Folks, this is well worth watching. I disagree with Ted Olson on this issue — but the man is one of the strongest conservative legal minds in our lifetime. For example, if not for Ted Olson, no President George W. Bush — and Al Gore would have been in the White House on 9/11.
I still disagree with the pursuit of same-sex marriage via the courts. But Olson is a great spokesman for the cause. He has never lost a case he’s argued before the Supreme Court.
Ted Olson is showing more leadership on the issue than President Barack Hussein Obama.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
(It’s Olson, not Olsen, btw)
Nice casual mention of our President’s middle name. Almost like it’s a dogwhistle or something, isn’t it? Not that anyone can prove why you included it. But I’m sure you had a reason for including Obama’s middle name and not Olson’s, right?
And your “I disagree with Olson” comment doesn’t explain *why* you disagree. He laid out his rationale and over a hundred years of constitutional jurisprudence that explained why he believes his argument is not only *stronger* then the proProp 8 bigots who opposed him, but *necessary*. Can you refute even a part of his arguments? Or did you just want to remind us that “Olsen” [sic] is more advanced than Obama and thus the entire Republican party on marriage equality? At least we can rest safely in the knowledge that Obama and the Democrats are ahead of the GOP in gay equality w/r/t military service, immigration, housing and employment policy, etc.
Because I do agree that your readers could use a reminder of this.
Nice casual mention of our President’s middle name. Almost like it’s a dogwhistle or something, isn’t it? Not that anyone can prove why you included it. But I’m sure you had a reason for including Obama’s middle name and not Olson’s, right?
So if no one can prove why, why are you attacking Dan for it, torrentprime? You have no evidence to think one way or the other, so why are you insisting that his doing so is wrong?
Answer: Because you’re a coward. You’ve been humiliated so many times on this website by people who have demonstrated that all you do is repeat talking points that you’re reduced to sniping at ankles like this. And that is all you and your liar Obama have left — desperate attempts to play the race card that unravel more and more when we see the behavior that your Obama encouraged from people like Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel.
Meanwhile, as for Olsen’s argument, it’s very simple to unravel. Ask Olsen why, if tradition and cultural value have nothing to do with marriage, why he insists that marriage has to be given to gays and lesbians so their relationships have cultural value. Also ask him why, if procreation has nothing to do with marriage, why he tried to use the argument that the lack of marriage harms the token and sex object children of gay and lesbian sex partners.
The answer is pretty straightforward. The culture and tradition of marriage, as well as the reason society places such a high value on it, is because of the contribution and necessity of it to perpetuating society. Olsen has bought into the weird theory that marriage is some sort of government entitlement that anyone can have, when in fact it is an encouragement that government gives to those who participate in something that is beneficial to society.
Gay-sex marriage is not.
UM Bruce posted the video Sorry Miss Rita
I do wish Olson would have answered the “What is judicial activism question in a more personal manner He is right though, that the charge is simply leveled by the loser of the case because they don’t like the outcome.
NDT, “Gay-sex marriage”…. Really?
Well, that makes me feel better. I was under the impression that the judge threw away a ‘mandate of the voters’, and then installed a mandate of his own. But it looks like that didn’t happen.
At this time, the issue remains undefined. Neither the government nor the voters have been given the authority to tell us what shirt to wear, what food to eat, or what company to keep.
An obvious question arises; Does the argument for ‘one man, one woman’ discriminate against individuals, or against unions of individuals? I always thought that the civil rights movement was about the unfair denial of individual rights to a person, based on that persons skin color. As far as i know, the government never enacted separate ‘black rights’ and ‘white rights’ as a result of the movement.
Should this issue also be judged on the basis of the individuals involved? As an individual, a gay-man currently has the undisputed freedom to marry any woman he wants, in any state in the American union.
Had it not been for tradition, would the separate members of a conventional marriage be entitled to a ‘united identity’ under the law? Do they have that freedom now? Are married couples compelled to act legally ‘as one’?
————–
Has anyone even tried to place ‘Civil Unions’ on the ballot?
.
I am not a lawyer and I don’t play one on the internet. However, I found nothing either convincing or even worth noting from Olson’s “reasoning” in the Fox News blabfest.
Loving v Virginia means a great deal to me. We did not allow one black woman and one white man to marry because of their racial differences.
For the life of me, I can not see how racial differences equates to barring same sex marriage. The 14th Amendment does not bar one gay man from marrying one woman, gay or not. If “differences” are the operating issue, the plural marriage, child marriage, close kin marriage are only minor “differences.”
However, the gay wants?, needs?, is compelled? to marry someone of the same gender. To what societal effect? Why should the state change the a fundamental definition of marriage to permit gay marriage?
Show me the Constitutional roadmap on this, because, try as I might, I just do not get it. And, neither does Olson, apparently, because he can not lay it out.
Jon Stewart so fun. . .
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-5-2010/californigaytion
Wallace asked Olson to identify the right to same-sex marriage in the constitution and wondered why “seven million Californians” “don’t get to say that marriage is between a man and a woman.” Olson replied that the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage was a fundamental right and pointed out that the constitution made no explicit mention of interracial marriage either.
NDT – [Slight digression -I imagine that you probably have a very interesting point of view and would be thoughtful and challenging debate opponent, however you really do yourself a disservice with your petulant and childish attacks on other people instead of presenting a clear and rational dismantling of their arguments.]
Anyway, on to my main point. I’m somewhat mystified and confused by your unwillingness to recognize gay partners as anything more than just sex partners. Even if they don’t agree about marriage, I think most people will agree that gay partners can be just as committed and loving towards each other as straight partners. Are you implying otherwise? How do you view gay partners compared to straight partners in terms of commitment?
Also, what does
…the lack of marriage harms the token and sex object children of gay and lesbian sex partners
even mean? Again, are you suggesting that gay partners are incapable of caring for children? That they have kids only for their own nefarious “gay agenda”? Again, what is your view of the ability of gay partners to raise and nurture children?
I ask these questions seriously. I genuinely interested in understanding your point of view better.
“the proProp 8 bigots who opposed him”
Now, THAT’S an argument.
We CAN prove that you’re an asshole. How ’bout that?
I don’t see why torrent gets his knickers in a bunch over President Obama’s middle name. After all, he just said that he’s a bigot
He actually said that?
He neglects to mention how that right was understood.
In any case, two other cases on the constitutionality of SSM bans are wining its way up the courts- In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B. and Bonilla v. Hurst .
Olson: “the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage was a fundamental right”
————————–
How can a fundamental right (a natural right?) be defined, or redefined, via a social contract?
Does the ‘fundamental right of marriage’ have any implied definition? Is the nuclear family a fundamental right?
.
Prop 8 has been determined unconstitutional under the 14th amendment because it excluded certain individuals from a government benefit.
Does this now make hate crime laws, benefit programs for certain groups, and targeted tax cuts unconstitutional because it grants only certain individuals these benefits?
Well yes, but only for pairs of individuals.
😉
A demand for equality now may serve a minorities selfish purpose, but in the long run it will continue to ferment divisiveness…… Where as, legislative certainty that is delivered by a representation of the people best neutralizes any dissent that’s sure to arise.
So wouldn’t the issue best be addressed, if the states themselves are challenged, even provoked into debating and settling the matter…….rather than leaving it up to the judiciary whose typically seen as the arena of last resort?????
And the exact nature of this government benefit is a definition . A mere definition which, while certainly socially and politically significant, should not be significant as to discrimination claims.
“…Al Gore would have been in the White House on 9/11.” If only…
Could you image just how much better things would be now if that were so? It’s like we lost a decade to sheer incompetence in the administrative branch of government, one we’ll never get back and that will resonate for decades if not centuries to come. It’s amazing to think how much bad can come from a couple of fundamentalist in high places.
Oh by the way, keep in mind laws are generally enacted to affect minority behavior, not majority behavior. For example, we don’t punish financial institutions for regular day-to-day business practices, only when they try to take advantage of others to their own benefit. Similarly, we don’t punish opposite sex unions who decide to marry, but rather punish a minority by denying those same rights and privileges. Sodomy laws were to punish those who engaged in a minority behavior, same with interracial marriage etc. There is no need to regulate commonplace behavior and attitudes.
So frankly if you all are so concerned about bringing gay marriage to fruition but only through the overwhelming support of the general public, there’d be no point to it. If it were a majority supporting it, the only laws necessary would be those to codify the particular definition of the institution. You, as conservatives, do nothing but bitch and moan about the progressives attempting to bring about change, that which you’d eventually benefit from, and instead make up excuse after excuse not only why it’s somehow not a good thing but rationalizing why you don’t have to do anything to bring about change as you see it should be brought about. As someone said once, if you don’t want to be married to someone of the same sex, don’t get gay married.
I mean really, when was the last time any of you attended a rally to help educate the general population about the positive aspects of same sex unions, whatever name you want to call it? One that was intended to help bring about the understanding and acknowledgment from the general public you say is necessary for such a change?
Or is it just another red herring that you really would want anything to change at all and be even happier if it were some idealized vision of the past?
Just imagine. Even after 9/11, even more security measures could have been buried as long as more money was donated to the DNC. But then I imagine he would have killed airline travel for the Proles while he jetted his fat ass around the world, his limos idling the entire time.
But if we had Algore, Carter and Chairman Obama wouldn’t have the titles of Worst President Ever.
Maybe if every goddam thing “progressives” did didn’t come with huge consequences, destroy people, destroy families, destroy innovation, cost an ass load of money, destroy freedom and make life generally more miserable than before.
Other than shutting your cake hole until you found some other perceived transgression to bitch about, what are the benefits?
You, as conservatives, do nothing but bitch and moan about the progressives attempting to bring about change, that which you’d eventually benefit from, and instead make up excuse after excuse not only why it’s somehow not a good thing but rationalizing why you don’t have to do anything to bring about change as you see it should be brought about.
Like this change you and your fellow gay-sex liberals want, Countervail?
Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.
Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.
The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.
Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off……
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
That’s right. According to Countervail and his fellow gay-sex liberals, you’re “close-minded” if you think adults have no business dressing children as sex slaves and taking them to a sex fair to “show off” for naked adults masturbating to the sight of them.
That’s the “change” progressives want, right there.
NDT, “Gay-sex marriage”…. Really?
Yes, really. Gays and lesbians are demanding that they have the automatic right to marry to whatever they are sexually attracted and that what you want to have sex with overrides any other consideration for marriage.
That is Olsen’s argument.
And now on to Alan.
Even if they don’t agree about marriage, I think most people will agree that gay partners can be just as committed and loving towards each other as straight partners.
Impossible. Gays and lesbians are arguing that they cannot possibly be loving and committed towards their partners because they cannot marry them, and insist that they need government licenses in order to have meaningful relationships.
Since heterosexuals can have loving and committed relationships with or without marriage, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that gays and lesbians cannot have loving and committed relationships without governmental sanction and are thus inferior.
Again, are you suggesting that gay partners are incapable of caring for children? That they have kids only for their own nefarious “gay agenda”? Again, what is your view of the ability of gay partners to raise and nurture children?
There is a basic problem here, Alan.
1) The gay and lesbian community argues that procreation is irrelevant to marriage
2) The gay and lesbian community shrieks that lack of marriage is hurting their “children”.
I have two responses to that:
1) If marriage is irrelevant to childrearing and procreation, then the “children” of gays and lesbians are not being harmed in the least by lack of it.
2) If lack of marriage is truly harmful to children, gay and lesbian “parents” are sick sadists, because they are deliberately bringing children into an environment that they insist is harmful to them.
There’s no easy way to wriggle out of any of those. And when you have examples of gay parents, one of whom is a psychiatrist who carries the full endorsement of the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to the sex fair to “show off”, I really am having trouble seeing how this could be called meaningful or caring parenting, and I have SERIOUS questions about the ability of gay and lesbian parents to raise children when this sort of behavior goes unchallenged and is even supported by the gay and lesbian community.
Why should a mere legal definition even be a equal protection issue?
Wow. Well obviously the idiots dressing their daughters like sex objects have serious issues but taking that example and using it to define all gay parenting is the same as someone taking a picture of a racist sign at a tea party and using it to call all of them racists. There are wacko’s and ‘fringe crazies’ in every movement, ours included.
That said, without the gay movement – if you like the way they have done or do things aside – this blog would not exist and making it known in any way that you are a gay man would get you lynched. Period. Only fools think the fight is over.
Gay marriage is about so much more than just gaining the legal benefits for our relationships that heterosexuals enjoy; it is about solidifying once and for all in American law that we are free and allowed to live and love who we choose without government interference or favoritism.
I do not want kids, but I DO want my partner making medical decisions for me, having all rights to my estate and funeral arrangements AND be protected from having my partner forced to testify against me in a court of law (one of many things no amount of money or lawyering can get you without marriage rights).
Many states have laws banning the ability for same-sex couples to equally have custody and responsibility for a child. Many states have laws against gay adoption and foster care. None of these things are fair treatment under the law. A gay marriage ruling in our favor would change all of that.
What about those issues? Isn’t fighting for these rights important as well? What exactly WOULD you fight for in respect to being gay? Anything? What if they started turning back the laws we have already conquered and began making gay sex illegal again? Would you stand up and fight then or just continue blogging about how gays don’t deserve the rights they think they do?
Then you would fight for plural marriage as well? And do you hold a prejudice toward man/boy loving relationships? (If a little girl is old enough to get an abortion all on her own, certainly a young tween is old enough to marry a man.)
#21 Levi’s Twin lays this egg:
Talk about up-side-down thinking!!!!
Laws are passed to make clear what constitutes misbehavior. If a majority ignore the law, it is an ineffective law. I just misbehaved myself down from NYC on I-95 in the company of packs of people misbehaving a lot faster faster than I was misbehaving.
I am unaware of laws prohibiting gays from being married. One man, one woman, of age, not too closely related, not mentally impaired, etc,
#21: “I mean really, when was the last time any of you attended a rally to help educate the general population about the positive aspects of same sex unions, whatever name you want to call it? One that was intended to help bring about the understanding and acknowledgment from the general public you say is necessary for such a change?”
Countervail, even if I were infected with the same narcissism that drives the “gay community” into believing that the general population needs to be “educated” about the gay lifestyle, I certainly wouldn’t suffer from the delusion that gay “rallies” are a forum for educating the public about the positive aspects of same-sex unions. Those “rallies” have nothing to do with educating anyone about anything except perhaps, who has ecstacy to sell and how pathetic leather harnesses look on senior citizens. They are pathetic, embarrassing, counterproductive hate and anger fests that provide narcissistic homos with a platform to wallow in pseudo-victimization and chant angry insults about religious conservatives and all of the other people they condemn as bigots and “H8ERS.” The endless rallies, festivals, parades, and candlelight vigils succeed only in educating the public that the “gay community” is a gang of childish bullies that demand from society the very respect, tolerance, and civility that they indignantly refuse to afford to any individual or group that refuses to be intimidated into validating their “wonderful,” “courageous” existence.
Unlike the elitists in the “gay community,” I haven’t adopted the profoundly erroneous and snobbish belief that opponents of the gay left’s agenda are just a bunch of ignorant, slack-jawed dopes whose beliefs are categorically wrong and can be fixed once the poor imbeciles are properly “educated.” In fact, I would expect any of our friends (particularly those with children) to be highly apprehensive if I suddenly announced that whether they like it or not, I was going to “educate” them about my gay lifestyle (and their apprehension would be totally justified considering that every time they turn around, a teacher is making their kids sing tributes to Obama or some group like GLSEN is on a crusade to educate their kids about the joys of fisting).
My method of promoting understanding among people and groups that are different from me is extremely radical. Basically, my partner and I are in a monogamous relationship, we work hard, we’re friendly to our neighbors, and we endeavor to be loyal friends and make time for family by showing up for birthday celebrations and other significant events that we are invited to. The people in our social circle fit absolutely no discernible pattern and includes: theatre people (poor, screaming liberals); lawyers (rich, screaming liberals); family from both sides (all middle class, evangelical Christians that are ultra-conservative–just like us); a few terrific gays (liberal, but with the impeccable manners and cheerful dispositions that you won’t find at the “rallies”); mostly straights (moderate Obama supporters who can’t believe what suckers they were); lots of Christians; and lots of people with kids that we know as well as their parents.
Here’s the thing: we spend time with all of those people because we love them. Conversely, Shane and I are blessed, in that, all of those people (and their kids) seem to love and adore us to the point of annoyance. And the really strange part is that our bonds with our family and friends seems to have happened all on their own even though we never: lectured them on how oppressed and victimized we are by society; provided them with a dissertation on our homosexuality while simultaneously feeling each other up and making out in front of their kids; OR told our Christian friends and family that they are merchants of hate and/or hypocritical closet cases.
In other words, we have “educated” all of our straight and deeply religious friends and family about “the positive aspects of same sex unions,” by simply NOT being INSUFFERABLE, OBNOXIOUS, INSULTING, ANGRY FU*KING AS*HOLES. You know, people like you that spend your time at rallies, alienating potential allies and venting your disgust and hatred of people who disagree with you. (Pssssst—Yes, Countervail, they do H8 you, but it has nothing to do with the fact that you’re gay.)
So, Countervail, you should be thanking us. While you have been busy at those rallies expressing your seething hatred of the traditional belief systems and institutions that this country was founded upon (the existence of which ironically led to a society that zealously protects your right to engage in such douchebaggery and jackassery to your heart’s content), my partner and I have been repairing the damage without even trying. Of course, the unfortunate reality is that for every conservative Christian that has accepted us because they got to know us as individuals, you have most certainly alienated, threatened, and insulted thousands of others. So, good job, Countervail! Deny it all you want but the more committed and involved you are in “fighting” for the acceptance, admiration, and love you think you’re entitled to, the more it will continue to elude you.
There is a much simpler solution to this problem. It would eliminate tons of paperwork, it leave little doubt about who is entitled to what, and it would save the taxpayers billions.
Abolish all marriage!
(Don’t make me separate you….cuz i’ll do it! I’ll pull this car over and you can both walk home!)
.
How does using another word to describe gay unions interfere with with whom you live and love?
How would using a word, aside from marriage, to describe different forms of partnerships, established to set up and maintain a household and raise children, with some or all of the legal benefits, protections, qualifications, and duties as marriages, interfere with the ability of people in those partnerships to live and love with whomever they please?
Much more elegantly than I have put it in the past, Michael, when making my arguments for ‘fred’.
Thank you mind if I
stealuse this?Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama.
That is the name he used when he was sworn into office. He hasn’t upheld the Constitution, but I can certainly use his legal (allegedly) name.
#35: HA! HA! Love it!
Twice, even. For the love of Mary, twice.
You have to stop with this. It’s no argument. You’re attacking a straw man, as if gay marriage opponents want the law to read “Anybody can marry anybody for any reason. No exceptions.” The government is not in the business of licensing plural marriages, and it’s not in any way discriminatory for the government to set the maximum number of people allowed to apply for a marriage license to two. The government is allowed to set requirements like this when there is a compelling state interest, and there is a compelling state interest in preventing a hundred people from entering into a group marriage.
However, there is no compelling state interest in setting gender requirements for the two people entering into the marriage contract. It is therefore unconstitutional to prevent two, of-age, non-related people from applying for a marriage license. The laws that prevent child marriage, plural marriage, and incestuous marriage will remain in effect and their repeal will not be an issue in any way based on the gay marriage precedent, because the government does have a legitimate and compelling interest in not granting marriage licenses to those groups.
To actually think that any kind of gay marriage ruling necessarily and automatically legalizes child marriage is so stupid that it’s hard for me to relate to you as a human being. There are age of consent laws, there are laws having to do with children entering into contracts, there is a juvenile justice system – and you’re basic argument is that all of those things are rendered invalid if the government begins granting marriage licenses to gay people. I fail to see how one has anything to do with the other. If you make the argument that gay marriage leads to child marriage, you are required to also make the argument that gay marriage leads to children enlisting in the military, and it leads to children being allowed to buy alcohol, and it leads to children running for President. Despite the fact that hundreds of new laws go into effect in this country every single day and don’t have this kind of devastating effect, gay marriage is supposed to be some kind of atomic bomb that overrides the hundreds of regulations involved with children entering into contracts.
It just can’t be taken seriously. It’s as ridiculous as the slippery slope fallacy gets.
Don’t see where marriage is a fundamental right. Never showed where this is defended in the US Constitution. They are changing the definition of marriage and have even done so in our dictionaries. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman for the procreation of children. Suddenly, procreation is removed from the definition. It’s amazing how the definition of marriage has been rewritten. Looking forward to justice being served here and justice means that fornication is not approved and the propogation of immorality comes to an end. The “me now” society that permits this immoral behavior and perverse selfishness will send us on the way to the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah
You’re attacking a straw man, as if gay marriage opponents want the law to read “Anybody can marry anybody for any reason. No exceptions.”
Actually, that is exactly what they are saying (emphasis mine)
Gay marriage is about so much more than just gaining the legal benefits for our relationships that heterosexuals enjoy; it is about solidifying once and for all in American law that we are free and allowed to live and love who we choose without government interference or favoritism
Don’t see any qualifiers in there for age, blood relationship, number, or anything of the sort, silly Levi.
Next lie from Levi:
The government is not in the business of licensing plural marriages, and it’s not in any way discriminatory for the government to set the maximum number of people allowed to apply for a marriage license to two.
Funny, Levi and his fellow progressives say something else entirely.
The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.
The problem here is again that liberals try to argue based on authority, rather than reviewing facts and looking for credibility.
Margaret Hoover FOX News comments:
We conservatives have a well-founded narrative about judges and the courts. It is true that the federal bench is populated with liberals who view their role not as interpreting the law as it is written, but as policy makers empowered to sculpt social outcomes with which they agree.
The irony of this case is that Judge Walker is not a liberal activist judge but one whose career has proven him to be a tempered judge, true to the Reagan-Bush conservative jurisprudence that he was nominated to represent on the bench.
And she warns of the perils of putting anti-gay animus ahead of sound judicial reasoning.
The potential consequence that conservatives land on the wrong side of civil rights history again is the alienation of an entire generation of voters. With polling definitively indicating that Americans under age 30 overwhelmingly favor gay rights, with a majority supporting gay marriage according to the Pew Millennial Attitudes report published in February this year, there are multiple reasons for conservatives to think carefully before digging in their heels against gay marriage. BTB
back January Hoover also put forth:
“Some Republicans support gay rights, but prefer progress through legislative action or majority rule at the ballot box, rather than judicial action. But what if a democratic election imposes mandates that violate a citizen’s constitutional freedom? In the event that majority rule insufficiently protects individual liberty, our system of checks and balances puts forth that it is the role of the courts, to guarantee and protect the rights to individual Americans.
“That’s why the Supreme Court, in 1967 Loving v. Virginia, legalized interracial marriage –six years after our current president was born to an interracial couple. At that time 73% of the population opposed “miscegenation.” How long would it have taken to change popular opinion, for the minority to democratically win their constitutional rights? As Martin Luther King, Jr. famously asserted, “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
“For those of you who would label me a ‘RINO’ (Republican In Name Only) for taking this stand, I direct you to Vice President Cheney, whose conservative credentials are impeccable, and who answered a question on the topic before the National Press Club audience on June 1, 2009 by saying simply, ‘freedom means freedom for everyone.'” – Fox News contributor Margaret Hoover, coming out for marriage equality on FoxNew.com
Rusty, you posted this comment in two threads, so I will repost my response in both places as well.Rusty:
How desperate will the left get? Now the talking points go to a commenter on Fox (Faux) News? Because Republicans are not locked-step against gay marriage, the issue is over?
What part of Hoover’s words construct is immutable logic? You did a nice job of pasting her comments, but you did not show us what you think makes the case.
Loving v Virginia settled one man of a given race and one woman of a different race. In other words, it settled marriage between a man and a woman without regard to racial lines. In further other words, it applied the 14th Amendment, because the one man and the one woman were each citizens and due the equal protections of the law.
Somehow, you twits (Olson and Hoover included) see Loving v Virginia as the court ruling that you get to marry who you “want” to marry. At the time of Loving v Virginia there were interracial marriages all over the world. There was a tradition of interracial marriages. There were interracial marriages in records of New Amsterdam which was the seed colony that became New York City. But all of them followed the formula, the tradition, the restriction of being between one man and one woman, humans all and not too close in their kinship and not little children.
You gay marriage people would have a far stronger case is you could show that “gay” is a third gender.
One man and one woman is changed to include one man and one man or one woman and one woman.
Sharia notices. Currently and historically marriages all over the world occur between one man and multiple women. The fact is that one man and multiple women is far closer to the tradition of marriage than one man and one man trying to make children.
The Sharia people outnumber Levi and his gay band by a zillion to one and they show a certain hostility toward gays in particular and infidels in general.
Levi, you seem so certain that you control the “slippery slope.” I bet you are the fastest Chicken Little on the block when Sharia drops by.
The “slippery slope” is an informal fallacy in logic. It is informal, because cause and effect are very useful tools of logic. Most of all planning is tied up with cause and effect. However, the cause is now and the effect comes later. Not to predict or plan for the outcome is idiotic.
When you jump from gay marriage to a man and a goat, you have gone too far. But tell me this. Since gays can’t procreate with one another, why can you not make a compelling case to marry your brother?
Silly, Levi, you just don’t like critical thinking.
Olson conveniently forgot to mention Baker v. Nelson , where the Supreme Court dismissed, for want of a substantial federal question, an appeal that claimed that denial of a marriage license to a same-sex couple violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment? Dismissals for want of a substantial federal question constitute a decision on the merits ( Hicks v. Miranda )
As the Texas attorney general’s office pointed out in its appeal of In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B ( PDF Format ) , Baker was a 9-0 decision. Four of the justices who voted for the appellants in Loving voted for the dismissal in Baker . As Thurgood Marshall sat on the court at the time, he too, voted to dismiss the appeal.
Marshall was known to have a broader interpretation of the due process and equal protection clauses than the others; he had joined the dissents in Rostker v. Goldberg , Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County , and Crawford v. Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles . If voted against having the Court hear whether or not denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the basis of the gender of the partners deserved a hearing, then there was no due process or equal protection violation.
Then take me on the journey heliotrope. If you’re able to predict some inevitable, inescapable conclusion where marrying children becomes the law of the land twenty, fifty, or a hundred years after the legalization of gay marriage, then why don’t you take a shot at explaining how that could come to pass? If all you have to offer is that a cause can result in a specific effect later on, then I might as well argue that if you disagree with me any further, than the entire universe will fold in on itself. I’ll say the same thing to you; “Not to predict or plan for the outcome is idiotic.”
There’s a lot of heavily religious thinking here. You’ve arrived at a conclusion, refuse to support your conclusion with evidence or reasoning, and are insisting that it’s undeniable. Not surprising, coming from you.
Who cares if they can’t procreate with one another? That is not a requirement of secular marriage law. And luckily, most human beings, even ones that come from sexually abusive families, don’t want to have relationships with their family members. The state can also argue that there is a public interest in not granting licenses to family members as well.
I oon’t see how your Sharia comments are a response to what I said about plural marriage, either. And now you’re starting to insert ‘gays can’t procreate’ comments here and there, which is another completely invalid argument. You’re becoming more evasive and less coherent – again, not surprising.
If you’re able to predict some inevitable, inescapable conclusion where marrying children becomes the law of the land twenty, fifty, or a hundred years after the legalization of gay marriage, then why don’t you take a shot at explaining how that could come to pass?
Easy.
Hollywood liberals — you know, the ones that you worship and lionize — already insist that there is nothing wrong with drugging and having NON-consensual sex with children.
Abortion pushers like Levi already oppose and refuse to follow laws governing childrens’ inability to enter into contracts or consent when it comes to getting payoffs for abortions and keeping adults from being punished for having sex with children.
Levi and his fellow progressives insist that NAMBLA isn’t doing anything wrong.
Since you already make it clear that you consider children as perfectly capable of consenting and making decisions in regard to sex, Levi, it’s already well under way.
And now, since you and your fellow sexual idiots insist that it’s wrong to put conditions on marriage because it might interfere with someone else’s ability to marry that to which they are sexually attracted, the legal groundwork is in place.
Add to that your complete opposition to any type of majority-rules setup and insistence that minority rights always trump everything else, do you really expect us to believe that you would oppose child marriage? You can’t even say that dressing children as sex slaves and taking them to a sex fair is wrong.
And luckily, most human beings, even ones that come from sexually abusive families, don’t want to have relationships with their family members. The state can also argue that there is a public interest in not granting licenses to family members as well.
Oh? And what is that argument, Levi?
Let me slap you in advance.
1) You insist that procreation has nothing to do with marriage, so the potential of birth defects in the offspring cannot be invoked
2) You insist that “tradition” and “previous practice” cannot be invoked in regard to gay-sex marriage, so you can’t invoke them here
3) You insist that “moral disapproval” is not a valid reason, so you can’t use it as one.
Again, though, given Levi’s support and endorsement of plural marriage and child pornography, I think we should realize that Levi sees this as a feature, not a bug.
Levi ……. I will spell it out for you. The law forbids marriage between close kin to prevent inbreeding. You can google “inbreeding” and draw your own conclusions as to why the state decided to bar it. You can also google “incest” a get a further education.
Now, Levi, let’s take a slide down the slippery slope, shall we?
The day arrives and gays are permitted by the state to marry. Gays get what they “want.” Then two gays who are brothers decide they “want” to marry. (Please, sweet Levi, do not say this is out of the question or stretching the point, because inbreeding has a long history.)
However, gay brothers can not inbreed. So, why should “hetero” marriage laws apply to gays? After all, that is the logic that led to gay marriage in the first place.
You refuse to confront the other logical shift that would follow permitting gay marriage.
One man and one woman would include one man and one man or one woman and one woman. Voila, a major traditional feature of marriage is overturned. Only one and one remains in the basic formula. But why?
The world has a long history of plural marriage. The largest religion in the world is Islam. Islam embraces plural marriage. Why, should the legal restriction requiring one and one in marriage be preserved?
Oh, I know this isn’t your fight, Levi. But we are a nation of precedents in our legal decisions, so what is the clear logic that would compel the state to tell the plural marriage crowd to stuff it? After all, the same state has said two men or two women can marry.
Take your Civil Union, fool! As a commenter here who had been identified by the likes of you as a confirmed bigot and homophobe, I will call on my str8 majority to defeat gay marriage. It is fools like you who parade around as it they have even minimal common sense and logic which has pushed me to resort to the power of numbers.
You can not make your case for gay marriage and you can not accept the compromise of Civil Unions that help clear up your “legal” problems as the general str8 society ignores your gay life.
Your “logic” and ability to be objective are not worth the powder to blow them up, even though it would take less than 1% of what is necessary to launch the average .22 slug.
Currently, the state requires marriage to be limited to one of each sex who are of a certain minimal age, a removed fact of kinship and minimal mental capacity. Can you make a case for why the state should get out of the marriage business? (Beside the foregoing, you will have to deal with property rights and settlements as well as legitimacy in a multitude of venues.)
Levi, you wither under direct questioning and resort to name calling or just disappear altogether. Just this once, try thinking your way through what you strut so clownishly.
Levi spewed
Baker V Loving”
Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson[1] was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and on October 10, 1972 the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal “for want of a substantial federal question.” Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as controlling precedent.”
Perhaps Levi believes the volume of his posts make him smarter, but he’s still ignorant on facts.
LW nice typo. . .puts a creative twist Baker v Loving.
but there is some interesting views over at http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/08/did-judge-walker-forget-about-baker-v-nelson/
need to go all the way to the comments.
The government is not required to create laws specifically to indulge in bizarre sexual fetishes or religious doctrine. Just because someone likes to get gangbanged by their immediate family members doesn’t mean the government has to tailor a marriage scheme for that person, and just because someone thinks that God wants them to marry 15 people doesn’t mean the government has to accommodate them, either. The government is clearly empowered to establish certain kinds of restrictions and requirements on secular marriage, but denial due to sexual orientation is not constitutionally justifiable.
The government isn’t required to incorporate Islamic marriage traditions into its laws recognizing secular marriage. It isn’t discrimination to deny give preferential treatment to one’s religious views. This is a real slippery slope – if the government allows someone to take multiple wives, then why shouldn’t the government allow the husband to behead his wife if she violates some Islamic religious law?
How would gay civil unions not create the same problems you’re so worried about gay marriages creating? If gays are allowed to create their own system, then won’t polygamists have a precedent to do the same? Won’t pedophiles?
All you’re doing is tossing out non-sequitors; it simply does not follow that all of this doom and gloom will result from gay marriage. The government has the power to limit the number of people in a marriage to two if it so desires without discriminating against anyone, but if the government incorporates gender restrictions, it is discrimination (just as race restrictions were discrimination.) The government also has the power to deny marriage licenses to family members and children, not necessarily because of the moral implications, but because of the societal problems that those relationships would create (child abuse, genetic defects.)
And I’d like to reiterate my point about civil unions – if this is your ideal set-up because gay marriage leads to child marriage, then why wouldn’t gay unions lead to child unions? If you’re going to keep up with this slippery slope nonsense, shouldn’t you try to be consistent?
#51, I’ll have to read the summary when I get home, won’t load here at work. Thank you for the link though. I don’t understand how a federal judge can just go “I’m going to ignore precedent since I don’t feel it applies anymore.”
#52 Let’s translate Levi to English, shall we?
So Levi conceeds that the government can define marriage.
He then says
Of course, his men in black robes who say that parts of the constitution are more important than others say otherwise.
So again, Levi likes to cite the constitution and the courts, unless they don’t agree with him.
Levi,
The pony you are riding on the merry-go-round of your mind has left the platform and can be found trying to swallow itself whole.
Good gosh, child, no human alive could chart your ramblings or diagram your musings.
You may not ever find it, but you have agreed with me over and over again.