marriage created with the sperm of the other member of the marriage

They don't actually believe that that is the important part of a marriage. The reason that that one issue keeps being raised is that sexual reproduction is the one and only thing that most heterosexual couples are capable of and no homosexual couples are. So they pick that as the line of defense, because it is the only thing that is factually "wrong" with gay marriage.

The other arguments -- that gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage, that it isn't "real marriage", that the relationships are unnatural and unhealthy, etc -- are nonsensical and only appeal to people with a pre-existing dislike of homosexuals. That pool of people is rapidly dwindling. "Marriage is about children, and homosexuals can't have children of their own", despite all its weaknesses as an argument, at least has *some* factual basis.

dbp said...

"That's really your position? That we only recognize childless heterosexual marriages because fertility tests are "a bit intrusive"?"

There is a lot more than that, but I am trying to be succinct. Marriage is a way of protecting and formalizing realationships that usually produce children. The reason is that children thrive in a stable environment and often come to no good in a chaotic setting.

Couples sometimes marry with no intention of having kids, sometimes they change their minds, sometimes not. I don't think it is the govenment's place to intrude into their health or intentions. In the case of homosexual unions, the production of offspring is a logical impossibility and there is no reason to extend marriage to them. I have argued elsewhere that in the case of lesbians, it is pretty easy to have kids and so it might make sense to extend marriage to couples containing at least one woman.

Lem said...

Equal before the law is good enough for me.

What now... Did Bloomberg declare war on Sweet'N Low while I wasn't looking.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

I have a 40 year old daughter, who is divorced and engaged to be married again to a 40 year old man. They will not have children, is their marriage any less a marriage? Marriage is about two individuals who love one another who want legal staus. It's also a spiritual thing to religious people.

Revenant said...

Polygamy won't be too far behind.

It effectively already is. The extra "wives" just aren't entitled to any claim on the man's earnings, apart from child support.

Revenant said...

Marriage is a way of protecting and formalizing realationships that usually produce children.

Well, no, because we also formalize relationships that have little or no chance of producing childing. Ann and Meade's marriage, for example. You don't need a fertility test to know it is incredibly unlikely they'll have kids.

Michael said...

Andy R: You are trying to attribute bigotry to me where it does not exist. My opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is that gays cannot produce children and children themselves realize this. You are trying desperately to conflate biology with hatred and you can get nowhere with that approach. It might account for some of your bitterness but it is not a winning argument. Again, I am in favor of gay marriage. I myself have been married twice. It is a great institution. Gays will come to love the idea that one of them with a burr under his saddle can walk into the courthouse and demand, and get, half of his spouse's property. Because he can.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Polygamy won't be too far behind. I'm not saying that as a slippery-slope argument. It'll just be clear by then the state has no business banning any kind of marriage, so long as it's entered into voluntarily.

I agree that same-sex marriage should be legal, but one unfortunate consequence is that it will become ever so much harder to cure homosexuality, which is a shame for people that want to be normal.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Polygamy won't be too far behind. I'm not saying that as a slippery-slope argument. It'll just be clear by then the state has no business banning any kind of marriage, so long as it's entered into voluntarily.

I agree that same-sex marriage should be legal, but one unfortunate consequence is that it will become ever so much harder to cure homosexuality, which is a shame for people that want to be normal.

Lem said...

Marriage is about two individuals who love one another who want legal staus...

Its a good thing you limit it to two individuals... its the NRA crazies that want semi-automatic, military assault style marriages.

Inga said...

At one time it was considered abnormal to marry a person from different religion and at one time is was considered abnormal to marry another person of a different race.

Baron Zemo said...

The institution of gay marriage is of course just one step of an ongoing process.

The next step is to demand that all churches, synagogues and mosques be forced to perform gay marriage rituals in direct violation of the tenets of their religion.

It is part of their ongoing quest to destroy the Catholic Church, the Mormons, Orthodox Jews and any other religion that does not sail to the winds of political
correctness.

If you don't think that is not the next step then you are fooling yourself.

Pookie Number 2 said...

At one time it was considered abnormal to marry a person from different religion and at one time is was considered abnormal to marry another person of a different race.

True, but so what? There's no fundamental mismatch between one's brain and one's reproductive system when marrying a person of another race or religion.

Chip Ahoy said...

You and I are sixteen point four trillion dollars in debt. Marry whoever you want whatever you want whenever you want at whatever age. I. don't. care.

Andy R. said...

The next step is to demand that all churches, synagogues and mosques be forced to perform gay marriage rituals in direct violation of the tenets of their religion.

For me the next step is more like making it clear that anti-gay bigots should be shunned in polite society and anyone who associates with a religion that opposes marriage equality should be viewed as aligning with bigots, if not a bigot themselves. People are, of course, welcome to make their own choices about who they want to associate with. (I already have friends who are unaffiliating with the Catholic Church for this very reason.)

I don't have any interest in the government forcing religious groups to host gay marriages.

Kchiker said...

"What is relevant is that gays cannot produce children and children themselves realize this."

You seem to take it for granted that science will never enable two people of the same sex to create a child sharing both partners' DNA. If/when you are proven wrong, will it be a "marriage marriage" then or will you cite another reason to maintain that your marriage is somehow superior?

Lem said...

Some considerations are more considerate of others... specially when you consider the inconsideration of the past.

Oso Negro said...

Once homosexuality is completely mainstreamed, I wonder if conservative young men will save their butthole virginity for marriage.

Lem said...

People are, of course, welcome to make their own choices about who they want to associate with.

May peace be upon you.. mercifull AndyR.

Baron Zemo said...

You lie Andy.

The next step will be to remove the tax exemptions to any religious institutions who do not perform gay marriages in their houses of worship.

In addition, any photographer, wedding hall or any other privately owned business that might not care to participate in gay nuptials will lose their licenses and be forced out of business.

If you don't think that is the next step you are fooling yourself.

Marshal said...

Revenant said...
The other arguments --


Missed one:

Marriage has not included gay relationships in the entire recorded history of our species across all cultures, until roughly the last 4 seconds. How exactly did we grant our government the authority to redefine a universal human institution against the will of its population?

Baron Zemo said...

They will also be forced to not allow smoking and will not be able to serve 16oz sodas.

Marshal said...

Baron Zemo said...
If you don't think that is the next step you are fooling yourself.


There will always be a next step. Failure to find one is agreeing to dismantle a politically useful tool which will never happen.

Chip Ahoy said...

I forgot to mention, happy Valentine's day. Did anybody get a card?

Funny thing. This was about 2:00 a.m. I was awake. But in my underwear. Knock on the door so I answered it that way. Kind of behind of the door. It turned out to be cop. So I opened the door fully showing my state. He asked, if we own these places or is there is a general manager. I told him a manger. Where? Two floors directly above. He starts to walk away. "Oh! Wait. She doesn't like to be bothered." That didn't matter. "She'll charge you $50.00." That was ridiculous. She wouldn't charge a cop but that had his attention. "Give her this." I handed him the pop-up card I used for example. All three were right there. "Use it to bribe her, she's very susceptible to bribes and she'll forgive the $50.00" He laughed and accepted it. "But what if she's not there?" "Then keep it." So I don't know what happened to that ultimately but I thought it was funny. The surprise cop became the delivery guy for a Valentine card, or else has one for his wife or tossed it.

Andy R. said...

The next step will be to remove the tax exemptions to any religious institutions who do not perform gay marriages in their houses of worship.

I'm in favor of removing the tax exemptions of all churches/religious organizations, outside of narrowly defined charitable work, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they perform gay marriages.

There are plenty of states that have gay marriage? Has there been any movement yet by the gays to start taking over churches and forcing gay marriages on people? I haven't heard about it.

Michael said...

Kchiker: As you well know, organic is superior to genetically engineered. To ask the question is to answer it.

Kchiker said...

"The next step will be to remove the tax exemptions to any religious institutions who do not perform gay marriages in their houses of worship.

In addition, any photographer, wedding hall or any other privately owned business that might not care to participate in gay nuptials will lose their licenses and be forced out of business."

Pendulums DO swing.

Andy R. said...

How exactly did we grant our government the authority to redefine a universal human institution against the will of its population?

Because we had a debate between the gays and the bigots and the gays won. One of the more fun parts of watching the litigation around marriage equality is how terrible the arguments from the bigots have been. I'm looking forward to seeing them embarrass themselves in front of the Supreme Court.

Baron Zemo said...

Because that is the next step.

Just as the government wants to force the Catholic Church to provide birth control and abortions so too will this become the next step.

Perhaps you should attend the meetings at David Geffen's house there Andy. You are out of the loop.

Lem said...

I'm in favor of removing the tax exemptions of all churches/religious organizations...

May war be upon you... unmerciful AndyR.

Kchiker said...

"As you well know, organic is superior to genetically engineered. To ask the question is to answer it."

I recommend you say something like this to someone who came into this world via IVF.

Michael said...

Andy R: You haven't finished your "conversation" about this topic with black Americans yet and you have certainly not won it with them. Hopefully you will not be a racist and call blacks in opposition to gay marriage bigots.

Baron Zemo said...

They are also going to demand that rare clumbers be named "Best in Show" at the Westminister Kennel Club or they will be forced to shut down that bigoted hateful institution.

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

Gay marriage is a foregone conclusion. Victory will either come at the Supreme Court (preferable, and most likely), or shortly after on a state by state basis.

It's as inevitable as the Equal Rights Amendment was.

Forty states have voted against it, only one or two for it.

Several others have had it decreed from a Lefty appellate court and Andy Cuomo had to buy the votes -from Democrats as well as Republicans.

Yeah, that says, "Inevitable", all over the place.

Inga said...

dbp, perhaps old folks who marry and are beyond child bearing years shouldn't be allowed marriage rights?

And exactly what rights are associated with marriage?

I have a 40 year old daughter, who is divorced and engaged to be married again to a 40 year old man. They will not have children, is their marriage any less a marriage?

Somebody tell the She-Wolf of the SS, who claims to be a nurse, that women in their 40s have been known to get pregnant.

At one time it was considered abnormal to marry a person from different religion and at one time is was considered abnormal to marry another person of a different race.

Not abnormal, although it has been outlawed in some places. It's always been considered bizarre to two men or two women to marry.

PS And, yes, Santorum was right. We're already seeing the polyamories, pederasties, and incest-is-swell types starting to make their case for their "rights".

Marshal said...

Andy R. said...
How exactly did we grant our government the authority to redefine a universal human institution against the will of its population?

Because we had a debate between the gays and the bigots and the gays won.


Not just false, but laughably false. If gays won the debate gay marriage wouldn't be against the will of the population, including in California.

No, we have gay marriage because our legal system has been overrun with political activists who imposed it from the bench.

Michael said...

IVF is organic. You are hoping against hope that science will be able to permit two people of the same sex to be physically altered so that they may conceive. Science has better things to do.

chickelit said...

Kchiker said...
You seem to take it for granted that science will never enable two people of the same sex to create a child sharing both partners' DNA. If/when you are proven wrong, will it be a "marriage marriage" then or will you cite another reason to maintain that your marriage is somehow superior?

Good question about the marriage marriage thing. But one thing's for sure--such procreation will be expensive compared to normal procreation and therefore, a prior under Chip Ahoy's observation, be subsidized by Obamacare.

MM or FF conjoining of DNA will remain a plaything of the rich.

Why do you insist on fighting such uphill battles?

chickelit said...

It's as inevitable as the Equal Rights Amendment was.

The ERA failed because it failed algebra: X does not equal Y in each and every aspect. Equivalency, but not absolute equality prevailed.

Kchiker said...

"Good question about the marriage marriage thing. But one thing's for sure--such procreation will be expensive"

Lots of people spend a lot of money to have (not to mention raise) children. My question is...once they can...what happens to that argument?

Lem said...

Because we had a debate between the gays and the bigots and the gays won.

The problem with perception as reality is that today's perception is tomorrow's nightmare.

Inga said...

Edutcher, when one of the partners has had surgery to prevent conception, no baby will be forthcoming, ask "The Blond". Nevertheless the marriage is still a "marriage marriage", if and until those of you who feel a marriage isn't a marriage unless it produces a child say it isn't. In that case Edutcher, your own marriage to " The Blond" isn't a "marriage marriage".

Kchiker said...

"The problem with perception as reality is that today's perception is tomorrow's nightmare."

You've lost this one. I think you know that.

Brew Master said...

Andy R. said...


Equal before the law is good enough for me. Your fantasies about why gay people can't have an equal marriage doesn't concern any of the married gay people that I know.



Point A: Equal before the law. Let us postulate that there are no gay marriage laws on the books and that marriage as defined circa 1920 is the norm.
Under this scheme, there is equality for all before the law. I know that many will refuse to accept that as a true statement, but never the less it is. Let us examine a few examples.

Heterosexual Male A, under law, is free to marry Heterosexual Female A.
Heterosexual Male A, under law, is not free to marry Heterosexual Male B.
Heterosexual Male A, under law, is not free to marry Homosexual Male C.

Homosexual Male C, under law, is free to marry Heterosexual Female A.
Homosexual Male C, under law, is not free to marry Heterosexual Male B.
Homosexual Male C, under law, is not free to marry Homosexual Male D.

This is what is known as equality under the law.

Now, what Gay Marriage advocates actually want is not equality under the law, they want to change the law to allow them to 'marry' who they wish to marry.

It is that simple.

The slippery slope is fervently ignored by all, but it is there and it is a glaring contradiction that most will refuse to face. Why should we just stop there? I'm sure there are many segments of society that wish they were free to marry beyond what is legally recognized under current law.

But, a line is always drawn somewhere. Prior, that line was man/woman. Now it is going to be redefined as partner/partner. This is a substitute morality pushed to replace the old, but even those wishing for their new definition will draw their own morally distinct line. Shall we have partner/partner/partner? Or why limit is to humans, or even living beings, or have age restrictions?

The bottom line is, the old morality is rejected for the new morality, but what is being instituted is still a morality.

For me the next step is more like making it clear that anti-gay bigots should be shunned in polite society and anyone who associates with a religion that opposes marriage equality should be viewed as aligning with bigots, if not a bigot themselves. People are, of course, welcome to make their own choices about who they want to associate with. (I already have friends who are unaffiliating with the Catholic Church for this very reason.)

I don't have any interest in the government forcing religious groups to host gay marriages.


Point B: How do you reconcile your hypocrisy in this statement? First, you state that people who do not hold the same views as you should be shunned and declared bigots. Then you state that people are welcome to make their own choices.

Your statement that people should be free to do as they wish is contracted by the fact that you want them to be punished by doing just that. You do not actually believe that people are free to do as they wish, but you believe that people must conform to your views or be punished.

Revenant said...

Missed one:

Well, no, because "we've never done that before" isn't an argument against doing something. It is just mindless fear of change.

There can be good reasons to fear changes, but "that's a change" isn't one of them. :)

chickelit said...

Lots of people spend a lot of money to have (not to mention raise) children. My question is...once they can...what happens to that argument?

Why do you seek to normalize the exceptional? Do you find statistics repugnant? Or is it just stigma that you loathe?

Lem said...

Why do you insist on fighting such uphill battles?

Oscar Pistorious?

Kchiker said...

"Why do you seek to normalize the exceptional?"

Why do you make assumptions regarding what will be exceptional in the future? The pendulum is swinging and it is swinging hard and fast.

chickelit said...

Why do you make assumptions regarding what will be exceptional in the future? The pendulum is swinging and it is swinging hard and fast.

Because it's a fair assumption that normal procreative sex will remain the mechanism of procreation. You obviously see otherwise, or couch your hopes in an unknowable probability.

furious_a said...

But you and your partner will not be able to produce a child of your love. Alas, it goes with the very idea of gay marriage.

Sure, they will, Michael. They'll just have to artificially approximate (turkey baster and a male donor for the ladies, swirls and a brood mare for the guys) innately hetero acts to get halfway there.

Chris said...

"The single most significant thing about the topside briefs in the same-sex marriage cases"? There might actually be arguments in these briefs too, you know!

Andy R. said...

First, you state that people who do not hold the same views as you should be shunned and declared bigots. Then you state that people are welcome to make their own choices.

Your statement that people should be free to do as they wish is contracted by the fact that you want them to be punished by doing just that.


I was specifically referring to government coercion (i.e. the idea that I want the government to force religious groups to do certain things). I don't want that government coercion. I think social pressure should be used to bring about change. I don't think people should be free from criticism. Religious bigots are welcome to criticize gay people. Non-bigots are welcome to criticize the religious people who are bigots. I'm comfortable with how that will work out in the end.

I think I've made my feelings about religious bigots clear plenty of times. And while I don't sense a lot of change from the Althouse Comment Crew, the Republican Party and various religions have clearly realized the downside of engaging in bigotry and then being criticized over it by people like me.

Lem said...

The pendulum is swinging and it is swinging hard and fast.

Its a gay pendulum... or do you wish to keep them from freely swinging like straight pendulums?

garage mahal said...

What I find funny is this idea that married people are fucking like rabbits. Um, marriage actually stops that.

chickelit said...

If MF procreative sex dies out and MM or FF procreation becomes the dominant norm then it by definition will be normal.

Again: Do you find statistics repugnant? Or is it just stigma that you loathe?

Michael said...

Kchiker: You raise an interesting question that the future will answer. Will gays in that moment when science makes it possible for one or the other to submit to a transfiguration agree to be transfigured? I am friends with a gay couple who have two lovely children both sired by one of the spouses via a female surrogate. They both look exactly like their father and nothing at all like their other father. I sense a bit of resentment in this happy family and I gather from the non-sire spouse that frictions arise regarding the affections of these two lovely children. A little like marrying into a family with children already in place, stepchildren. But not. Because this couple was married before hand. I am sure they will work it out. I certainly hope so.

Kchiker said...

"Fair assumption"
"Normal procreative sex"
"Mechanism of procreation"

I don't wish to base my position on marriage rights on any of the above factors.

Marshal said...

Revenant said...

Well, no, because "we've never done that before" isn't an argument against doing something. It is just mindless fear of change.


If only the argument were "we've never done that before" this would be responsive.

Baron Zemo said...

Andy and others who share his agenda want to enforce their views on others and will use any means necessary to destroy those who will not submit to their demands.

The recent dictates of Obama care that the Church be forced to provide birth control and abortion services is just one among many attempts to dictate practices that are directly against the religious precepts of faith based organizations. The campaign against the Mormons in California after the gay marriage debacle is just another example. They will continue to push the envelope until they can destroy any conservative or traditional religion in our nation. That is their agenda plain and simple.

When they tell you that they do not mean to do this they are lying.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

(I already have friends who are unaffiliating with the Catholic Church for this very reason.)

Oh come on Andy, everyone knows that you have no friends.

Patrick said...

For me the next step is more like making it clear that anti-gay bigots should be shunned in polite society and anyone who associates with a religion that opposes marriage equality should be viewed as aligning with bigots, if not a bigot themselves

And after that?..

furious_a said...

Why do you make assumptions regarding what will be exceptional in the future?

Why do you assume there's going to be any money left in Obamacare in the future to pay for fabulous, gene-spliced frankenbabies?

chickelit said...

Andy R wrote: For me the next step is more like making it clear that anti-gay bigots should be shunned in polite society and anyone who associates with a religion that opposes marriage equality should be viewed as aligning with bigots, if not a bigot themselves.

So, obviously, Andy R embraces stigmatism.

Michael said...

Baron Zemo: You are right, of course. Otherwise the course of civil partnerships with identical rights (whatever they might be) of marriage would have been enough. Gays want the word more than they want the deed. I am all for it because I do not believe it is the same thing, no matter what you call it, as traditional marriage. You can legislate the words that attach to actions but you cannot legislate the essence and it is this last fact, this immutable fact, that is an outrage to gays. Let them call it marriage. Let them have those "rights" . It won't be the end because the nagging knowledge of the essence will not go away.

furious_a said...

For me the next step is more like making it clear that anti-gay bigots should be shunned in polite society and anyone who associates with a religion that opposes marriage equality should be viewed as aligning with bigots, if not a bigot themselves

And after that?..

This guy.

edutcher said...

Just remember the same people who want to ram same sex marriage down everybody's throat are the same ones who will dhimmi their guts out to permit Sharia.

And as the Dinner Jacket said, when asked why his country takes such a hard line on homosexuality, "There are no homosexuals in Iran".

Which always requires the suffix provided by Robert Vaughn, "Alive".

Inga said...

Edutcher, when one of the partners has had surgery to prevent conception, no baby will be forthcoming, ask "The Blond". Nevertheless the marriage is still a "marriage marriage", if and until those of you who feel a marriage isn't a marriage unless it produces a child say it isn't. In that case Edutcher, your own marriage to " The Blond" isn't a "marriage marriage".

Again, someone tell the She-Wolf of the SS, who claims to be a nurse, that' if we're talking male partner, those have been known to grow back.

Never Say Never Again.

And childless couples do adopt and provide good homes for kids.

With a real mom and a real dad.

dbp said...

Revenant said...

Well, no, because "we've never done that before" isn't an argument against doing something. It is just mindless fear of change.

One thing about the way things are done now is that we know that they work. A change may or may not work and so the burden of proof is on those advocating the change.

Andy R. said...

And after that?..

The next move is for the bigots. They get to choose whether or not they are going to abandon their bigotry. The Republican Party is clearly heading in the right direction. The results from religious groups have been mixed.

Revenant said...

If only the argument were "we've never done that before" this would be responsive.

If you think I misrepresented your argument, feel free to explain where I got it wrong. Also explain why you mentioned the history of marriage if you weren't using that history as an argument against this change. :)

dbp said...

Andy R:

"For me the next step is more like making it clear that anti-gay bigots should be shunned in polite society and anyone who associates with a religion that opposes marriage equality should be viewed as aligning with bigots, if not a bigot themselves."

So under Andy's own morality, if people found homosexuality to be immoral, they should shun them and drive them into hiding who they are. It is the flip-side of the same coin.

Countersnark said...

"organic is superior to genetically engineered"

I guess you don't take antibiotics? Or get immunized. I assume when your appendix is about to burst or your eyes lose acuity you live with those genetic defects too.

Lem said...

The next move is for the bigots. They get to choose whether or not they are going to abandon their bigotry.

Control the language and you control the means to communicate... once you have that there is simply no limit as to how far you can go.

Countersnark said...

"Science has better things to do."

It's working on it, tying to rid us of the virus that is religious bigotry.

furious_a said...

Baron Z: The recent dictates of Obama care that the Church be forced to provide birth control and abortion services is just one among many attempts to dictate practices that are directly against the religious precepts of faith based organizations.

Actually, it's not an attempt to dictate offending practices, it's an attempt to force competing (and more efficient) models for social services out of the public square. The ACA crew are betting that they will win in court and that the opposing religous charities will close down rather than violate deeply-held beliefs by complying.

Revenant said...

For me the next step is more like making it clear that anti-gay bigots should be shunned in polite society and anyone who associates with a religion that opposes marriage equality should be viewed as aligning with bigots

See, here we have the single biggest reason why gay activists are having trouble winning over undecideds. Gay marriage has made enormous gains with the 97% of America that is heterosexual because it has been promoted as being about love. For you, it is about hate. When people think the first thing to follow victory will be a purge of unbelievers, they quite rightly fear letting you win.

There's a reason Martin Luther King gets credit for the victory of black civil rights and the Nation of Islam does not.

Kchiker said...

"Let them have those "rights" . It won't be the end because the nagging knowledge of the essence will not go away."

I feel the same way about a burger without BBQ sauce. It's just not the same.

Revenant said...

organic is superior to genetically engineered

Genetically engineered organisms are, by definition, organic.

Maybe you meant "natural", but that's no less silly. With the exception of seafood and a few types of nuts and berries, none of the food we eat is natural. Ditto for the clothes we wear and the dwellings we live in. You think cows and chickens looked like that when we first domesticated them?

The natural world is one in which humanity only barely survives and most humans die young and childless. If that doesn't describe your life, give thanks that your forebears were smart enough to realize that "natural" is anything BUT synonymous with "good".

Inga said...

People who have been oppressed have a human tendency to engage in retribution once they are no longer oppressed. I would council against it, or else it just perpetuates oppression. The cycle can be broken.

carrie said...

The people who are for gay marriage are as just bigoted as the people who are against gay marriage. I wish that the people who are against gay marriage would point that out continuously and loudly.

David said...

And the point is, what?

Failure to file an amicus brief means the state has taken a position in favor of the claim?

Amicus brief = Vamity brief (often.)

Andy R. said...

When people think the first thing to follow victory will be a purge of unbelievers, they quite rightly fear letting you win.

Do you think that anti-black bigots are now being shunned in polite society? Did anyone not see that coming during the civil rights movement?

Inga said...

Kchiker, and here in Wisconsin a brat with Ketchup is a travesty.

Andy R. said...

The people who are for gay marriage are as just bigoted as the people who are against gay marriage. I wish that the people who are against gay marriage would point that out continuously and loudly.

You are correct, in a particularly dumb way. There are people who are bigoted against gay people.

There are other people who are bigoted against the people who are bigoted against gay people.

I would love the anti-gay bigots to spend more time complaining about how people are being mean to them. It would be hysterical.

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

Now, the interesting question is how long Republicans will continue to fight it, and how much damage they will do to themselves as they slouch away from their bigotry. (Ditto the Catholic Church.)

Considering the Church has stood fast against a lot worse than homosexuals for 2000 years (look at who was molesting those altar boys, after all), Hatman ought to become familiar with the phrase, "beating a dead horse".

And after that?..

The next move is for the bigots. They get to choose whether or not they are going to abandon their bigotry. The Republican Party is clearly heading in the right direction. The results from religious groups have been mixed.


Funny how easy it is to substitute the word principles for bigotry in what Hatman said and it makes a lot more sense.

As for the Republicans, he's only listening to the RINOs, who are running scared - witness the cave on Hagel's nomination - except for Rand Paul.

Right now, the RINOs seem to be inviting the fate of the dough-faces.

Lem said...

The word bigot for example... is being used commonly to describe all manners of disapproval... If we keep doing that I believe, very soon, it will be devoid of any meaning.

We are doing the same with nazi and fascist.

To believe that gay marriage is not legitimate is not bigotry.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"See, here we have the single biggest reason why gay activists are having trouble winning over undecideds. Gay marriage has made enormous gains with the 97% of America that is heterosexual because it has been promoted as being about love. For you, it is about hate. When people think the first thing to follow victory will be a purge of unbelievers, they quite rightly fear letting you win.

There's a reason Martin Luther King gets credit for the victory of black civil rights and the Nation of Islam does not."

This. A thousand times this.

It does make me think how the Nation of Islam would treat Andy if they were in charge.

mccullough said...

Rev,

As far as the litigation is concerned, history is important. Legislators can change their mind for any reason and "that's the way we've always done it" isn't any reason for legislators not to support gay marriage. But the constitution doesn't change its meaning just because 9 or 10 states changed their laws. Since the post is about the SC case, his point about history of marriage is a good one. As a libertarian, I'd be happy to have courts strike down liberty infringing laws day and night. But medical marijuana isn't a constitutional right because a handful of states have legalized it.

Rusty said...

Andy. I don't for a minute think you're gay, but you whine like a yenta.

mccullough said...

Andy R,

Do you think someone can oppose gay marriage but not be an anti-gay bigot?

Countersnark said...

"Considering the Church has stood fast against a lot worse than homosexuals for 2000 years"

But now you can't burn people at the stake anymore. You must endure the onslaught and continue the downward slide toward irrelevance.

Titus said...

Does Andy had some gay alert for this place?

She doesn't post at all but some fruit posting appears and she's here in like 2 minutes.

I am a married fag to another fag-whatever. Not a Larry Craig married fag who is married to a woman. My "wedding' was at Cambridge City Hall and lasted 5 minutes-no china from Pottery Barn or anything. We don't even live together we are like Mia and Woody-we live on the same block.

tits.

Andy R. said...

Do you think someone can oppose gay marriage but not be an anti-gay bigot?

I'm not aware of any non-bigoted reasons for why the government should engage in state-sanctioned discrimination against gay people.

I see a moral equivalence between people who fought against interracial marriage and people who fight against gay marriage.

Titus said...

We are going to Dosa Temple tonight though for South Indian food-he doesn't like North Indian because it is too heavy.

The menu will consist of lentil soup, tandoori roti, brown rice, some Indian bean, pom ba dom, paneer and grilled vegies...I will be dreaming of Chicken Parm with raviolis, sigh.

Revenant said...

Do you think that anti-black bigots are now being shunned in polite society?

Using your definition of "bigot", i.e. "someone who opposed changing the law"? No, they were not shunned. Take Robert Byrd as an obvious example -- he not only wasn't shunned, he regularly received a majority of the black vote! Not bad for a Klan member who filibustered the CRA. Another civil rights opponent, Jimmy Carter, became the next Democrat to win the Presidency.

Opposition to the CRA came to be considered not a sign of bigotry, but an embarrassing mistake that people could and did live down.

Revenant said...

Basically, Andy, people like you will ultimately be the Al Sharptons of your particular movements -- people with a certain appeal to the subset of their own community that loves to hate, but a bad joke among the majority of the nation. You'll be used by social conservatives to embarrass liberals, just like Sharpton is (or like how David Duke used to be used by liberals against conservatives).

Andy R. said...

Take Robert Byrd as an obvious example

But didn't he renounce his old views? He filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but then voted in favor of the 1968 bill.

I hope that everyone who is an anti-gay bigot sees the error of their ways and gives up their bigotry (as I have often suggested they do). I'm not saying that anyone who is an anti-gay bigot today has to shunned forever and ever. But how should society handle people who cling to their bigotry? After the civil rights movement, many of the people who had been opposed to it changed their minds (or at least pretended to in public). And are there still people today who think black people should be discriminated against or that segregation should exist? How do you think they are treated? How should they be treated?

It doesn't have to be an immediate shunning for the anti-gay bigots, but they should be given time to see the error of their ways, and then treated accordingly.

Sigivald said...

All but one of those amendments was ratified from 2002 through 2008, in anticipation that popular majorities might soon support a change in state law...

In reaction to state judiciaries and sometimes legislators doing unpopular things.

After all, a popular majority in 2013 can just as easily amend a State Constitution that's easily amended as one in 2008 could.

Baron Zemo said...

Shit.

Does that mean that Andy is going to get his own TV show on MSNBC and a whole bunch of sweat suits and medallions with Richard Simmons face on them?

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

Take Robert Byrd as an obvious example

But didn't he renounce his old views? He filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but then voted in favor of the 1968 bill.


You mean Robert "White Nigger" Byrd, who also voted against the '65 Voting Rights Act?

Revenant said...

But didn't he renounce his old views?

Eventually, once the majority of his voters changed the way they thought about the issue. He was still referring to people with the "n-word" up into the 20th century, though.

Rabel said...

SCOTUSblog ought to drop its claims of impartiality.

"SCOTUSblog is an impartial, journalistic entity. We exist to provide readers with objective information. We always clearly identify the limited commentary we publish."

Unmentioned at the blog is that the author of the linked article, Marty Lederman, was one of Obama's early appointments at DOJ. His conclusions here seem more like wishful thinking that objective analysis.

Marty left Justice and went back to Georgetown after a couple of years. As to why, here's what Politico said at the time of his appointment:

"Lederman, another former Clinton Office of Legal Counsel lawyer, is perhaps the most prominent of several high-profile opponents of the Bush Administration's executive power claims joining Obama, a mark that he intends not just to change but to aggressively reverse Bush's moves on subjects like torture. With hires like Barron, Johnen, and Lederman, Obama is not just going back to Democratic lawyers: These are anti-Bush lawyers.

Lederman has been, in particular, an early and vocal critic of torture, and has suggested Bush Administration officials have committed specific crimes in that regard."

Must have been a big letdown to meet the real Obama. I wonder how he feels about the drones.

edutcher said...

Rev, I think you mean 21st.

furious_a said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
President-Mom-Jeans said...

When gay marriage comes to the majority of states (and I think it will over time) it will be despite hateful militant gays like Andy, not because of it.

It will be because the attitudes of the voters of states will have interactions with normal people, friends, neighbors, family members, who just live their lives and who do not have their entire identity consumed by who they are sexually attracted to.

No judge in the world can dictate from the bench that your parents aren't ashamed of you Andy. You will never get the acceptance and approval you crave.

The more you and your ilk drive off people who would otherwise be inclined to support the policy goals claim that you want, the longer it will take for changes to occur.

Revenant said...

But the constitution doesn't change its meaning just because 9 or 10 states changed their laws.

The constitution's meaning doesn't change, but exceptions TO those rights can and do change as society's attitudes change.

For example, the first amendment quite plainly states that Congress may not abridge freedom of speech or freedom of the press. The courts, however, have long held that there is an exception (hidden in those darn emanations and penumbras, no doubt) allowing Congress to ban, as "obscene", material that is offensive to community standards and lacks artistic value. Those are subjective standards based in constantly-changing community mores.

The laws against (for example) interracial marriage had the same basis -- the plain language of the Constitution forbade denying people equal treatment under the law, but miscegenation was so grossly offensive to the public that the court invented an exception.

Now, certainly from an "original intent" perspective you can't argue that either the Constitution or its amendments protect gay marriage. But you can certainly argue that under both the original and current meaning of the 14th amendment, it does -- and that the failure to do so prior to today was due to public sentiment overriding the literal meaning of the document, just as it did during the century we had Jim Crow laws.

furious_a said...

But didn't [Byrd] renounce his old views?

Byrd took full responsibility, just like Hillary did for Benghazi.

Removing one's Kleagle sheets is like getting p*ss out of a pool.

Revenant said...

When gay marriage comes to the majority of states (and I think it will over time) it will be despite hateful militant gays like Andy, not because of it.

Exactly right, in my opinion.

Baron Zemo said...

Not only that but people are starting to hate hats because of Andy.

Revenant said...

Rev, I think you mean 21st.

Yeah, I originally typed "the 2000s" and confused myself. :)

Marshal said...

Revenant said...
If you think I misrepresented your argument, feel free to explain where I got it wrong.


Our government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. We granted the government authority to undertake specific actions and responsibilites, but not this action. This is discernable from the complete lack of discussion in any of the authoritative documents and the fact that the idea was beyond the imagination of the governed at the time. Nor has it received authority since as evidenced by the failure of various referenda and public opposition.

If we stipulate that government has the authority to change the basic and universal social structure in human civilization against the will of its citizens exactly what powers doesn't it have?

Also explain why you mentioned the history of marriage if you weren't using that history as an argument against this change.

It establishes the left is not seeking one interpretation over another but rather is seeking something the institution simply does not include.

Maybe it's a good thing to include, but if so those championing it need to convince the citizens and not collude with government to dictate the social structure under which we live.

Pookie Number 2 said...

When gay marriage comes to the majority of states (and I think it will over time) it will be despite hateful militant gays like Andy, not because of it.

And best of all, Andy will still be miserable. Because he'll always know (but never admit) that there's something wrong with himself.

furious_a said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
furious_a said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
furious_a said...

Trouble is, language like this...

AndyR: I hope that everyone who is an anti-gay bigot sees the error of their ways and gives up their bigotry (as I have often suggested they do). I'm not saying that anyone who is an anti-gay bigot today has to shunned forever and ever. But how should society handle people who cling to their bigotry?

...looks alot like this.

Question is, how should society handle totalitarian little pricks like AndyR?

bagoh20 said...

Regardless of whether it's equal legally, same sex marriage is not the same as hetero. If you mix oil and water you get an emulsion, salt and sugar is mixture, but you wouldn't call salt and salt a mixture or water and water an emulsion.

There is a clear difference in these unions. Marriage was created as a connecting of two people who are very different in basic physiology and psychology, with an absolutely primal purpose older than the species.

SSM is an emotional attachment, a union for legal purposes. even if legally equal, they are not actually equal.

We should have legal union for legal purposes and marriages for those that go beyond that. Calling it marriage is just phony, and Gays wanting to be something they are not.

Nothing wrong with being in a gay relationship, but it's just not the same, and everyone knows it.

Now we can talk about making the unions of same sex and hetero equal legally, but the rest is a lie.

Kchiker said...

"Nothing wrong with being in a gay relationship, but it's just not the same, and everyone knows it. "

Sounds like someone is in desperate need of a "Congratulations, you're straight!!!" Hallmark card.

furious_a said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

"Question is, how should society handle totalitarian little pricks like AndyR?"

I think like we are, calling him what he is: a hater, a facist, a bigot. He actually deserves the term.

I don't disagree with him on his wanting legal equality, but he clearly has an emotional hatred, that I suppose is due to some slight he endured which now festers in him and which always hurts his cause.

I can imagine my gay friends and feel good about them and their relationships, but come here and read Andy, and Gay suddenly looks ugly, mean-spirited and dangerous. Great job, dude. Even when you are winning, you manage to blow it.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"I can imagine my gay friends and feel good about them and their relationships, but come here and read Andy, and Gay suddenly looks ugly, mean-spirited and dangerous. Great job, dude. Even when you are winning, you manage to blow it."

The ugly, mean-spirited, and dangerous things you see are a result of Andy's leftism, not his sexuality.

bagoh20 said...

"Sounds like someone is in desperate need of a "Congratulations, you're straight!!!" Hallmark card."

I don't know how you're so sure I'm straight, but it sounds like someone is in desperate need of a "Congratulations, you can feign ignorance!!!" Hallmark card.

chickelit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickelit said...

Andy R. said...
Do you think that anti-black bigots are now being shunned in polite society? Did anyone not see that coming during the civil rights movement?

Oh course there are--and for good reason. But there is also a coterie of journolists and pundits surrounding our President all too eager to label any opposition as "racist." This is unfortunate and must be deftly undone.

bagoh20 said...

"The ugly, mean-spirited, and dangerous things you see are a result of Andy's leftism, not his sexuality.

Perhaps, but my guess is it's more a result of anger building from years of feeling like an outsider, maybe some bullying at some point, but I assume he's an adult now, and should deal with it better. The bottom line is it is ugly, and Gays would be better off without his type being front and center so often. Most Gays I know hate his type. Maybe it's rejection in general that has him so pissed, and so desperate for others to be scorned.

Revenant said...

Our government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. We granted the government authority to undertake specific actions and responsibilites, but not this action.

Well, no. You granted the government authority to do anything the Constitution permits it to do, and the Constitution absolutely does permit the SCOTUS to overturn state restrictions on anything it pleases if it finds those laws to be in conflict with the Constitution.

What the public wants doesn't matter. If the Founders had wanted a nation where the public got whatever it wanted, they would have made this a direct democracy instead of a constitutional representative republic.

Baron Zemo said...

"What the public wants doesn't matter."

That should be tattooed on every Congressman and judges forehead so the voters realize what they are voting for.

Andy R. said...

The bottom line is it is ugly, and Gays would be better off without his type being front and center so often.

Who are the type like me that are front and center so often? The only prominent gay I can think of who is similar to me (in the calling religious people bigots approach) is Dan Savage, and I thought the gays love him.

Who are the scary mean gays that are supposedly holding back the movement?

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

The bottom line is it is ugly, and Gays would be better off without his type being front and center so often.

Who are the type like me that are front and center so often? The only prominent gay I can think of who is similar to me (in the calling religious people bigots approach) is Dan Savage, and I thought the gays love him.


The dumb ones, maybe.

Remember what I said about the inevitability of the Equal Rights Amendment.

You don't get people on your side by picking fights with them.

Revenant said...

It establishes the left is not seeking one interpretation over another but rather is seeking something the institution simply does not include.

What a strange claim.

In 1964, at no point in our culture's entire recorded history had black people every received equal treatment under the law. Does it follow that people who said the Constitution guaranteed black people equal treatment under the law were "seeking something the institution simply did not include"? Of course not. The right existed and was guaranteed by our Constitution. It is just that the majority of voters were racists, so they ignored what the document said and made up excuses for not following it.

Also, while we're on the topic of things found nowhere in the Constitution, how about heterosexual marriage? When was the federal government ever given the authority to pass laws extending recognition to married heterosexuals, or to award them special benefits? It isn't anywhere in the enumerated powers of any of the three branches.

This is one of many reasons why I know you're not really being honest with this "we never consented to that" argument. We never consented to give Congress the power to (for example) exempt wives from inheritance tax on the death of their husbands. The courts just decided, on their own, that Congress ought to have that power even though it is neither found in the Constitution nor implied by any part of it.

bagoh20 said...

"Who are the scary mean gays that are supposedly holding back the movement?"

You are the only one in this community of millions of visitors, yet you are like a fart in a crowd. You aren't the only one who poorly represent their interests, but you are the only one who does it to gays here. You don't want to make your case, so much as vent you anger. It only takes one in a million to lick door knobs, or some other silly misguided stunt to set serious people of good will back. You are our one. The homophobes welcome you.

Andy R. said...

Here is some word association about the Republicans from this fantastic New York Times article. I've helpfully bolded some of it:
“Corporate greed.”“Old.”“Middle-aged white men.” “Rich.” “Religious.” “Conservative.” “Hypocritical.” “Military retirees.” “Narrow-minded.” “Rigid.” “Not progressive.” “Polarizing.” “Stuck in their ways.” “Farmers.” “Racist,” “out of touch” and “hateful

I understand why the conservative commenters here want me to stop calling Republicans bigots for their opposition to marriage equality, and I don't think it's because they all want what's best for gay people and are concerned that I'm holding gay liberation back.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Who are the scary mean gays that are supposedly holding back the movement?

No-one suggested that you're scary or mean. What you are is a self-loathing, repulsive ass.

Harold said...

I haven't even bothered to read the rest of the comments, just adding this- SSm must be just like regular marriage, and won't cahnge anything at all.

And judges are now ordering that three "parents" be listed on birth certificates.

Yep, SSM is just the same as any other and makes perfect sense. I mean 3 parents on a birth certificate. What could be more normal then that?

Baron Zemo said...

“Religious.”

Yes. The New York Times and people like Andy think if you are religious that is a bad thing.

That is why they will continue to attack religions and religious people. To try and destroy religions and religious people by not allowing them to practice their religion as it was protected under the Constitution.

That is their goal. Have no doubt about.

Andy R. said...

No-one suggested that you're scary or mean.

The phrase was "ugly, mean-spirited, and dangerous".

bagoh20 said...

" I don't think it's because they all want what's best for gay people and are concerned that I'm holding gay liberation back."

And you clearly don't care if you are, as long as you get to vent, and hate, and maybe if you're real lucky, somehow punish people you don't agree with. You want that even more than you want Gay marriage. You're faking motives as much as anyone.

Revenant said...

That should be tattooed on every Congressman and judges forehead so the voters realize what they are voting for.

Zemo, our Founders created a Judicial branch of government, co-equal with the other two branches. They made it as un-democratic as they could -- executive appointments for life, confirmed by the Legislative house that voters didn't get to elect.

In fact, out of the three branches of government, only one-half of one branch (the House of Representatives) was accountable to the people. Think about that. Our Founders quite rightly didn't trust the mob with their, or anybody else's, rights.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Your personality is certainly ugly and mean-spirited. Bago's a bright guy, but the only danger I see is that people will extrapolate your loathsome-ness to other gays, eroding the sympathy that would otherwise manifest itself toward the psychogically troubled.

bagoh20 said...

"The phrase was "ugly, mean-spirited, and dangerous".

Exactly. Think about it. You aren't hurting straight people, and the ones you hate most are being hardened by you. Do you get what's scary?

Inga said...

For those here who are ragging on Andy for being "mean spirited", you truly have no self awareness. Listen to what you've been saying to him, it's an incredibly disgusting display of hateful rhetoric. Hypocrites.

When he calls you bigots it's for a legitimate reason.

Inga said...

I exclude Bagoh, because I think he may be sincerely concerned with how gay people are treated, but the rest of you.... Ugh.

Baron Zemo said...

That is true Rev.

That doesn't mean we have to like it. Or use any thing in our power to sway them to what the people want. To point out their hypocrisy and attack it for what it is.

I will give you an example.

The people of NYC passed a referendum to have term limits for mayor. Bloomberg decided that he didn't care so he had the City Council pass a law to override the duly expressed will of the people. Not from 200 years ago. From two years ago. And nobody gave a shit. Because it was a stacked deck and the little guy was screwed.

But government has really been pushing it lately. Taking over health care. Forcing the church to provide birth control and abortion. Preparing to confiscate guns and ammunition. To suppress religions to satisfy political correctness. Coming after our donuts and pizza and delicious trans-fats. Regulating our soda pop.

Daniel Shays had it right.

Revenant said...

I, for one, have had my world-view shaken to its core by this revelation that people in their 20s tend to be left-wing.

This is the kind of knowledge one can only acquire from the New York Times, or from ever having known people in their 20s. :)

chickelit said...

bagoh20 to Andy R:

You are the only one in this community of millions of visitors, yet you are like a fart in a crowd.

And Inga is like a queef in a crowd. Trouble is, lots of guys get curious and say "can you do that again?"

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 286   Newer› Newest»