AmericanElephant, you’re saying two different things now. Exactly equal vs. the same in all meaningful ways. I’m not a constitutional expert, but I don’t know that the constitution requires all to be treated equally. It certainly didn’t for almost 200 years for Black persons. Even when an amendment specifically required it, it still took almost 100 years to have laws enforce it.

Speaking for myself now, I personally believe that committed gay couples who do not have children are the same in all meaningful ways to a committed straight couple who do not have children. You don’t agree with that. And at this point the majority either also doesn’t agree with me, or does but still doesn’t want marriage for same sex couples.

So even if the Constitution “required” there to be same sex marriage, that’s a far cry from reality that it is going to happen. Thus, the only alternative is to have this go through the usual legislative and referendum processes. And yes, like it or not, the courts also get involved, whether they are supposed to or not.

I also disagree with you about ILC’s argument. His argument has been fairly consistent. We’re on a blog where all our arguments are written. Sometimes nuances get lost, and if we write something that’s not quite the way we meant to write it, it can easily be misinterpreted. Heck, I’ve seen plenty of times where my argument is completely misinterpreted (maybe even intentionally in an attempt to make cheap points). So even when one’s writing is pristine, an argument can be misinterpreted, even innocently. So I’ll assume to avoid any more flame wars that that was the case here.

believing that persons or couples should be treated equally does not mean persons or couples are exactly the same

Yes, Pat,

you’re talking to the wrong person, I understand that, that has been consistent with my position from the beginning. But when you argue that people or couples ARE the same in all meaningful ways, the constitution REQUIRES that you treat them equally.

ILC has been trying to have it both ways, demanding that gay couples ARE EXACTLY equal in ALL meaningful ways to straight couples that cant or dont have children. While at the same time arguing that the they aren’t entitled to equal treatment under the law.

He has lied about the definitions “reproduce”, “nuclear family” and even accused 12 online dictionaries of being wrong in order to make this argument. He has lied about how the institution is defined and WHO defines it. He has STILL been unable to provide sources of ANY state defining it as he does, lying about that too,. He has lied ENDLESSLY about what Ive said and constantly tried to change his argument claiming it was what he said all along.

And when I finally shoved it down his throat that if gay couples ARE equal to some straight married couples in all meaningful ways, that the Constitution would require them to be treated equally, HE LIED AGAIN and said he never said they were “exactly equal”

Which has been MY point that he has been denying FROM DAY ONE.

SO, now we come down to the point where ILC must define how exactly gay couples are materially, legally, significantly inferior to those same straight couples that it is lawful for the state to NOT treat their relationships equally under the law?

Which he CANT DO, because that would force him to concede that Ive been right ALL ALONG.

So once again he is desperately trying to figure out ways to SPIN his argument so that he can CLAIM that hes been saying something different all along, but he cant.

Wont stop him from lying though! Nothing ever does!

American Elephant: Providing the Sources that ILC Can’t

when did you start posting this as your tag AE and think about whose dragging the shit into the commentary.

Oh, after ignoring about 13 of ILC’s regular {“Well, SOME PEOPLE ON THIS SITE) lies about me.

That’s when Rusty. And i finally decided Im sick of letting the filthy liar have the last word.

Are gay couples *exactly the same* as some straight married couples or arent they?

Just to reiterate my stance – “Separate but equal” is something I *can* support, in the instance of gay marriage.

… would be the *institution* of State-licensed unions among gays and/or straights. The sentence says that I’m OK with gays ending up with civil unions, i.e., a legal *institution* that is separate but roughly equal in intent and effect.

While the referent of this sentence, is gays as couples, or as people:Thanks to all of you who had the modicum of goodwill needed to understood that. Also for the record, it should go without saying that I am not a segregationist (whether on sexual issues or other issues) nor the other things accused of me. The accusation that I don’t admit mistakes is interesting in light of comment #23, where I apologize for a mistake in this very thread.

American Elephant: Providing the Sources that ILC Can’t

when did you start posting this as your tag AE and think about whose dragging the shit into the commentary.

FindFred.com – The new, global social revolution for guys! via Facebook

It’s a bad ruling.
“The denial of federal benefits to … cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval …”

Fill in the blanks. With that language the government couldn’t regulate anything.

“The denial of federal benefits to terrorists cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of blowing people up.”

“The denial of federal benefits to illegal aliens cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of breaking the law”

“The denial of federal benefits to heterosexual spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of breeders.”

It’s a crappy decision.

I would very gladly comply with some rule of yours that outlawed personal attacks. Are you going to ban all of your regular commenters too, who attack relentlessly, and often in a truly disgusting manner not only every n0n-conservative figure in the world, but fellow guests of this blog, and even each other.

Tano – Stop with the personal attacks NOW or you are no longer welcome.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt’s opinion called the denial of benefits a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Public defender Brad Levenson was denied spousal benefits for his husband, Tony Sears. The couple married on July 12, 2008 in California before voters approved a gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, in November.

“The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses of benefits available to other spouses in order to discourage them from exercising a legal right afforded them by a state,” Reinhardt said.

Are gay couples *exactly the same* as some straight married couples or arent they?

Emphasis added. Answer: They clearly aren’t. I have never said they are!

Or else, AE, find the “source” (haha) where you think I have. Since, you know, in that special world and language you occupy by yourself with the the statues and all, you are specially good at that.

For the sane people: What I have said is that gay and lesbian couples are *reproductively equivalent* to *infertile* straight couples.

Emphasis added for AE. Reading comprehension, AE. Reading comprehension. Oh, and a greater effort at truthfulness would suit you.

If there are straight married couples who are exactly the same as gay coulpes who are already married, then it is a direct violation of equal protection not to let gays marry.

What on Earth is that even saying? AE, your rage has taken you to a new low of frothing, spittle-flecked incoherence. Talk to the “statues” again, see if their voices can help you.