Gay Patriot Header Image

More tolerance for gay marriage proponents among gay marriage opponents (than vice versa)?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:40 pm - May 10, 2012.
Filed under: Academia,Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage,Random Thoughts

Surveying the returns on North Carolina’s Amendment One, William Kristol finds that the measure was soundly defeated in two counties with large universities by margins of “5 to 1 and 5 to 2, respectively”, yet passed by margins of 2 to 1 in neighboring “counties like Alamance, Person, and Granville”.

This causes him to “bet there’s more tolerance in Alamance, Person and Granville for those who are proponents of gay marriage than there is at Duke or UNC-Chapel Hill for the opponents.

I’d made the same wager.  Here’s one piece of evidence that suggests the odds on this wager are better than even.

Share

84 Comments

  1. University high populations of young folk. . .hmm aren’t they the subgroup that tends not to vote.

    can’t help to post this though. . .Sophia and Blanche

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xxpd3Ye0zA

    Comment by rusty — May 10, 2012 @ 6:42 pm - May 10, 2012

  2. voter turnout of NC (all counties)

    http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/36596/80853/en/vt.html

    Comment by rusty — May 10, 2012 @ 6:53 pm - May 10, 2012

  3. “Intolerant” is one of those words (like “torture” “racist” and “bully”) that has had its meaning changed so that leftists can use it as a smear against anyone who disagrees with their agenda.

    Comment by V the K — May 10, 2012 @ 6:59 pm - May 10, 2012

  4. I would basically agree with that. I think the one thing about SSM opponents is (1) because of gay/lesbian friends and family members, they feel a need to be cautious about how they talk about the issue because they accept that being gay or lesbian is an integral part of those friends/family members (even if they don’t condone homosexuality per se) whereas supporters of SSM believe that opposition to SSM is merely a position that someone takes and not an integral part of that person, so they feel more free to chastise holders of the opposing view, and (2) because SSM seems inevitable, they feel more need to make nice with the other side whereas proponents of SSM feel okay with snark and derision because they feel less need to convince anyone, given that each new wave of younger voters, it would seem, shifts public opinion in their direction.

    Comment by chad — May 10, 2012 @ 7:02 pm - May 10, 2012

  5. [...] are really original (h/t Gay Patriot). Rate this: Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]

    Pingback by Bristol Palin is a C*nt! « Canadian Rattlesnake — May 10, 2012 @ 7:11 pm - May 10, 2012

  6. Half those students were probably registered to vote at their dorms and live out of state.

    Comment by Kyle — May 10, 2012 @ 9:06 pm - May 10, 2012

  7. From Jim Treacher:

    Bigot: Someone who believes what Obama said before he changed his mind.

    Comment by V the K — May 10, 2012 @ 9:41 pm - May 10, 2012

  8. That doesn’t make any sense. How is a gay marriage opponent voting for a gay marriage ban demonstrating any kind of tolerance at all?

    On the other side of the coin, why should gay marriage proponents tolerate a bunch of backwards religious fanatics enshrining their prejudices into the Constitution? I mean Jesus Christ, we’re supposed to tolerate crap like that?

    Comment by Levi — May 10, 2012 @ 11:29 pm - May 10, 2012

  9. Atta girls, as Romney would call us if we got lucky. If not he would humiliate us by cutting our hair ( I have long hair.)
    I guess I’d deserve that since gay patriots are submissive and with crew cuts as not to offend the bullies.

    Comment by George insane — May 11, 2012 @ 1:14 am - May 11, 2012

  10. Ah, and the mysoginist returns and speaks what little mind he has, thus proving the post.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The Livewire — May 11, 2012 @ 8:02 am - May 11, 2012

  11. George the Insane,

    You fear Romney would cut your hair? What about Obama? He would eat your dog. You would sacrifice your dog for your hair? What kind of intolerant, pet hating bully uses a dog for a decoy? I’ll bet you got him from a puppy mill and didn’t even think of going to the rescue shelter.

    See, George, I know how your mind is wired.

    And, another thing: Romney would get your dog hooked up with lots of female mates and your stud hound would be gleeful forever. And if your dog is gay, Obama would just pump him for donations and tell him he loves him. But he would not do a signing order, lead a platform plank demand, or do anything he would do for the Muslim Brotherhood or The Black Panthers.

    So, grow your hair and watch your dog and take the bone Obama tossed you and spin on it.

    What’s that? You don’t have a dog? You don’t have man’s best friend? You are all alone in the world? Its just you and your hair? Oh, my. No wonder you desperately need Obama.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 11, 2012 @ 9:59 am - May 11, 2012

  12. Levi:

    Tolerance = supporting gay marriage. Tolerance does not include supporting polygamy. Why? “That doesn’t make any sense.”

    Ergo, what makes sense to Levi is what is correct. Intolerance is what does not make sense to Levi. It does not make sense to Levi to have religious faith, so he does not tolerate people who do. It does make sense to Levi that manmade global warming is doubted by anyone. Therefore, Levi is not tolerant of anyone who does not buy into man made global warming.

    So, insomuch as the other side of the “tolerance” coin is “bigotry” we get a two for one in Levi. If you don’t register on his common-sense-o-meter, he has no tolerance for you. He is bigoted toward you. He washes his hands of your stupid self.

    Neat! A regular little fascist tactic for separating the wheat from the chaff.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 11, 2012 @ 10:14 am - May 11, 2012

  13. Heliotrope,
    Are you trying to tell me that Romney is better for gays than Obama. And I’m not talking about economic policies here. Romney and the GOP don’t support same sex marriage or civil unions.
    So, Mr Rumble Non-sense, explain to me how is he better for us. You know that his supporters are religious bigoted crazies who think gays will destroy civilization, don’t you?

    And I don’t have a dog. I hate to pick up s…, but I guess you don’t. That’s why you don’t mind picking up after Romney’s s… Every time we find out more about Romney you kids must clean up and attack Obama.
    Good day.

    Comment by George insane — May 11, 2012 @ 10:26 am - May 11, 2012

  14. And I’m not talking about economic policies here.

    In other words, George doesn’t care about the state of the economy, the nation or even if he’s working. As long as daddy president luvs him, he’s a happy camper. He’ll be perfectly happy when he’s old that there’s no support net, that he’s not been approved for life saving treatments, or that terrorists want to kill him for his choice of bedmates, as long as Obama luvs him.

    Comment by The Livewire — May 11, 2012 @ 11:23 am - May 11, 2012

  15. Are you trying to tell me that Romney is better for gays than Obama. And I’m not talking about economic policies here.

    That’s right, you aren’t.

    Because you and your fellow Obama Youth have been brainwashed since day one to ignore anything other than the degree of pandering to your minority status.

    In your addled brain, gays don’t pay taxes, don’t have jobs, don’t face the threat of terrorism, don’t care about the economy, don’t care about the currency, and are completely and utterly helpless without nanny government to feed them and change their diapers.

    And you hate religion, so you support and endorse using governmental power to destroy it and punish its believers.

    Which is why you have screaming fits insisting that all Republicans want to put gays in concentration camps and murder them.

    Oh, and you know your Romney story? Your Obama lied, and the Washington Post is now being forced to retract and change its story.

    And we have proof that Obama and the gay and lesbian community want to murder Republicans.

    You’re a liar, George. Is that because of your sexual orientation? Do you agree that gays and lesbians are all lying antireligious bigots who don’t care about economic issues? Why do you and your fellow gays and lesbians support and endorse murdering Republicans? Why do you think Barack Obama supports and endorses murdering political opponents?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2012 @ 12:04 pm - May 11, 2012

  16. You know that his supporters are religious bigoted crazies who think gays will destroy civilization, don’t you?

    Those are probably the same people who don’t like Romney because he’s a Mormon.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 11, 2012 @ 12:38 pm - May 11, 2012

  17. I found this nugget in Kristol’s piece:

    The Madisonian republic lives.

    Hey, I’m glad you invoked Madison there, Billy. Here’s why:

    Not only did he insist on including a bill of rights in the constitution, not only did he write said bill of rights, but he also expanded on his thinking that went into all of it in the Federalist Papers. You guys are big on “the founders’ intent,” right? I mean, you’re always running around telling the rest of us what the founders really had in mind was setting up a “Christian nation,” despite all evidence to the contrary and whatnot.

    So hold on – you’re gonna LOVE this! Madison specifically addressed something he called “the tyranny of the majority” in one of the earlier papers, and it was a theme he returned to over and over again in later papers. Specifically, he makes clear that a large part of the necessity for both a constitution and a bill of rights is to prevent a majority from denying rights to any minority group or individual simply by force of majority. In other words, the intent there is that matters of individual rights and equality under the law were not to be determined by referendum.

    Which is, of course, what just happened in North Carolina, the result of which you heartily applaud and support.

    Why do you hate the founding fathers, you unpatriotic bastard?

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 11, 2012 @ 1:59 pm - May 11, 2012

  18. Um, JennofArk, do you even read this blog? In two successive posts, I expressed my opposition to Amendment One in North Carolina.

    And have opposed the citizens’ veto of Maine legislation recognizing same-sex marriages on very Madisonian grounds.

    Please read our posts before commenting. Thanks!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 11, 2012 @ 2:28 pm - May 11, 2012

  19. @Dan,

    I don’t think it will make a difference. With a name like JennofArk she’s likely engrossed in martyr fantasies.

    That or she thinks someone is going to build a boat out of her.

    Comment by The Livewire — May 11, 2012 @ 2:35 pm - May 11, 2012

  20. So hold on – you’re gonna LOVE this! Madison specifically addressed something he called “the tyranny of the majority” in one of the earlier papers, and it was a theme he returned to over and over again in later papers. Specifically, he makes clear that a large part of the necessity for both a constitution and a bill of rights is to prevent a majority from denying rights to any minority group or individual simply by force of majority. In other words, the intent there is that matters of individual rights and equality under the law were not to be determined by referendum.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 11, 2012 @ 1:59 pm – May 11, 2012

    You’re right, I do love it.

    Because every single amendment following the Bill of Rights has been passed by referendum.

    So according to your idiocy, everything after the Eleventh Amendment, since it materially affects peoples’ rights, is invalid. For example, the amendments abolishing slavery are invalid, because they involve a majority violating the right of a minority to own slaves as established in the Constitution.

    That also means the amendments you try to invoke in your demands for gay-sex marriage are invalid, since they were passed by referendum.

    Now, let’s up the ante, Joan; since you and your fellow gay-sex liberals support using the power of the government to silence dissent, imprison people for speaking out against Obama, dissolve and destroy churches for holding or following doctrines you dislike, disarming people, confiscating property a la Kelo and so forth, and denying people the right to vote because you hate their religious beliefs, have you ever even actually read the Bill of Rights?

    That’s what makes you and your fellow bigots funny, Joan. You quote gay-sex marriage and unlimited government-funded abortion as “rights” while insisting that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, the right to vote, and the right to fair compensation for confiscation of property are not rights.

    You wouldn’t know the Constitution or the Federalist Papers if they bit you. All you know is what Barack Obama tells you, and like a fool, you repeat it without researching it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2012 @ 2:46 pm - May 11, 2012

  21. Maybe you should read my post more carefully Mr. Blatt. It was addressed to Mr. Kristol; specifically to his absurd characterization of a “Madisonian republic” being one in which citizens of the majority group go to the ballot box to determine what rights will and will not be allowed to a minority group.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 11, 2012 @ 2:56 pm - May 11, 2012

  22. And also, constitutional amendments aren’t adopted by referendum. Either ratification by 3/4 of state legislatures or by conventions in 3/4 of states, neither of which is a referendum.

    Maybe I’m not the one who needs to be studying up on the constitution.

    BTW, you can find this bit in Article V.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 11, 2012 @ 3:04 pm - May 11, 2012

  23. Aaand the ever Insane North Dallas Thirty POOPs all over himself again.

    Because every single amendment following the Bill of Rights has been passed by referendum

    Madison was talking about federal, state and municipal laws, not Constitutional amendments.

    So according to your idiocy …

    That’s being civil!

    ince you and your fellow gay-sex liberals support using the power of the government to silence dissent, imprison people for speaking out against Obama, dissolve and destroy churches for holding or following doctrines you dislike, disarming people, confiscating property a la Kelo and so forth, and denying people the right to vote because you hate their religious beliefs, [citation needed]

    That’s what makes you and your fellow bigots funny, Joan.

    Yet more typical civility on display.

    You quote gay-sex marriage and unlimited government-funded abortion as “rights” while insisting that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, the right to vote, and the right to fair compensation for confiscation of property are not rights.[citation needed]

    You wouldn’t know the Constitution or the Federalist Papers if they bit you. All you know is what Barack Obama tells you, and like a fool, you repeat it without researching it.

    I am pretty sure that Jennifer (of Arkansas, you twit) has read a whole lot more of such things than you. I am absolutely certain that she understands a helluva lot more of it than do you.

    Comment by PeeJ — May 11, 2012 @ 3:13 pm - May 11, 2012

  24. And also, constitutional amendments aren’t adopted by referendum. Either ratification by 3/4 of state legislatures or by conventions in 3/4 of states, neither of which is a referendum.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 11, 2012 @ 3:04 pm – May 11, 2012

    Only if you have legislatures and conventions whose members are appointed rather than determined by elections.

    And we don’t. :)

    Unless, of course, you would like to state for the public that elected officials do not represent the will of the people, and that a public referendum/direct vote on a proposal should always supersede one made by elected officials.

    In short, you’re blathering because bigots like yourself want to strip people of the right to vote on and amend their own Constitution because you don’t like the answer they have.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2012 @ 3:54 pm - May 11, 2012

  25. Yet more typical civility on display.

    Comment by PeeJ — May 11, 2012 @ 3:13 pm – May 11, 2012

    Sure, PeeJ, go down the path of whining about “civility”.

    Especially when one considers what you endorse and support as “civil”.

    And before you start bawling and spinning, here’s you acknowledging your multiple identities there.

    People can now sort through and see all the “civil” comments you’ve made as “Pupienus Maximus”, as well as “PeeJ”.

    So as we can see, your screaming and whining for “civility” is something you have never followed and no intention of following yourself.

    Which makes you a bigot and a hypocrite.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2012 @ 4:03 pm - May 11, 2012

  26. Only if you have legislatures and conventions whose members are appointed rather than determined by elections.

    Do you work at being obtuse or does it just come naturally? There’s this thing called Teh Internets – you could look up the meaning of “referendum” with little effort. You should do that then TRY to think about why your latest comment is another instance of you smearing POOP in your own face.

    Comment by PeeJ — May 11, 2012 @ 4:04 pm - May 11, 2012

  27. I have a stalker! WOOHOO!

    Nice played tu quoque there, just what I expected. Now address the substance of your completely wrnog analysis of Madison.

    Comment by PeeJ — May 11, 2012 @ 4:06 pm - May 11, 2012

  28. “Referendum” means something different than “ratification by a legislative or other body.” As PeeJ notes, you COULD look it up, but I’ll save you the trouble: referendum n: the principle or practice of submitting to popular vote a measure passed upon or proposed by a legislative body or by popular initiative. – Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

    Words have meanings, in this case different meanings from what you’d like to ascribe to them.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 11, 2012 @ 4:14 pm - May 11, 2012

  29. No, actually, it wasn’t what you expected, which is why you’re screaming and whining and crying about “stalkers”.

    Meanwhile, as for “substance”, you have none. I have plenty of evidence showing that you’re a lying bigot who will say and do anything, no matter how false, to attack conservatives.

    In short, PeeJ, you’re a proven liar with no credibility. Therefore, your argument that I am wrong is a lie.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2012 @ 4:18 pm - May 11, 2012

  30. Words have meanings, in this case different meanings from what you’d like to ascribe to them.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 11, 2012 @ 4:14 pm – May 11, 2012

    Yup.

    And in this case, your words state that referendums can never be used in any way to alter or change a constitution.

    Perhaps you aren’t familiar with the fact that every state but Delaware requires any and all constitutional changes to be made by referendum.

    So according to you, every single state constitutional amendment ever made is illegal.

    Want to run on that one?

    Oh, and while we’re here, how about you comment on what you consider to be “civil” behavior?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2012 @ 4:27 pm - May 11, 2012

  31. Madison specifically addressed something he called “the tyranny of the majority” in one of the earlier papers, and it was a theme he returned to over and over again in later papers. Specifically, he makes clear that a large part of the necessity for both a constitution and a bill of rights is to prevent a majority from denying rights to any minority group or individual simply by force of majority. In other words, the intent there is that matters of individual rights and equality under the law were not to be determined by referendum.

    Which is, of course, what just happened in North Carolina, the result of which you heartily applaud and support.

    Why do you hate the founding fathers, you unpatriotic bastard?

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 11, 2012 @ 1:59 pm – May 11, 2012

    Perhaps you’re not familiar with an actual Madison quote on the matter.

    “The People were, in fact, the fountain of all power, and by resorting to them, all difficulties were got over. They could alter constitutions as they pleased.

    Looks like Jenn was one of Barack Obama’s “constitutional law” students.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2012 @ 4:33 pm - May 11, 2012

  32. I try not to get angry with slow people, but you’re not just slow, you’re dishonest, ND. I used the accurate word in my original post, and first you insisted that it means something that it’s never meant, to anyone, anywhere, at any time; now you’re trying to pretend that my post did not narrowly address the US CONSTITUTION though it clearly did and I pointed to the relevant section of that specific document in a later post correcting the first of your failures to understand. You’re welcome to point out where I referenced any state constitution; I won’t hold my breath waiting for that because it’s not there to be found and you’re not capable of honesty anyway. You know, pretending to be stupid and failing to acknowledge when you are clearly WRONG – as you were in your complete misunderstanding of the word “referendum” – doesn’t “win” you anything.

    Also, you’re not even close on the Madison quote, but since you’re just going to pretend it says something other than what it does if I bother to point you to the specific one I alluded to, I’ll let you flail around with the one you managed to find with your primitive google skillz.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 11, 2012 @ 4:48 pm - May 11, 2012

  33. I used the accurate word in my original post, and first you insisted that it means something that it’s never meant, to anyone, anywhere, at any time; now you’re trying to pretend that my post did not narrowly address the US CONSTITUTION though it clearly did and I pointed to the relevant section of that specific document in a later post correcting the first of your failures to understand. You’re welcome to point out where I referenced any state constitution; I won’t hold my breath waiting for that because it’s not there to be found and you’re not capable of honesty anyway.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 11, 2012 @ 4:48 pm – May 11, 2012

    Too, too easy.

    So hold on – you’re gonna LOVE this! Madison specifically addressed something he called “the tyranny of the majority” in one of the earlier papers, and it was a theme he returned to over and over again in later papers. Specifically, he makes clear that a large part of the necessity for both a constitution and a bill of rights is to prevent a majority from denying rights to any minority group or individual simply by force of majority. In other words, the intent there is that matters of individual rights and equality under the law were not to be determined by referendum.

    Which is, of course, what just happened in North Carolina, the result of which you heartily applaud and support.

    Why do you hate the founding fathers, you unpatriotic bastard?

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 11, 2012 @ 1:59 pm – May 11, 2012

    North Carolina is a state, and the question there was amendment of a state constitution.

    You specifically invoked the state of North Carolina and the amendment of a state constitution and tried to apply Madison’s quote to it.

    So not only are you now caught lying, you’re caught misapplying your own terms.

    And the reason you won’t provide your Madison quote is because you are lying. You lied about what Madison said, you lied about what you said, and you continue to lie about me in an attempt to get out of providing your quote.

    You have now been exposed as a liar, a bigot, and a hypocrite, just like your buddy PeeJ.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2012 @ 6:58 pm - May 11, 2012

  34. Pretzels, hot out of the oven.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 11, 2012 @ 7:08 pm - May 11, 2012

  35. Had you read Federalist #10, the entirety of which is about Madison’s distrust of direct democracy as opposed to representative democracy, you might have as PeeJ said stopped smearing yourself with poop several hours ago. So it’s clear you haven’t read Federalist #10.

    Madison’s dislike of direct democracy was founded on the tendencies of majorities, unrestrained, to oppress minorities – as has just happened in North Carolina, or I should say, has just been reinforced in North Carolina. Madison’s quote not only applies but is dead-on. Madison didn’t write the North Carolina constitution or that of any other state, so the supposition that because states use the popular vote to approve or decline amendments to their state’s constitution, a cite of Madison’s quote as an accurate reflection of how the man felt about referenda concerning rights and equality under the law is somehow a “lie” is not only ludicrous, it makes you look even more foolish. Because as we know, in the constitution that Madison DID help to write, the method of amendment is NOT referenda. Again, if you had read Federalist #10, you would know why.

    So I’ve not been “exposed” as a liar, but rather someone who knows what they’re talking about, as opposed to pulling it out of their read end, as you did in attempting to re-define the meaning of “referendum,” and as you’re now trying to do in insisting that Madison’s expressed opinions on the topic of direct democracy vs. representative democracy can’t be applied to a state government. Again, if you knew what you were talking about, you’d know that he never made that distinction, even though his area of expertise had been in the drafting of the federal constitution rather than those of the states.

    As for “bigot” and “hypocrite”, you seem to be really good at just making up names without any evidence for applying them – just as you are at making up new definitions for words.

    Madison would have disapproved of what took place in North Carolina a few days ago. You can twist yourself into the shape of one of those pretzels that just came out of the oven, and it won’t change that fact. The man was perfectly clear about it, and you’d know that if you had read any of the stuff you’re attempting to debate against (unsuccessfully).

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 11, 2012 @ 7:32 pm - May 11, 2012

  36. North Carolina is a state, and the question there was amendment of a state constitution.

    You specifically invoked the state of North Carolina and the amendment of a state constitution and tried to apply Madison’s quote to it.

    Did you know that the US Constitution overrides those of the many states? You *did* know that, didn’t you? Did Madison say _anything_ about state constitutions? I don’t know myself but it doesn’t really matter. Did JennofArk apply the Madison quote to NC? No, no she did not. See, the point of Madison’s construction of the US Constitution was to prevent the states from engaging in the tyranny of the majority. As just occurred in NC.

    Go wash your face, that poop is getting crusty.

    Comment by PeeJ — May 11, 2012 @ 8:14 pm - May 11, 2012

  37. Baker V Nelson PeeJ,

    Might try looking it up before you say “US Constitution overrides those of the many states”.

    The Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage, so it’s left to the states.

    JennofArk
    You have the same privilege of entering into a marital contract with one (1) person of the opposite sex, subject to the restrictions of the state you get married in, as any other person. How is that discriminatory?

    We already know Vince and PeeJ can’t answer that. Care to have a go?

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 11, 2012 @ 8:44 pm - May 11, 2012

  38. The Constitution was silent on abortion, but that certainly didn’t stop the Supreme Court from ruling on it.

    As they will rule on DOMA at some point years from now.

    Because it’s … unconstitutional.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 11, 2012 @ 8:48 pm - May 11, 2012

  39. “How is that discriminatory?”

    That’s easy, LW. Jenn has the legal right to marry my long-term partner and I do not, purely on the basis of gender. That, obviously, is gender discrimination.

    Comment by rt — May 11, 2012 @ 9:01 pm - May 11, 2012

  40. The fact that the Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage does not mean it is irrelevant to the issue of marriage. Assuming otherwise is contrary to the 9th Amendment:

    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    Comment by rt — May 11, 2012 @ 9:04 pm - May 11, 2012

  41. What Cinesnatch just said.

    As for “gay people are free to marry people they aren’t attracted to,” that’s just a stupid argument. Marriage, in the legal sense, is just a contract between two persons. Unless the state can show how allowing two persons of the same sex to enter into a type of contract currently only available to two persons of opposite sexes will somehow damage or harm others, it’s a violation of equal protection.

    As to the DOMA issue, like Cinesnatch just said, it’s clearly unconstitutional and now ripe for challenge, since several states now allow same-sex marriage. At the time DOMA passed, it couldn’t be challenged because no state had legalized same-sex marriage. So it was impossible for anyone to argue that DOMA was in conflict with full faith & credit because you couldn’t very well argue that a state was violating your rights by failing to acknowledge the legality of your non-existent marriage. That’s over. All that has to happen now is for a legally married gay couple from, say, MA to move to OK or TX (though god only knows why they would want to) and sue because the new state won’t recognize the legality of their marriage, and DOMA will be gone. Because the constitution says that all states have to respect “the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State,” not just that they have to respect those that they don’t find icky.

    If the challenge comes sooner rather than later, it will be interesting to see the pretzel-shapes Scalia ties himself into in trying to claim that full faith and credit doesn’t apply, in just this once case.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 11, 2012 @ 9:08 pm - May 11, 2012

  42. Had you read Federalist #10, the entirety of which is about Madison’s distrust of direct democracy as opposed to representative democracy, you might have as PeeJ said stopped smearing yourself with poop several hours ago. So it’s clear you haven’t read Federalist #10.

    Actually, I provided a quote. You didn’t, and instead tried to lie your way out.

    Madison made it clear that the people have a right to change their own constitutions. You deny that right and then you lie about what Madison said about that right.

    Perhaps in the echo chambers where you live, you are considered intelligent. But here in the real world, people require facts, not your liberal blathering and lies.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2012 @ 9:37 pm - May 11, 2012

  43. That’s easy, LW. Jenn has the legal right to marry my long-term partner and I do not, purely on the basis of gender. That, obviously, is gender discrimination.

    Comment by rt — May 11, 2012 @ 9:01 pm – May 11, 2012

    But unfortunately, rt, you have already argued for hiring quotas, preferential treatment for females in federal contracting, preferential treatment for females in education, and so forth.

    Gender discrimination is perfectly legal in the liberal/progressive world. Therefore, your attempt to use it to demand gay-sex marriage falls apart as blatantly and obviously hypocritical.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2012 @ 9:39 pm - May 11, 2012

  44. As for “gay people are free to marry people they aren’t attracted to,” that’s just a stupid argument. Marriage, in the legal sense, is just a contract between two persons. Unless the state can show how allowing two persons of the same sex to enter into a type of contract currently only available to two persons of opposite sexes will somehow damage or harm others, it’s a violation of equal protection.

    So, Jenn, you should have no problem answering the following:

    - How does allowing children to marry damage you?

    - How does allowing incest practitioners to marry damage you?

    - How does allowing bestialists to marry damage you?

    - How does allowing people to marry multiple individuals damage you?

    Remember, you have to provide specific, defined examples. No “effect on society” or anything of the sort like that; those are just shorthand for personal bigotry on your part.

    Furthermore, you stated the key point: you want to be able to marry anything to which you are sexually attracted, and the state has no right to rule on whether or not your sexual attraction is valid. Correct?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2012 @ 9:43 pm - May 11, 2012

  45. Because the constitution says that all states have to respect “the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State,” not just that they have to respect those that they don’t find icky.

    If the challenge comes sooner rather than later, it will be interesting to see the pretzel-shapes Scalia ties himself into in trying to claim that full faith and credit doesn’t apply, in just this once case.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 11, 2012 @ 9:08 pm – May 11, 2012

    Or he can simply point to the fact that the bigot Jenn and her fellow liberal pals insist that states do not and should not be required to recognize concealed-carry licenses and other “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” that they find icky.

    Maybe the bigot Jenn should educate herself by referring to case law like Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident.

    Pertinent quote:

    While the purpose of that provision was to preserve rights acquired or confirmed under the public acts and judicial proceedings of one state by requiring recognition of their validity in other states, the very nature of the federal union of states, to which are reserved some of the attributes of sovereignty, precludes resort to the full faith and credit clause as the means for compelling a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate.

    So the question then comes down to whether the states are competent to legislate their own marriage laws.

    According to the “constitutional law professor”, they are.

    Perhaps if Jenn were a student of something other than Obama talking points, she might have raised the question of why, in all the years in which the United States had states that allowed and states that did not allow interracial marriage, not one case was decided that the Full Faith and Credit Clause forced states that didn’t to recognize such marriages.

    Scalia has literally centuries of jurisprudence concerning the Full Faith and Credit Clause backing him up. Jenn has the arrogance of ignorance.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2012 @ 9:57 pm - May 11, 2012

  46. And north dallas thirty has his belief that measures passed by state legislatures count as referenda. Or else he doesn’t, and he’d rather be dishonest than admit he was wrong. Which is it, dallas?

    Comment by JJ — May 11, 2012 @ 10:28 pm - May 11, 2012

  47. JJ, who cares what bigots like you, PeeJ, and JennofArk who post these sorts of things have to say?

    Even better, who cares what bigots like you who call for Republicans to be murdered think?

    You act as though you might actually have some credibility here. People are aware that you’re nothing more than a violent, hatemongering bigot who will say and do anything to get what it wants. The proof is right there, and it shows quite nicely what hateful scum you and your fellow gay liberals are.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2012 @ 10:34 pm - May 11, 2012

  48. Yo, NDT. Can we stop grasping for personal assaults as interpreted by drunk drug addict nut jobs and talk about the issues? How about we talk about substance instead of throwing arrows? Couldn’t we discuss, like sane adults, the facts? Nah, didn’t think so. Just keep moving those goalposts, keep fcucking that chicken.

    If you were ever to grow up and act like a mature, non-insane rational person I would enjoy the discourse. Until, such time I will grant you all the attention you deserve. Tata

    Comment by PeeJ — May 11, 2012 @ 11:24 pm - May 11, 2012

  49. I have to say, I find it a bit of a mystery why the guy who is arguing against equal treatment under the law is referring to those who argue in favor of it as “bigots.” I challenge you to point out a single bigoted statement I’ve made. Schooling you on the definitions of words and the constitution and the law has nothing to do with “bigotry” and everything to do with not just being some know-it-all blowhard dumbass who just makes crap up as he goes along. I know your butt hurts because you tripped over your own stupid with that referendum nonsense, but you’ve sprinkled your every post with calling me a bigot, and like all else, you’ve failed to demonstrate any evidence as to the accuracy of that description.

    Unless, of course, “bigot” now means something else, according to you, just like “referendum” does. If that’s the case, let’s hear your new ‘n improved definition.

    As to your moronic observation about the Loving case, it was never challenged under full faith & credit but rather under equal protection grounds. Which might, you know, explain why no case on full faith & credit grounds was ever heard, because as you probably haven’t guessed, once the Supreme Court said “you can’t outlaw interracial marriage,” there was NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUITS, because all state laws outlawing “miscegenation” were null and void.

    And as for your even dumber ploy regarding concealed carry laws, those refer to what you can legally do WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE STATE WITH THE LAW. Are you really suggesting that because Arizona says you can openly carry your firearm in any daycare in the state that somehow it’s a violation of full faith & credit that you can’t do the same in New York? If you really believe that, I take back my earlier characterization of you being dishonest, because in point of fact you’re dumber than dirt.

    Going all the way back to your “I provided a quote,” the equivalent of “but it’s got FOOTNOTES!” as a proof of veracity, I don’t care about your quote. It doesn’t change anything. Madison was quite clear in his feelings on direct vs representative democracy, and while I am sure you will not avail yourself of the opportunity to cure even a small portion of your native ignorance, the quote you quoted 1) did not come from Federalist 10, which I referred to in my very first post here – you know, the one you attacked as being wrong because according to you, “referendums” are the same as ratifications by state legislative bodies – as the basis of my point about Madison’s distrust of direct democracy (or democracy conducted solely via referendum), and 2) while Madison waxes eloquent about people’s control of government, he expected it to be exercised through representatives they had elected, again as he makes clear in that original document you refuse to read, as the mechanism by which “they could alter constitutions as they pleased.” You’re apparently too dumb to even recognize that the quote you posted as an “AHA!” is nothing more than Madison stating again that ultimately power rests with the people – perhaps you’ll be so good as to point out to all of us where you’re getting “via direct democracy” in that quote? Because it ain’t there.

    To sum up: you’ve been completely pwnd, and not content with simply looking like a fool in front of everyone who’s reading this thread, you’re jumping up and down and screeching, “but wait! I CAN BE AN EVEN BIGGER IDIOT! Watch THIS!” Which I suppose is somewhat amusing in the same manner as watching monkeys at the zoo flinging feces at one another, but no more than that.

    Carry on. I’m sure before all is said and done, you can convince us you’re twice as dumb as we all think you are right this moment.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 11, 2012 @ 11:50 pm - May 11, 2012

  50. Yo, NDT. Can we stop grasping for personal assaults as interpreted by drunk drug addict nut jobs and talk about the issues? How about we talk about substance instead of throwing arrows? Couldn’t we discuss, like sane adults, the facts? Nah, didn’t think so. Just keep moving those goalposts, keep fcucking that chicken.

    That’s right, PeeJ. You keep moving and running, trying to get away from what you consider substance and facts.

    If you were ever to grow up and act like a mature, non-insane rational person I would enjoy the discourse.

    Comment by PeeJ — May 11, 2012 @ 11:24 pm – May 11, 2012

    And of course, this is how a “mature, non-insane rational person” carries out discourse.

    So keep running away, PeeJ.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2012 @ 11:54 pm - May 11, 2012

  51. HA HA HA OH WOW.

    People who fight for equal rights are bigots now?
    Huh. Must’ve missed THAT memo.

    “Intolerant” is one of those words (like “torture” “racist” and “bully”) that has had its meaning changed so that leftists can use it as a smear against anyone who disagrees with their agenda.

    “Intolerance” = not tolerating intolerance

    “Torture” = according to Yoo, Addington et al, definitely not waterboarding – Nuremburg notwithstanding – because 911 NEVAR FORGET

    “Racist” = not sufficiently respecting the dire oppression of white male Christian RealAmericans – or doing anything whatsoever to reduce the epic imbalance of power & privilege they enjoy

    “Bully” = anyone who doesn’t either nod or STFU when ridiculous BS is passed off as fact … but not gay-bashers (at least as long as “religious belief” can be cited to justify it)

    So the GOP are leftists?

    Educational to watch just how fast “criticizing a wartime POTUS = supporting terrorism” went down the Memory Hole as of January 2009. Ditto “deficits don’t matter.” What happened back then to magically invert reality overnight, I wonder? Presumably it was the same eldritch incantation that retroactively made “????” President from 2000-2008, while using some as-yet unknown occult power to put a two-week time-limit on the results of ????’s damage to America.

    - How does allowing children to marry damage you?

    - How does allowing incest practitioners to marry damage you?

    - How does allowing bestialists to marry damage you?

    - How does allowing people to marry multiple individuals damage you?

    The 1st & 3rd examples are both abusive & incompatible with consent & are thus damaging to society at large, the 2nd carries a real physical risk to its offspring, which winds up damaging society at large, & the 4th is perennial as a vehicle for slavery by another name. Troll Fu FAIL – I could just as readily argue that classifying women as chattel property doesn’t damage me, nor does legalizing human sacrifice, as long as some OTHER person is up on the altar.

    Someone’s failure to address the actual point is showing.

    Interesting that nobody here sees any problem with putting basic civil rights to a popular vote – & in fact the prevailing opinion seems to be that opposing such societally toxic folly means LIBERAL FASCISM ISREAL. That the Founding Fathers explicitly stated that they feared the results of Democracy Gone Wild in regards to individual liberty almost as much as a standing army or political parties is surely central to their point, somehow.

    It sure is a real hoot to see the GOP’s Small Government fanboys cheerleading for an approach to governance guaranteed to create a bureaucratic nightmare of 50 de-facto micronations that would all have to work around the Byzantine maze of laws & regulations that “States’ Rights” inevitably leads to (good thing the states’ budgets are so abundant, so they can easily afford this total waste of time & money)… or for that matter, whistling past the graveyard of who ELSE loooooves them some State’s Rights (hint: they’d also love to give LGBT people a free one-way train ride to camp for some Zyklon-B Therapy).

    PS: “Gays are free to marry people of the opposite sex, ergo STFU” – please tell me you’re trolling, because the alternative likely involves the childhood consumption of paint-chips.

    PROTIP: “QED” & “non sequitur” are not synonyms.

    Comment by jim — May 11, 2012 @ 11:55 pm - May 11, 2012

  52. Ah, here comes PeeJ’s fellow bigot, Jenn.

    As to your moronic observation about the Loving case, it was never challenged under full faith & credit but rather under equal protection grounds. Which might, you know, explain why no case on full faith & credit grounds was ever heard, because as you probably haven’t guessed, once the Supreme Court said “you can’t outlaw interracial marriage,” there was NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUITS, because all state laws outlawing “miscegenation” were null and void.

    Actually, nowhere in my post did I even cite Loving.

    You tried to spin and make it about Loving because, like the duplicitous lying bigot that you are, you couldn’t explain why, in the several decades years prior to Loving ever having come about, not a single case was decided in favor of the Full Faith and Credit Clause requiring states to recognize interracial marriages contracted in other states where they were legal.

    Next up:

    And as for your even dumber ploy regarding concealed carry laws, those refer to what you can legally do WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE STATE WITH THE LAW. Are you really suggesting that because Arizona says you can openly carry your firearm in any daycare in the state that somehow it’s a violation of full faith & credit that you can’t do the same in New York?

    Yup. Because remember this?

    Because the constitution says that all states have to respect “the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State,” not just that they have to respect those that they don’t find icky.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 11, 2012 @ 9:08 pm – May 11, 2012

    No exceptions written there. Suddenly you’re twisting yourself into a pretzel to make some up because you find the laws icky. LOL.

    Going all the way back to your “I provided a quote,” the equivalent of “but it’s got FOOTNOTES!” as a proof of veracity, I don’t care about your quote. It doesn’t change anything.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 11, 2012 @ 11:50 pm – May 11, 2012

    So you admit that you don’t care about facts and won’t review anything that contradicts your already determined conclusions.

    That’s bigoted and irrational, but we already know that about you.

    Speaking of which:

    I have to say, I find it a bit of a mystery why the guy who is arguing against equal treatment under the law is referring to those who argue in favor of it as “bigots.” I challenge you to point out a single bigoted statement I’ve made.

    Easy. Here and here.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2012 @ 12:07 am - May 12, 2012

  53. God love you guys for trying. God love you.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 12, 2012 @ 12:26 am - May 12, 2012

  54. So, in defense of calling me a bigot, you link to 2 things, neither of which illustrate me being a bigot? classic.

    Since you’re so het up sure that full faith & credit arguments against miscegenation laws were found unpersuasive by the courts, please cite a case, any case, in which miscegenation laws were challenged on the basis of full faith & credit. Perhaps, you know, the courts never upheld an objection made on that basis because, you know, it was never challenged on that basis.

    As for your pathetic failure to understand the meaning and reach of full faith & credit, please explain to all of us how, if New York has a law that says “you can’t carry a gun in a daycare center in the state of New York” it is failing to respect a law that says “you CAN carry a gun in a daycare center in the state of Arizona.” Nuff said there.

    As for failure to “review anything that contradicts your already determined conclusions,” you presented nothing for “review.” I read the quote you posted, and as already noted, there’s nothing in it regarding direct democracy via referendum as the preferred way of determining the rights of individuals or groups of citizens. It contradicts nothing, while at the same time, not in one iota undermining the point I’ve made all along, which was that Madison did not endorse or favor referenda for determining or protecting rights and civil liberties. In other words, I don’t have to “admit” anything, because you’ve not made a case. Unless of course you want to pick up the challenge and explain to all of us how the quote you provided is actually a ringing endorsement of government via referendum, in direct contradiction to everything else Madison wrote.

    So, to sum up: 1) the “bigoted statements” you attribute as the basis of calling me a bigot were not made by me; 2) you mischaracterize the history of legal challenges of miscegenation laws by pretending that there was a case made on full faith & credit grounds that was rejected by the courts (when in fact, no such case was ever made); 3) you continue to exhibit a tragic lack of understanding of the nature of full faith & credit; and 4) you’ve assailed me for not reviewing a quote which was posted in full here, so there wasn’t much for review, and said that I “admit” I “don’t care about facts” when in reality, the quote you posted for “review” was already fully addressed, but because it doesn’t say what you claim it does – that Madison was a huge fan of apportioning rights via plebiscite, somehow I’m dishonest for not reading something into it something that isn’t there and that in fact is contradicted by pretty much everything else the man ever wrote.

    In short, you’re doing a bang-up job of convincing everyone that you really are much dumber than you appear at first glance. Congratulations on an own-goal brilliantly executed!

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 12:46 am - May 12, 2012

  55. Hey Jim, guess what?

    Since gay and lesbian bigots like you are screaming for all Republicans to be murdered, why don’t we just point out what a lying little hypocrite you are?

    Or how about the fact that you and your fellow barebackers have driven the US HIV rate among children, teens, and yound adults to twice that of sub-Saharan Africa, mainly because you can’t keep your hands off your own kids?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2012 @ 12:52 am - May 12, 2012

  56. Jenn, you attached your comment to my blog post and used some very uncivil language without even acknowledging my arguments. Hence, my followup.

    And oh yeah, I thought it was a bad thing to question someone’s patriotism. Oh, wait, that’s when your allies alleged that W did it all the time (when he, in fact, never did such a thing).

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 12, 2012 @ 1:24 am - May 12, 2012

  57. Mr. Blatt, I’m sorry if you were offended that I addressed Mr. Kristol’s absurdity in comments on your post, but since your post mostly consisted of a link and reiteration of Mr. Kristol’s piece, I didn’t think it out of place. I am perplexed as to what you considered “uncivil” in my language, seeing as how some of your regular commenters do little other than fling baseless insults against those with whom they disagree, while I at least demonstrated what was objectionable about Kristol’s description of the goings-on in North Carolina as a prime example of “Madisonian democracy.”

    As for me questioning Mr. Kristol’s patriotism, he has a long history of impugning the patriotism of those with whom he does not agree, of rhetorically asking why they “hate freedom” or “hate America,” and as such I don’t think it’s unfair to question him similarly when he wilfully and knowingly misrepresents the opinions of the founding fathers by suggesting that James Madison was down with letting the majority decide which rights individuals and minority groups should be allowed to enjoy.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 1:39 am - May 12, 2012

  58. ND30 >> I forget … do you include me in the group you designate as barebackers? I can never remember.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 12, 2012 @ 1:51 am - May 12, 2012

  59. Since you’re so het up sure that full faith & credit arguments against miscegenation laws were found unpersuasive by the courts, please cite a case, any case, in which miscegenation laws were challenged on the basis of full faith & credit. Perhaps, you know, the courts never upheld an objection made on that basis because, you know, it was never challenged on that basis.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 12:46 am – May 12, 2012

    Or perhaps it’s because you simply didn’t do your research.

    When a couple asks a court to recognize their marriage in this type of situation, the analysis has always been very different. A marriage is not the same thing as a court judgment. The mere act by one state of marrying a couple has never been entitled to the kind of mandatory legal enforcement that judgments receive in our legal system. Rather, courts have always treated the recognition of out-of-state marriages as a matter of public policy, and various factors have influenced the decisions that states have made about recognizing an out-of-state marriage that could not have been entered into locally.

    And:

    Most scholars and commentators in the field of Conflict of Laws — the area of law that deals with this kind of dispute across state lines — agree that states should have the power to decline to give effect to an out-of-state marriage that is inconsistent with local laws, whether because that marriage violates public policy, because it was the result of a couple deliberately evading local marriage laws, or for some other reason.

    Now, since we know what comes next, which is you screaming about Liberty University and whatnot as you desperately try to spin out of your own stupidity and failure to do any research rather than repeating talking points, here is the author’s bio.

    They’re called facts, Jenn. We know you don’t bother with them, as you so proudly bragged; you just repeat Obama talking points, the arrogance of ignorance all you need to spout your usual drivel.

    And, to no one’s surprise, you’re a huge advocate and supporter of Sadly, No! and Tintin, which means you support and endorse this.

    Very rational there. And also showing that not only are you a bigot, you’re a Jew-hating bigot as well.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2012 @ 2:29 am - May 12, 2012

  60. I am perplexed as to what you considered “uncivil” in my language, seeing as how some of your regular commenters do little other than fling baseless insults against those with whom they disagree

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 1:39 am – May 12, 2012

    Let’s post an example of what JennofArk and her friends at Sadly, No! consider civil discourse.

    Dan Blatt is a loathsome piece of sh*t who will sell out other gay people in order to curry the favor of straight Republicans who pat him on the head every now but then call him a c*ck-sucking heels-in-the-air fudge-packed girlie-boy behind his back (even though only the girlie-boy part is actually true). Dan says all this stuff because the probability that any gay man would ever give enough of a sh!t about Dan to visit him in a hospital, much less to have a relationship with him, is remote — as remote as the possibility that Dan will ever have sex with anyone other than a blind leper in a darkened truck stop in rural Alabama, and even then the leper will have to down a fifth of Jack Daniel’s before he can bring himself to do it. F*ck you, Dan, you wretched, illiterate prick.

    My, my. Usually hypocrites aren’t nearly that stupidly blatant, but JennofArk is special.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2012 @ 2:49 am - May 12, 2012

  61. North Dallas CineSnatchy,

    If JennOfArk has to take responsibility for those words in your second blockquote of Post #60, then it follows that you placed those scissors in Romney’s hands. Just sayin’ …

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 12, 2012 @ 3:50 am - May 12, 2012

  62. JennofArk, are you Tintin? In other words, did you author that post that NDT referenced?

    Comment by Pat — May 12, 2012 @ 8:40 am - May 12, 2012

  63. Jennifer, actor212, Tintin, ALL ONE GUY!

    Comment by PeeJ — May 12, 2012 @ 10:53 am - May 12, 2012

  64. Thank you RT,

    So you support someone having multiple partners, since they can’t, that’s ‘discrimination’.

    You support 10 year olds being married in CA, since that’s ‘age discrimination’.

    You support the blind getting driving livenses., since that is ‘disability discrimination’.

    You support psychopaths getting grenade launchers, since that’s discriminating against the mentally ill.

    After all, all those groups don’t meat the current requirements for recognition, so it must be discrimination.

    Try again.

    Jenn has the same privilege as any other woman of having her union with a man recognized. Again how is that discriminatory?

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 12, 2012 @ 10:58 am - May 12, 2012

  65. Also it’s telling that Jenn’s ‘constitutional scholar’ nature can’t even answer my question.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 12, 2012 @ 11:04 am - May 12, 2012

  66. LW, it doesn’t follow that I support any of those things. After all, the law allows and even enforces many kinds of discrimination, such as the ones you mentioned. There’s ample legal history in our country grappling with the issue of what types of discrimination should be legal and what should not. That gets us into rational and strict scrutiny, and so on.

    But your original question didn’t asked about that. You merely asked how it was discrimination. And, as I said: Jenn has the legal right to marry my long-term partner and I do not, purely on the basis of gender. That, obviously, is gender discrimination.

    Now, whether this discrimination is just and whether it should be legal, those are follow up questions, which I’d be happy to answer after you acknowledge gender discrimination is at play here.

    Comment by rt — May 12, 2012 @ 11:13 am - May 12, 2012

  67. LW, I’m not your bitch; I don’t have to come at your beck and call to answer the most recent ridiculous rhetorical question you’ve come up with. Perhaps you may have noticed that I hadn’t posted here since late last night before jumping up and down and screeching about how I “can’t answer your question.” What, you think I have a GayPatriot beacon like the bat signal or something that alerts me when some dummy wants to waste my time with stupid counterfactuals? Well, let’s put that to rest: I don’t.

    Now, as to your dumb rhetorical questions:
    1) there are documented social problems – that affect all of us – that occur with polygamy, including but not limited to expulsion of young men from their homes to prevent “competition” for women, marriage and sex with girls as young as 10, failure to support multiple wives and their children which leads to welfare dependency. As soon as you can either tell us why those factors should have no impact on polygamy remaining illegal, or conversely, how allowing two persons of the same sex to marry creates the same problems, it’s as we’ve pointed out before, a really stupid argument.
    2) No one, other than the polygamists you insist are the equivalent of same-sex couples, advocates marriage of 10 year olds, and given that they aren’t of the age of legal consent, it’s hard to see how they could enter into a legal contract with another person of their own volition.
    Another dumb argument.
    3) A driver’s license is predicated on being able to safely perform the function of driving. Those who are blind or have seizure disorder clearly don’t fit those parameters; granting them licenses would endanger the lives of other drivers and passengers on the roads. As soon as you can demonstrate how allowing a same-sex couple to marry endangers the lives of others, you might have a point other than the one on top of your head.
    4) To the best of my knowledge, no one outside of the military is allowed free access to grenade launchers, regardless of their mental health. You might as well be ranting about how your second amendment rights are being infringed because you’re not allowed to possess a personal nuclear warhead. Again, this is just a dumb argument, unless you can demonstrate how allowing a same-sex couple to marry might result in innocent bystanders having their limbs blown off.

    Now, don’t screech again about how I “can’t” respond to you; I CAN, but I WILL NOT as long as you continue to posit such blatantly absurd tripe as you have here. Taking on your stupid arguments is like a Dick Cheney quail hunt – it’s not sporting.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 12:39 pm - May 12, 2012

  68. Not gay, nor a bigot, nor a barebacker, nor do I have any kids – & I find the ad hominem in place of anything more relevant or substantial very, VERY amusing … but what the heck, feel free to keep digging … you never know: maybe there’s a magical pony for you at the bottom.

    For some REAL Republican “Family Values” insight, Google “armchair subversive blog” – but make sure you bring a barf-bag … & keep in mind that every single sickening crime listed there (& the sheer quantity of that catalog of horrors is literally breathtaking) is on the public record.

    It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to deduce that psychopaths – including sexual predators like pedophiles – will almost all naturally gravitate toward an authoritarian culture where they can acquire (& abuse) the maximum power over their victims. When that culture denies their existence &/or doesn’t do anything to weed them out, there’s an excellent chance they’ll wind up becoming its dominant subculture: they’re usually both intelligent & very skilled at psychological & emotional manipulation – & they play by their own rules.

    Comment by jim — May 12, 2012 @ 12:45 pm - May 12, 2012

  69. After all, the law allows and even enforces many kinds of discrimination, such as the ones you mentioned.

    Thank you for conceeding that. That is the point. You want the government to recognize same sex partnerships, make that argument (Surprise, as I have). Don’t whine that it is ‘unfair’ unless you want to be supporting 10 year olds getting married (as the 9th circut has).

    As an aside, it’s still not discriminatory. She can marry any one person of the opposite sex. You can married any one person of the opposite sex.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 12, 2012 @ 3:06 pm - May 12, 2012

  70. And thank you Jenn for proving you *can’t* answer my question.

    Actually, the 10 year olds and grenade launchers are directly from the 9th Circut’s ruling on Prop 8.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 12, 2012 @ 3:20 pm - May 12, 2012

  71. LW, I’m not “conceding” that — I’ve never said anything else.

    And of course it’s still discriminatory. Yes, Jenn and I both have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex, so when it comes to that right, there’s no discrimination. But it’s simultaneously true that Jenn has the legal right to marry my long-term partner and I do not, purely on the basis of gender.

    You have found an aspect of current marriage law that is not discriminatory. I have named another aspect that is discriminatory. Ergo, the while you’ve established the law is not discriminatory in every imaginable way, I have established that it’s discriminatory in at least one way — gender discrimination.

    Thus, I’ve answered your question, ““How is that discriminatory?”

    Comment by rt — May 12, 2012 @ 3:42 pm - May 12, 2012

  72. Taking on your stupid arguments is like a Dick Cheney quail hunt – it’s not sporting

    I nominate this for best line in the thread.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 12, 2012 @ 4:12 pm - May 12, 2012

  73. And a blind person can’t get a drivers license, RT. Your point?

    There are qualifications for government recognition. You aren’t singled out for not meeting them. A blind man can’t get a driver’s license. You can’t marry a 10 year old. In both cases why? Because the qualifications set for the privilege are not met. You can’t marry a man any more than I can. So how is that discrimination based on orientation? Jenn can get married if the relationship meets the qualifications. So can my sister? Again, how is that singling out sexual orientation? Men can enter it. Women can enter it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 12, 2012 @ 5:20 pm - May 12, 2012

  74. Name for us any other legal contract in which the parties’ genitals determine whether or not they may legally enter into the contract.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 5:52 pm - May 12, 2012

  75. How about the left’s favorite, hiring and employment quotas based on gender?

    Or mandatory pay levels based on gender?

    Or contracts set aside by the government for female-owned businesses?

    Seems you like genital-based discrimination a lot, Jenn.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2012 @ 6:25 pm - May 12, 2012

  76. Well, it’s clear Jenn can’t answer my question honestly, so she’s off to non-sequeter land.

    Still, I’ll amuse her. States requiring no copay for routine mammograms/pap smears. Congratulations, you lose, again.

    Do you agree with the 9th circut that once a privilege has been extended to a group by a state it can’t be revoked? Or do you agree with the President that Prop 8 should stand since it was determined by the state?

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 12, 2012 @ 6:27 pm - May 12, 2012

  77. Seems you like genital-based discrimination a lot, Jenn.

    Which is way less kinker than it sounds. ;-)

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 12, 2012 @ 6:28 pm - May 12, 2012

  78. What you don’t get is a lot, NDT. And when I say “don’t get,” I’m sure it’s true on multiple levels.

    Name for me any other contract between two individuals where the government grants or disallows the contract based on the parties genitalia. Last time I checked, quotas weren’t considered contracts.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 6:30 pm - May 12, 2012

  79. If you amuse me, it’s through your poor understanding of the term “contract”. Last time I checked, insurance coverage isn’t extended or denied based on the insured’s genitalia.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 6:34 pm - May 12, 2012

  80. Of course, that’s coming from Jenn, who says Government contracts awarded on the basis of the gender of the business owner/contractor are not contracts.

    Don’t bother Bigot Jenn with facts. Lol.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2012 @ 6:42 pm - May 12, 2012

  81. thank you for displaying your ignorance.

    When you sign up for a policy, you agree between yourself and the insurance company for coverage of services. That’s a contract.

    When a doctor agrees to a payment schedule for services rendered, it includes writing off for non-covered services. That’s a contract.

    both are contracts with conditions specifically based on genitals. A man can’t enter a contract to have his mammograms covered at a routine benefit.

    Would you like to display more ignorance for us Jenn?

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 12, 2012 @ 6:43 pm - May 12, 2012

  82. Ok, now smartguy tell me – where’s the law that says “insurers can only enter into contracts with insureds who have male genitalia”? The services offered vary based on the gender of the insured, but the ability to ENTER INTO THE CONTRACT does not. The law doesn’t care. The only place where the law DOES stipulate that parties to a contract have to be of specific genders is the MARRIAGE contract. Again, you’re free to try to think of another one in which the government says, “oh, you’re both men so you can’t make this contract together” or “you’re a woman so you can’t enter into this contract” or whatever. They don’t exist.

    So, here’s your opportunity to make yet a bigger fool of yourself by trying again.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 6:51 pm - May 12, 2012

  83. Just to add – the law doesn’t stipulate that a man can’t buy an insurance policy that covers mammograms as a routine benefit. Men don’t typically buy policies for themselves that cover mammograms because…well, they’re men, so that would be stupid (just like your example is), but there’s no law prohibiting them from buying such a policy or “entering into a contract” for such a policy from an insurer.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 7:21 pm - May 12, 2012

  84. LW, in comment 73, you asked me my point. Here it is: I entered this conversation because you asked, “How is that discriminatory?” I’m answering you.

    Regarding the rest comment 73: Nowhere in this thread have I said that current marriage law discriminates based on orientation. In comments 39, 66, and 71, I identified it as discrimination based on gender.

    As for a blind person who can’t get a driver’s license: yes, that’s discrimination based on a disability — and that’s okay. As I said in comment 66:

    “After all, the law allows and even enforces many kinds of discrimination, such as the ones you mentioned. There’s ample legal history in our country grappling with the issue of what types of discrimination should be legal and what should not.”

    But that’s off topic, because the issue at hand is “How is that discriminatory?” — not whether such discrimination should be legal.

    Now, back on topic, please explain me how a law that permits Jenn to do something but forbids me from doing it, ENTIRELY based on gender, is not a case of gender discrimination.

    By the way, invoking the word “qualifications” doesn’t get you out of the discrimination quandary: Qualifications can themselves be discriminatory (look at the qualifications for getting into some country clubs back in the 50s, or the 19th amendment, which eliminated a discriminatory qualification for voting).

    Comment by rt — May 12, 2012 @ 9:12 pm - May 12, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.