GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/12/07/breaking-supreme-court-will-hear-prop-8-and-doma/trackback/

  1. Because this is, y’know, so much more important than the $16.3 Trillion Dollar Debt and 12% unemployment.

    Comment by V the K — December 7, 2012 @ 3:54 pm - December 7, 2012

  2. Agreed with VtheK,

    That said, any chance you’d post NOM’s statement?

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 7, 2012 @ 3:58 pm - December 7, 2012

  3. Just added NOM statement to main post.

    Comment by Bruce Carroll - @GayPatriot — December 7, 2012 @ 4:30 pm - December 7, 2012

  4. #1…are you too lazy or just not smart enough to concentrate on more than one issue at a time? For the record, I agree with what you said but fail to see the point of actually saying it. Explain?

    Comment by Eddie Swaim — December 7, 2012 @ 4:41 pm - December 7, 2012

  5. I love how the phrase ‘Freedom to Marry’ is used, as if same-sex couples cannot engage in marriage ceremonies. For decades, homosexuals held the idea that their relationships were no one’s business and that the greater society need not influence their sexual identities — that to be left alone was a worthy societal position and goal. Now, homosexuals’ relationships aren’t valid until government forces the greater society to submit to recognition, acceptance, and approval through the brute force of law. To say nothing of privileges vs. rights, of course.

    Comment by Ignatius — December 7, 2012 @ 4:52 pm - December 7, 2012

  6. 1. Because this is, y’know, so much more important than the $16.3 Trillion Dollar Debt and 12% unemployment.

    Why, yes it is! People are suffering, every day! Suffering, I tell you!

    Comment by RSG — December 7, 2012 @ 6:41 pm - December 7, 2012

  7. I consider myself a libertarian when comes to how to handle the issue of marriage. Should be handled by the state NOT THE FEDS. That said I’m in agreement with what Eddie Swaim said. If gays have had the idea of relationships of being their business and no one else’s then why the hell are they all of a suddenly saying can’t marry until legally recognized from the Feds? Then again Bolsheviks are always big hypocrites in what they say versus what they do.

    Comment by Jonathan Gillispie — December 7, 2012 @ 7:06 pm - December 7, 2012

  8. West Hollywood hopeful on Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
    December 7, 2012 | 5:07 pm

    10
    0
    Residents and officials from the city of West Hollywood, with its enormous gay population, were both hopeful and wary at a news conference following the Supreme Court’s decision Friday to take up California’s Proposition 8.

    Comment by rusty — December 7, 2012 @ 8:47 pm - December 7, 2012

  9. Prediction:
    DOMA goes down.
    Prop 8: SCOTUS spanks 9th circuit and Prop 8 stands. No gay marriage in Calif. evah.

    Comment by Paul A'Barge — December 7, 2012 @ 8:50 pm - December 7, 2012

  10. Log Cabin Republicans
    Today’s decision by the Supreme Court to review Proposition 8 and hear a challenge to DOMA is another step forward for California couples to marry, with the hope that the federal government will also recognize these marriages,” said Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper. “In recent years, many conservative judges have repudiated DOMA, and five of the eight justices who have overturned this anti-federalist and discriminatory statute were appointed by Republicans. Add conservative champions like for former Solicitor General, Ted Olson, and it becomes clear that true conservatism demands respect for the freedom to marry.

    Comment by rusty — December 7, 2012 @ 8:53 pm - December 7, 2012

  11. If gays have had the idea of relationships of being their business and no one else’s then why the hell are they all of a suddenly saying can’t marry until legally recognized from the Feds?

    Two words: free stuff. As in Matthew Lesko-style from-the-gub’mint [emphasis on 'mint'] free stuff…

    Comment by RSG — December 7, 2012 @ 9:03 pm - December 7, 2012

  12. A lot of people based their vote in November on this silly issue; deciding that despite Obama’s comprehensively disastrous fiscal and economic policies, they would vote to re-elect him, because he gave lip-service to same-sex marriage.

    Comment by V the K — December 7, 2012 @ 11:14 pm - December 7, 2012

  13. Oh, I’m almost certain SSM will pass nationally. Thing is, what activists really want are conservative heads on a platter. They’ll get what they profess to need, but they’ll be frustrated because they didn’t get what they wanted, because churches don’t have to marry anybody they don’t want to.

    Comment by Douglas — December 8, 2012 @ 1:37 am - December 8, 2012

  14. Whatever happened to pride in rejecting social norms? Now the gay community wants ot mimic the straight and become wonderbread. I’ve always argued that they should fight for equal enforcement of contracts (contract to have so and so at your deathbed, contract for right of attorney, etc.) and elimination of special tax rules for married couples; this would benefit everybody. On that note, I would like to start a movement: SINGLE equality. I may be just as in love with my boyfriend as an unmarried couple but have chosen to remain single because it’s our choice…no OUR RIGHT, or we don’t believe in marriage. Why should we be forced to get married to get all the benefits of marriage? IT’S UNFAIR! IT’S A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE! SINGLE EQUALITY NOW!!!

    Comment by AZ Mo in NYC — December 8, 2012 @ 1:45 am - December 8, 2012

  15. “Each day of delay brings more suffering and hardship. ”

    Pathetic hyperbole.

    They just want a toy just because other kids have it. As soon as they have it, they will go after the church.

    Spoiled and self centered children are like that

    Comment by susan — December 8, 2012 @ 2:52 am - December 8, 2012

  16. @Paul A’Barge: That’s about what I expect, although I wouldn’t say “evah” in the case of California. Of course in these days of Kelo, Obamacare, etc. predicting what SCOTUS will do is rather tricky.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 8, 2012 @ 7:55 am - December 8, 2012

  17. Should be handled by the state NOT THE FEDS

    I think gay marriage should be a state level issue.

    I do have issues with DOMA. I think couples married and living in states that recognize them should receive the same Federal benefits that heterosexual couples do (taxes and especially the ability to claim a deceased spouse’s social security benefits).

    I think the gay marriage boat is close to going over the waterfall and it won’t be long before it is a reality in all states, but I would like to see the cascade over the falls a decision made at the state level and not imposed through the courts.

    Comment by Just Me — December 8, 2012 @ 8:26 am - December 8, 2012

  18. “Each day of delay brings more suffering and hardship. ”

    Pathetic hyperbole.

    Teh Gheys do love their fantasies of victimhood.

    Comment by V the K — December 8, 2012 @ 9:30 am - December 8, 2012

  19. The court will approach the issue w/ caution seeing that 41 states still ban same-sex marriage. They didn’t strike down interracial marriage bans till 1967 when 16 states still did so. So I could see’m strike down Prop 8 but not go nationwide. The court strikes something down when it’s very clear what the majority of public opinion think and 41 states still ban it.

    Comment by Jonathan Gillispie — December 8, 2012 @ 10:18 am - December 8, 2012

  20. I do have issues with DOMA. I think couples married and living in states that recognize them should receive the same Federal benefits that heterosexual couples do (taxes and especially the ability to claim a deceased spouse’s social security benefits).

    Comment by Just Me — December 8, 2012 @ 8:26 am – December 8, 2012

    I don’t. They’re Federal benefits, and for some other reason, the Federal government is good at ignoring the states on everything else and imposing its own rules on who qualifies for what benefits.

    The reason for survivor Social Security benefits is simple; when Social Security was created, generally only one spouse worked, and thus only one spouse was actually eligible for Social Security. The survivor benefits were designed for the nonworking spouse to be able to live on in the event of the working spouse’s death. However, in this day and age, two-income households where both spouses are eligible for Social Security are much more the norm, and in several cases the family maximum that can be paid is lower than the individual standalone maximum benefit to which each is entitled. This is why California, Arizona, and other states that have opposite-sex domestic partner laws require at least one partner to be over the minimum Social Security age of 62; they’re using it as a dodge to allow people to collect more Social Security by sidestepping the family maximum.

    Furthermore, if you wanted to fix that part, that’s easy; just change the law to match private pensions and 401(k)s, in which you are able to designate anyone you want as your beneficiary. There could even be safeguards built in to cap it, i.e. you have to be of Social Security eligible age and the maximum amount you can be paid by Social Security, including your own benefit and anyone else’s who you inherit, is equal to the individual maximum. Indeed, you would have overwhelming Republican support for this, because the laws about divorce and remarrying around Social Security are contradictory and crazy, and this would effectively remove that as a problem.

    The constant whining from the gay community about “suffering” is incomprehensible to those of us who have long been negotiating these types of fixes and recognize that the vast majority of them are easily handled through tweaks in existing law that would have bipartisan support.

    Unless, of course, you start to realize that gay marriage is less about marriage than it is about smokescreening antireligious bigotry.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 8, 2012 @ 11:45 am - December 8, 2012

  21. As usual ndt nails the matter perfectly in a way that cannot be refuted. His detractors rely on cheap emotionalism, they stomp and pout without bringing anything to the table other than ‘CHRISTONAZIS’, ‘BIGOTS’, ‘HOMOPHOBIANS’.

    And yes, I underline once again how the gays are completely out of touch with reality (Each day of delay brings more suffering and hardship) when families with children fail to bring food on their tables, are long-time unemployed etc etc. Talk about Mitt Romney! The real out of touch are by far the homo lobby.

    I also wonder how billions of women throughout history, maybe widows and without the political power that the gays have, could manage to survive without those benefits (because marriage or not, those benefits are recent matter).

    Comment by susan — December 8, 2012 @ 12:11 pm - December 8, 2012

  22. NDT’s comment makes me wonder how many of our seemingly intractable social issues are caused by the existence of the welfare state. If there were no “benefits” (i.e. “free sh-t from the Government”) attached to marriage, would Teh Gheys even want it?

    Comment by V the K — December 8, 2012 @ 2:02 pm - December 8, 2012

  23. “If there were no “benefits” (i.e. “free sh-t from the Government”) attached to marriage, would Teh Gheys even want it?”

    Sticking the finger to Christians is still the main force. After all, Glaadd, pflaag and all the other alphabetical orgs assure us that gays are super geniuses and they earn twice as much as inferior heteros (not to mention all the gay celebrities and entrepreneurs), therefore it would be diminishing of them to admit they desperately need survival benefits.

    Reason 1 is to capture a sense of normality through the most bourgeois institution ever created
    Reason 2 (but really close) is to vilify Christians via courts. Note that no gay orgs will ever sue a Muslim wedding photographer or catering company

    The ability to vilify others is a powerful tool. There isn’t a single post about the matter where proponents of gay marriage restraint from insulting Christians, the bible etc. This is even before someone brings up the religious factor.

    This blog is an example, nobody among the opponents brings up religion but the usual suspects among the proponents never fail to mention and insult believers.

    The nazis started with the dehumanization of Jews.

    Comment by susan — December 8, 2012 @ 2:42 pm - December 8, 2012

  24. First, they claim they want marriage in the interested of freedom and equality.

    As soon as it passes, they start looking for people to sue, like wedding photographers who don’t want to photograph gay nuptials.

    It’s basically about power.

    Comment by V the K — December 8, 2012 @ 3:08 pm - December 8, 2012

  25. Susan @ 23 and V the K @ 24, spot on! Now, what do we do about it?

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 8, 2012 @ 4:00 pm - December 8, 2012

  26. Problem is many gay “conservatives” are social liberals–particularly when it comes to gay issues–and want to stick it to Christians with the same gusto as avowed Leftists. They just lie about it.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 8, 2012 @ 4:08 pm - December 8, 2012

  27. We don’t need to do anything about it. When the host dies, the parasites die.

    We are at the the end of the natural cycle of our civilization. Civilizations are born, they grow, they stagnate, and then they die. It happened to the Egyptians, it happened to the Chinese, it happened to the Romans… it always happens when the political class becomes greedy and corrupt, and the populace becomes decadent and self-absorbed.

    When our civilization goes, it will be the people who are most dependent on the state who won’t survive to build the next civilization.

    Comment by V the K — December 8, 2012 @ 4:43 pm - December 8, 2012

  28. Sat Dec 8, 2012 1:29 PM
    SALT LAKE CITY — Mormon leaders made their most significant outreach yet to gays and lesbians, unveiling a new website that encourages church members to be more compassionate in discussions about homosexuality.

    “This is huge,” said Gustav-Wrathall, who has been with his partner for 20 years. “I don’t see any hint of condemnation.”

    Gustav-Wrathall grew up Mormon, served a mission and started college at Brigham Young University. As he grappled with being gay, he considered marrying a woman and eventually fell into deep depression and nearly committed suicide.

    He left BYU and figured he would never return to the Mormon church. But in 2005, he felt called to begin going to worship services again at a ward in Minneapolis. Although he remains ex-communicated, he said many of the church members and the bishop have gradually accepted him even knowing he’s openly gay and married to a man.

    Gustav-Wrathall thinks this new official communication from church leaders will push open the door for even the most resistant church members to form friendships with gay and lesbians.

    “This is an opportunity that God is giving us to learn patience, love, forgiveness,” he said. “We have to wrestle with these things without having a clear cut answer.”

    Comment by rusty — December 8, 2012 @ 4:45 pm - December 8, 2012

  29. It’s the “ick” factor working the other way. It’s a nice change, if you ask me.

    It is real simple. As gays and lesbians have made progress, the rational have been peeled off the anti-equality movement. What’s left behind are the hard core true believers, and the anti-equality message has become more shrill and less persuasive.

    The anti-equality forces are down to the likes of Brian Fischer, Peter LaBarbera, Robert Knight, Tony Perkins, Peter Sprigg, Lou Sheldon, Janet Mefferd, Jim Daly and their ilk.

    It has gotten to the point where even Republican politicians are becoming leery about being seen too close to these nutcases during daylight hours.

    In my view (as apparently in yours), the more they talk, the more they help.

    Tom Scharbach December 8, 2012 at 7:35 am over at IGF

    Comment by rusty — December 8, 2012 @ 5:01 pm - December 8, 2012

  30. Anybody cares to guess which side John Roberts will side with? His last major vote reveals himself to be a typical Socialist Catholic. I’m praying to the Virgin Mary he’s not a typical Homophobic One, too. But I’m not having much hope though. We now know he’s not attracted to the Conservatives for their Small-Government values. John Roberts’ attraction to the Conservatives must therefore be for their um… OTHER values

    Comment by The Other Me — December 8, 2012 @ 5:39 pm - December 8, 2012

  31. SALT LAKE CITY — Mormon leaders made their most significant outreach yet to gays and lesbians, unveiling a new website that encourages church members to be more compassionate in discussions about homosexuality.

    This is the latest follow-up to their action last year which was a move to support antidiscrimination laws. As I see it, it’s a triangulation to their efforts to retain M-F marriage and remain opposed to the same-gender marriage bandwagon. Too bad Teh Gheys won’t recognize it on face value, but instead as just another meaningless action designed to focus attention away from the real issue, “marriage equality”.

    Comment by RSG — December 8, 2012 @ 5:47 pm - December 8, 2012

  32. It is going to be an interesting ruling. The state supreme court upheld it by a fairly wide margin. A three judge panel in the 9th circuit overturned it. The wife of one of the judges overturning the ruling also wrote the brief for a Southern California ACLU office against it. It is really a case of the US Supreme Court going up against a state Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit was just the setup for the showdown.

    Comment by crosspatch — December 8, 2012 @ 7:37 pm - December 8, 2012

  33. V the K @ 27, how depressing.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 8, 2012 @ 8:22 pm - December 8, 2012

  34. There’s nothing “anti-equality” about opposing gay marriage, or the mainstreaming of homosexuality. If those things are “anti-equality” is it also “anti-equality” to oppose polygamous marriage or the mainstreaming of the polygamous lifestyle? Most SSM supporters piously wrap themselves in the banner of freedom and tolerance while actively disdaining other non-traditional sexual lifestyles and domestic arrangements, and never see–or pretend not to see–their hypocrisy. And of course, they’re never called out on it by our illustrious mainstream media. Must be nice.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 8, 2012 @ 8:39 pm - December 8, 2012

  35. I am a Federalist in most cases… but I have to say, marriage, is the glue that holds societies together. Note that Canadian sociologist/scholar/homosexual, Paul Nathanson, considers these points [see below] critical to the continued survival of any culture. He continues “Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, … every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . … Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm” that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.”

    • Foster the bonding between men and women
    • Foster the birth and rearing of children
    • Foster the bonding between men and children
    • Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
    • Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults

    ALL THAT aside. The left has a way of taking something noble and ruining it. And since this is primarily a leftist movement, there can be nothing noble about it. So, Catholic Charities in Massachusetts and Illinois have shut down or are being shut down. The absolute myth that the Salvation Army is “anti-gay” in whom they house and give blankets to and students trying to ban them from campus.

    EVEN IF there was an overriding “liberty” cause behind same-sex marriage, a conservative gay man or women would want to hold it up until there were more sane minds behind this push. Because we can all agree here — at least — that the LEFT ruins most things it touches. And it is totally destroying what some would think is noble.

    Comment by Papa Giorgio — December 9, 2012 @ 2:43 am - December 9, 2012

  36. As a wise sage has posted. . .

    You don’t have to like someone and not oppose dishonest smears against them.

    And if you think it is ok to smear someone over and over and over, just because you disagree with that person, your ethics are questionable.

    Comment by rusty — December 9, 2012 @ 3:28 am - December 9, 2012

  37. 30. Anybody cares to guess which side John Roberts will side with? His last major vote reveals himself to be a typical Socialist Catholic. I’m praying to the Virgin Mary he’s not a typical Homophobic One, too. But I’m not having much hope though.

    I don’t feel Justice Roberts’ ruling on the ACA had much to do with his personal philosophical or religious beliefs, but rather a subtle warning that the SCOTUS was getting tired of being seen as the grand savior of one particular side in an overarching issue and then being used as political cover. To that end, he gave Republicans a gift in saying: “It’s a tax.” But the Republicans weren’t able to convey that ruling in the 2012 elections by using the strategy that taxes aren’t always necessary and are often ill-spent; indeed, they got outfoxed on that issue by the Democrats. “Yeah, tax the rich!” was the ballot box cry. But most wise people know that it’s never just The Rich (or sometimes at all) that get hit with tax increases.

    Perhaps he also realized that the ACA was just too gargantuan to simply knock down in one fell swoop. Don’t forget that the de facto head of the Roman Catholic Church in the USA, Timothy Cardinal Dolan, is the cheerleader for the challenge to the religious freedom restrictions in the ACA. That may also make it SCOTUS fodder once again, giving Justice Roberts another opportunity to redeem himself in the eyes of disgruntled conservatives.

    As for as the marriage cases, he could once again side with the justices which go for the narrowest ruling, which is what many legal analysts seem to be suggesting. A real kick is if something I’ve long theorized comes true: the court essentially says—with these two cases or down the line—that each state gets to create its own laws & rules on marriage, but that the equal protection clause cannot be overlooked. That would make neither the left nor the right happy, but could clear the way for eventual nationwide civil unions.

    Comment by RSG — December 9, 2012 @ 3:38 am - December 9, 2012

  38. Interesting that the left did everything in their power to demonize marriage and now gay marriage becomes paramount. I guess just around the corner there will be the justification that gay marriage is superior to het marriage (since they have already establish that 2 dads are better than a mother and a father and gays are richer -strangely enough being rich is a dirty stain unless you are gay).

    Yes this is the logic of the left.

    Comment by susan — December 9, 2012 @ 4:15 am - December 9, 2012

  39. #13 – “Thing is, what activists really want are conservative heads on a platter.”

    Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

    Comment by Richard Bell — December 9, 2012 @ 8:02 am - December 9, 2012

  40. Gay marriage will always be a legal fiction and a joke; but people will still be free to create real marriages… committed, monogamous, family-oriented marriages … outside the bureaucracy.

    The creation of pretend marriages for gays inside the law will be remembered, if at all, as one of the last gasps of a dying empire before it collapsed under its fiscal irresponsibility and economic decline.

    Comment by V the K — December 9, 2012 @ 11:37 am - December 9, 2012

  41. You don’t have to like someone and not oppose dishonest smears against them.

    And if you think it is ok to smear someone over and over and over, just because you disagree with that person, your ethics are questionable.

    Comment by rusty — December 9, 2012 @ 3:28 am – December 9, 2012

    Ah, I see, rusty; you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters are demanding a standard of behavior of other people that you never under any circumstances have, are currently, or will follow yourself.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 9, 2012 @ 11:40 am - December 9, 2012

  42. #13 – “Thing is, what activists really want are conservative heads on a platter.”

    Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

    Comment by Richard Bell — December 9, 2012 @ 8:02 am – December 9, 2012

    Exactly, Richard.

    We already know that gays and lesbians want conservatives dead.

    We already know that gays and lesbians want Christian teens mocked and pushed to suicide.

    We already know that gays and lesbians want the homes of anyone who professes opposition to their Fuhrer Obama stalked and vandalized.

    It’s time for Christians and conservatives to take the lesson of Muslims to heart; gays and lesbians and the Obama Party will leave you alone, allow you to say whatever you like, and defend your rights to freedom of speech and religious belief only if you punch back twice as hard.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 9, 2012 @ 11:49 am - December 9, 2012

  43. The gay left better hope to that God they don’t believe in (yet quote Matthew 7:1 nonstop) that there’s religious exemption in SSM legislation. Christians will begrudgingly let the government telling them what to practice. But now Muslims will kill for their doctrines with impunity. They’ve been killing homosexuals for nearly 1400 years, most notably three months ago. And the liberals will let them, in the name of “diversity”, and fear of Islam. The activist crowd better be careful what they wish for.

    Comment by Douglas — December 9, 2012 @ 1:18 pm - December 9, 2012

  44. The left embraces Muslims because they share a common hatred of Christians. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, don’tcha know?

    Comment by V the K — December 9, 2012 @ 1:30 pm - December 9, 2012

  45. I have read on ace that a gay guy working in hr was interviewing a Muslim for a job in London. The latter saw the photo of the gay and his boyfriend together and commented something along the line of ‘as soon as we get the power we are going to kill you all’

    Can’t fault him for thinking this way considering how pampered he is from the left.

    Comment by susan — December 9, 2012 @ 1:41 pm - December 9, 2012

  46. All the issues of “social acceptance/validation of relationships” aside, I find interesting that one of the cases, Windsor, involves a Federal taxing issue; her $300k Federal inheritance tax-levy that if in a legally-recognized at the Federal-level wouldn’t have occurred. An example of a concrete, monetized and quantified-harm as a result of the bifurcation of State and Federal treatment of SSM…discrete from more vague societal and moral sanction or benefits usually pointed-to. In this case it’s clear the cost; $300k. Courts like a clarity for the example of harm. It’s not about approval or disapproval of the relationship, it’s $300k in real monetary-terms.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 9, 2012 @ 2:44 pm - December 9, 2012

  47. “When Thea and I met nearly 50 years ago, we never could have dreamed that the story of our life together would be before the Supreme Court as an example of why gay married couples should be treated equally, and not like second-class citizens. While Thea is no longer alive, I know how proud she would have been to see this day. The truth is, I never expected any less from my country.” – DOMA litigant Edith Windsor, 83, responding to the decision by the Supreme Court.

    Comment by rusty — December 9, 2012 @ 3:05 pm - December 9, 2012

  48. [...] Roberts declare them taxes as well?: SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR PROP 8 and DOMA Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. Tags: Gay marriage, Supreme [...]

    Pingback by ConMom — December 9, 2012 @ 3:19 pm - December 9, 2012

  49. Gays= the me crowd.

    Edith Windsor obviously does not care that social security will be insolvent pretty soon. All she cared was her pet cause.

    These people are the main cause of the downfall. Selfish and self centered.

    It is all about them.

    Comment by susan — December 9, 2012 @ 4:12 pm - December 9, 2012

  50. Gay marriage and Palestinian statehood are both attempts to paper over deeply dysfunctional cultures by creating legal fictions.

    Comment by V the K — December 9, 2012 @ 4:21 pm - December 9, 2012

  51. All the issues of “social acceptance/validation of relationships” aside, I find interesting that one of the cases, Windsor, involves a Federal taxing issue; her $300k Federal inheritance tax-levy that if in a legally-recognized at the Federal-level wouldn’t have occurred. An example of a concrete, monetized and quantified-harm as a result of the bifurcation of State and Federal treatment of SSM…discrete from more vague societal and moral sanction or benefits usually pointed-to. In this case it’s clear the cost; $300k. Courts like a clarity for the example of harm. It’s not about approval or disapproval of the relationship, it’s $300k in real monetary-terms.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 9, 2012 @ 2:44 pm – December 9, 2012

    And had screaming lesbian Edith voted for Republicans, who want to abolish the death tax completely regardless of spousal status, it wouldn’t be a problem; there would be no estate tax.

    But she voted for, supports, and endorses the Obama Party, which demands death taxes regardless of marital status.

    So what whiny screaming lesbian Edith wants is not to have to pay a tax for which she voted and which she endorses.

    And furthermore, screaming lesbian Edith is trying to set up the precedent that anyone who wasn’t allowed to marry whatever they wanted to marry and who had to pay higher taxes of ANY type because of it can force the Federal government to recognize them as married.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 9, 2012 @ 5:20 pm - December 9, 2012

  52. “When Thea, Shirley, Doro, Kathy, Phyllis, Ellen, and Roseanne and I met nearly 50 years ago, we never could have dreamed that the story of our lives together would be before the Supreme Court as an example of why gay married sororities should be treated equally, and not like second-class citizens. While Thea, Shirley, Doro, Kathy, Phyllis, Ellen, and Roseanne are no longer alive, I know how proud they would have been to see this day. The truth is, I never expected any less from my country.”

    Any questions? Or is polygamy still just too outrageous by normal gay tolerance standards to discuss?

    Comment by heliotrope — December 9, 2012 @ 5:36 pm - December 9, 2012

  53. Oh, not at all, Heliotrope; indeed, you’ll see that the gay and lesbian community and the Obama Party are all about insisting that restrictions on plural marriage violate the Constitution.

    And that really is the point. Screaming lesbian Edith will be back in a couple of years with her next bevy of groupies and be whining about how “unfair” it is that she doesn’t get favorable tax treatment on ALL of their pensions, etc.

    Again, the hilarity of this is that it wouldn’t be a problem if screaming lesbian Edith and her Obama Party would just abolish the freaking death tax. But that doesn’t fit the point.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 9, 2012 @ 5:57 pm - December 9, 2012

  54. I love how the phrase ‘Freedom to Marry’ is used, as if same-sex couples cannot engage in marriage ceremonies. For decades, homosexuals held the idea that their relationships were no one’s business and that the greater society need not influence their sexual identities — that to be left alone was a worthy societal position and goal. Now, homosexuals’ relationships aren’t valid until government forces the greater society to submit to recognition, acceptance, and approval through the brute force of law. To say nothing of privileges vs. rights, of course.

    You have it completely backwards, from my point of view. If anything, it’s the Christians/tradtionalists who are obsessing about the government validating their relationships, since they’re the ones demanding the exclusive status for heterosexual marriage. These people, who are supposedly more concerned with their marriage covenants in religious and spiritual terms, are fighting tooth and nail for the government to write into law that their relationships are more precious than others.

    On the other hand, advocates of gay marriage want the government to recognize that no relationship is more special than any other. They aren’t looking for the government to validate their relationship, they’re asking the government to do its job and adhere to the basic principles of fairness and equality laid forth in the Constitution.

    You’re free to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, that it’s tradition, that straight marriage is the cornerstone of American society, and whatever else. But when you insist that the government exclusively agrees with you and codes your beliefs into law, what you’re doing is asking for the government to validate your beliefs about relationships. These people aren’t striving to be left one, as you put it – they’re begging everyone to recognize how great they are and demanding a preferred, special status.

    Keep in mind that gays are on the march. It’s becoming more accepted and less taboo every year. Meanwhile, religiosity is on the decline. Based on these trends, which of these groups is more likely to be using this issue for validation?

    Comment by Levi — December 10, 2012 @ 10:47 am - December 10, 2012

  55. And he goes back to relgious bigotry.

    Good to know LEvi supports buggering children though. After all he says he wants “the government to recognize that no relationship is more special than any other.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 10, 2012 @ 11:28 am - December 10, 2012

  56. On the other hand, advocates of gay marriage want the government to recognize that no relationship is more special than any other.

    Some of us still believe in the scientific truth that biological reproduction is unique; thus, it deserves a legal and societal distinction beyond any and all other definitions of relationships. Is this discrimination? Yes. Is ‘discrimination’ value-neutral? Yes. Will your ability to legally marry your boyfriend affect the level of commitment you two share? It shouldn’t but if it does, that’s your problem. In my experience, those who advocate most strenuously for same-sex marriage aren’t even in relationships. A meaningless anecdote for everyone but myself but one that underlines (for myself) that this issue is not about love. I should also mention that this issue did not become one of its own accord; only until homosexuals began using the court system as an end run around public opinion (as if public opinion should never determine the treatment of certain groups of citizens and as if moral disapproval should never have a say in the creation and maintenance of law, particularly when the discrimination at issue concerns privileges of contract and not individual rights) did traditionalists and religious conservatives begin pushing back in an effort to defend an ancient institution.

    Comment by Ignatius — December 10, 2012 @ 11:52 am - December 10, 2012

  57. There’s a good picture on the internet about the gay marriage thing. It’s two groups of people standing on the steps of the capitol building. One picture is taken recently, in color. All of the people have signs about marriage being between one man and one woman, and similar stupid things. The second picture is older, in black and white. They are all holding signs about stopping race mixing and segregation and stuff. The caption reads, “Imagine how stupid you’re going to look in 40 years.” I’m sure you’ve all seen it. It’s not too late for the Republicans and some Democrats to get on the right side of history, and stop trying to appease the crazy-ass religious right. They’re all in the closet anyways.

    Comment by Aaron — December 10, 2012 @ 12:10 pm - December 10, 2012

  58. And more relgious bigotry from Aaron as well.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 10, 2012 @ 12:15 pm - December 10, 2012

  59. We don’t have to wait 40 years to see how stupid Aaron looks:

    Yeah, it’s all about love.I can paint with a broad brush, too.

    Comment by Ignatius — December 10, 2012 @ 12:22 pm - December 10, 2012

  60. And more relgious bigotry from Aaron as well.

    Christians from the 1960s-70s look a whole lot less stupid than the hippies from that era.

    Comment by V the K — December 10, 2012 @ 12:23 pm - December 10, 2012

  61. Imagine how stupid you’re going to look in 40 years.”

    Comment by V the K — December 10, 2012 @ 12:27 pm - December 10, 2012

  62. HAHAHAHHAHA. So a bunch of Christians promoting racism and discrimination look more intelligent than some hippies promoting the opposite? Who was that one guy that said love thy neighbor? Oh yea Jesus! He didn’t say love them if they are white and think like you. Jesus definitely would have been hanging out with the hippies that decade.

    Comment by Aaron — December 10, 2012 @ 12:29 pm - December 10, 2012

  63. “Imagine how stupid you’re going to look in 40 years.”

    Comment by V the K — December 10, 2012 @ 12:34 pm - December 10, 2012

  64. Imagine how stupid you will look… well, right now, akshully.”

    Comment by V the K — December 10, 2012 @ 12:37 pm - December 10, 2012

  65. On the other hand, advocates of gay marriage want the government to recognize that no relationship is more special than any other.

    Comment by Levi — December 10, 2012 @ 10:47 am – December 10, 2012

    For once, Levi is honest.

    Let’s see how Levi and his fellow gay-sex marriage supporters spell that out in more detail:

    Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities – do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage.

    It then goes on to list what it considers “marriage”, including the following:

    · Single parent households

    · Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents

    · Adult children living with and caring for their parents

    · Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

    · Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

    So in short, Levi wants single parents, multiple child-swapping parents, incestuous sibling-sibling and child-parent, and plural relationships all recognized as equal to marriage.

    That’s really the agenda here. Levi and his fellow “progressives” don’t want to have to limit themselves to one person, or even to have to make a permanent commitment to that person. They want all of the benefits, none of the responsibilities.

    That’s really what this is. Levi the promiscuous pervert is using gays as an excuse to destroy marriage because he doesn’t want to be responsible or behave responsibly.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 10, 2012 @ 12:38 pm - December 10, 2012

  66. Link for above: http://beyondmarriage.org/

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 10, 2012 @ 12:38 pm - December 10, 2012

  67. Some of us still believe in the scientific truth that biological reproduction is unique; thus, it deserves a legal and societal distinction beyond any and all other definitions of relationships. Is this discrimination? Yes. Is ‘discrimination’ value-neutral? Yes.

    See? In your own words – you want government to validate your beliefs about heterosexual relationships by continuing to confer upon them a ‘legal distinction.’ The very thing that you criticize gay marriage advocates for is, seemingly, the crux of your argument.

    Will your ability to legally marry your boyfriend affect the level of commitment you two share? It shouldn’t but if it does, that’s your problem.

    Easy for you to say – you can get married. Despite religious conservatives’ wailing to the contrary, we still live in a culture that very much values monogamy and life-long commitment to one partner, and we’re introduced to the concept from a very early age. Straight people get to grow up and participate in that by completely entangling themselves with another person legally, while gay people are supposed to just, you know, stop complaining and trust each other. Making the actual, tangible commitment is important, regardless of you dismissing it.

    In my experience, those who advocate most strenuously for same-sex marriage aren’t even in relationships. A meaningless anecdote for everyone but myself but one that underlines (for myself) that this issue is not about love.

    I still have no idea what that means. Every gay marriage advocate I’ve ever known has been invested in the issue primarily due to equality. Nobody ever makes the argument that gays should be able to marry because of love – again that doesn’t mean anything. Maybe love gets brought up in the course of an argument or to make a point, but it’s hardly what gets people out of the bed in the morning on my side of this issue.

    I should also mention that this issue did not become one of its own accord; only until homosexuals began using the court system as an end run around public opinion (as if public opinion should never determine the treatment of certain groups of citizens and as if moral disapproval should never have a say in the creation and maintenance of law, particularly when the discrimination at issue concerns privileges of contract and not individual rights) did traditionalists and religious conservatives begin pushing back in an effort to defend an ancient institution.

    Public opinion is not any kind of final authority in this country, and that’s particularly true when it comes to minority issues. The judicial system is specifically designed to handle questions like this, and gay marriage advocates would be stupid to not go this route. The conservative complaints about the courts, I believe, are a tacit recognition that the current set-up is unfair, and they don’t want the question settled by courts because they know they’ll lose.

    Also, Republicans used gay marriage as a wedge issue to motivate their base. That’s why they began ‘pushing back,’ as you call it. Homosexuality started to lose its stigma in the 80′s and 90′s, and that’s where the push for gay marriage began. The Republicans’ coalition depends on the religious right, and that’s why something so trivial and mundane (really, just let them get married already) was turned into a line in the sand. It served them well for a few cycles but now it’s crippling them. That’s really all you need to know about the conservative ‘push back’ on gay marriage – it was only ever about electoral politics.

    Comment by Levi — December 10, 2012 @ 12:38 pm - December 10, 2012

  68. The judicial system is specifically designed to handle questions like this, and gay marriage advocates would be stupid to not go this route.

    Baker v Nelson.

    But hey, Levi beleives that some parts of the constitution are more important than others, and that the consent of the governed isn’t required.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 10, 2012 @ 12:44 pm - December 10, 2012

  69. Same-Sex Marriage and the Republican Party
    A surprising call for conservatives to stop running against it
    By Adam Chandler|November 7, 2012 1:12 PM|3comments
    http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/116131/same-sex-marriage-and-the-republican-party

    Chandler quotes Rubin. . .

    In fairness to Mitt Romney, he never once use gay marriage to stir up his base, evidence of his innate decency and, if one is more politically cynical, the lack of political mileage to be gained from the issue. In the future, Republicans for national office would do well to recognize reality. The American people have changed their minds on the issue and fighting this one is political flat-earthism. As with divorce, one need not favor it, but to run against it is folly, especially for national politicians who need to appeal to a diverse electorate.

    Conservatives don’t have to like gay marriage. But they campaign on it at their own risk. Holding onto an issue on which the federal government has precious little to say anyway is as foolish as opining on rape, abortion and God in a two-minute debate answer. Opposition to gay marriage by national officials is a political loser, which conveys to a majority of voters an out-of-touchness and lack of inclusiveness. It deprives Republicans of support from the gay community and makes it that much more difficult to reach out to young, urbanized voters.

    Perhaps, it’s just the glee of rare agreement, but I found her take on the issue just hours after Republicans suffered defeat to be forward-thinking and impressive. As the election postmortems roll in, one narrative that I find logical is the idea that the GOP lost a winnable election by failing to learn its lessons from 2008.

    I’ll be writing more on the Jewish vote tomorrow, but for now, I’ll echo Rubin in saying that if Republicans hope to seize a broader piece of the Jewish vote (and countless other groups) in national elections, it would be wise for their candidates to moderate their stances (and rhetoric) on social issues like same-sex marriage, which 81% of Jews support.

    Comment by rusty — December 10, 2012 @ 12:48 pm - December 10, 2012

  70. HAHAHAHHAHA. So a bunch of Christians promoting racism and discrimination look more intelligent than some hippies promoting the opposite? Who was that one guy that said love thy neighbor? Oh yea Jesus! He didn’t say love them if they are white and think like you. Jesus definitely would have been hanging out with the hippies that decade.

    Comment by Aaron — December 10, 2012 @ 12:29 pm – December 10, 2012

    Actually, Aaron, what we know is that you don’t consider anything “racism and discrimination” when it’s being preached by your Obama Party base.

    This is just pure anti-Christian bigotry and hate on your part. We already know that gay and lesbian bigots like yourself are openly using government positions to silence and punish Christians.

    So what we see, Aaron, is that gays and lesbians like you are proven racist and antireligious bigots who abuse your public positions to harm Christians and order government discrimination on the basis of religious belief, in direct violation of the First Amendment.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 10, 2012 @ 12:49 pm - December 10, 2012

  71. See? In your own words – you want government to validate your beliefs about heterosexual relationships by continuing to confer upon them a ‘legal distinction.’

    Yup.

    Which is that heterosexual relationships are different and carry different societal implications.

    For someone who is as obsessed with killing babies and avoiding pregnancy as you are, Levi, it’s hilarious to watch you deny that same-sex and opposite-sex couplings are different.

    But of course, that’s because you’re a vicious and malicious ideologue who is using gays as an excuse to get your own depraved perversions, such as your lust for your own mother, put into law as a legal marriage.

    You are in denial about that, Levi, because you are an ignorant cultist who denies science and biology.

    Public opinion is not any kind of final authority in this country

    Except, of course, when one talks about Obama Party “mandate” or “I won”.

    We know the game, Levi. Fascists like yourself will never accept as valid any election result or judgment that goes against your will. You have screamed and pissed yourself that any election of Republicans is fake and should be overturned, and you have demanded that any court case that limits the power of your fascist Obama Reich be ignored.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 10, 2012 @ 12:54 pm - December 10, 2012

  72. Easy for you to say – you can get married. Despite religious conservatives’ wailing to the contrary, we still live in a culture that very much values monogamy and life-long commitment to one partner, and we’re introduced to the concept from a very early age. Straight people get to grow up and participate in that by completely entangling themselves with another person legally, while gay people are supposed to just, you know, stop complaining and trust each other. Making the actual, tangible commitment is important, regardless of you dismissing it.

    Which is why the screaming Levi, in his Beyond Marriage manifesto, is demanding that the following be treated the same as marriage:

    · Single parent households

    · Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents

    · Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

    And why Levi endorses and supports Dan Savage, who screams that monogamy and fidelity are “hurtful”, and why he endorses the Obama Party, which states that limiting Levi to just one marriage partner violates his constitutional rights.

    Levi’s never had to deal with being called on his lies before. That shows how incompetent his parents are, not to mention the teachers in the DC public schools.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 10, 2012 @ 12:59 pm - December 10, 2012

  73. Interesting piece from Big Lizards.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 10, 2012 @ 1:00 pm - December 10, 2012

  74. I’ll be writing more on the Jewish vote tomorrow, but for now, I’ll echo Rubin in saying that if Republicans hope to seize a broader piece of the Jewish vote (and countless other groups) in national elections, it would be wise for their candidates to moderate their stances (and rhetoric) on social issues like same-sex marriage, which 81% of Jews support.

    Comment by rusty — December 10, 2012 @ 12:48 pm – December 10, 2012

    LOL.

    Isn’t it funny to watch bigots like rusty who scream about Republicans obsessing on “social issues” admit that they in fact don’t care about things like the economy, taxes, or national defense, and instead vote solely on social issues?

    I’d put it this way: hey rusty, when are YOU going to stop voting based on social issues? Are you admitting that conservatives and Republicans are superior to you, since you demand that they NOT vote based on social issues while you do?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 10, 2012 @ 1:09 pm - December 10, 2012

  75. …but it’s hardly what gets people out of the bed in the morning on my side of this issue.

    You don’t know how right you are.

    Comment by Ignatius — December 10, 2012 @ 1:15 pm - December 10, 2012

  76. I refreshed this page and saw a bunch of new comments and got excited about debating some religion/gay marriage stuff…Then I saw they were all NDT and had to skip them…so sad.

    Rusty’s article still displays the underlying problem the GOP is going to have with this issue. It’s not that they should avoid talking about it during campaigns, because then everyone knows that they are still closet opponents of same-sex marriage. They need to abandon the belief altogether. Gay marriage is coming. Whether through the states or the federal government, it is going to happen. Want to know why? Because it’s what the people want! And per the constitution, it’s what is right. All the arguments against gay marriage are based in religion, so the government should have no opinion on the matter, they should only be charged with enforcing the equal right of a gay couple to be able to get married.

    Comment by Aaron — December 10, 2012 @ 1:23 pm - December 10, 2012

  77. Care to tell me where it is in the Constitution? Care to show me what’s changed in the past 40 years in that document Aaron?

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 10, 2012 @ 1:32 pm - December 10, 2012

  78. Which part? How many different places in the constitution could something like gay marriage apply? How about freedom of religion? When all arguments against an issue are seeded in religion, the government should naturally be on the opposite side. Acceptance of any policy dictated by religion is a perversion of a secular state. Do you all have blinders on?

    Comment by Aaron — December 10, 2012 @ 1:45 pm - December 10, 2012

  79. In other words….

    Aaron you have nothing. You can’t tell me how the constitution has changed since Baker v. Nelson.

    Thank you for confiming you don’t care about the rule of law, as long as you get your stuff.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 10, 2012 @ 1:53 pm - December 10, 2012

  80. But all arguments against gay marriage are not “seeded” in religion. NDT’s argument is rooted biology; marriage was created to provide a safe and stable place to raise children; so allowing those biologically incapable of producing children within their partnership is an unsuitable use of the institution.

    I would argue that the psychosexual dynamics of same-sex relationships are so dissimilar from those in a heterosexual relationship that the same institution cannot rationally work for both. I would argue that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex relationships, it makes it much easier for marriage to be redefined again to other forms of relationships I would argue that gays are exclusively interested in the benefits of marriage but are averse to the responsibilities of commitment and stability that make marriage socially valuable.

    There: Four arguments against gay marriage unrelated to religion.

    Comment by V the K — December 10, 2012 @ 1:58 pm - December 10, 2012

  81. But all arguments against gay marriage are not “seeded” in religion. NDT’s argument is rooted biology; marriage was created to provide a safe and stable place to raise children; so allowing those biologically incapable of producing children within their partnership is an unsuitable use of the institution.

    You know absolutely nothing about world history if you believe that ‘marriage was created to provide a safe and stable place to raise children.’ For the first few thousand years of its existence, marriage was a property arrangement. It’s not exaggerating to say that the husbands owned their wives. Even into the modern era, daughters and sisters are exchanged for money, land, and other means of compensation. This ‘marriage is for the kids!’ stuff is in direct conflict with the rest of the conservative arguments about the tradition of the institution, and is in fact no more than a desperate rationalization for denying gays the right to marry. It has no basis in history.

    What’s more, even if we buy your premise, this would mean that a castrated male or a barren female should be barred from marriage, since they can’t create kids either.

    I would argue that the psychosexual dynamics of same-sex relationships are so dissimilar from those in a heterosexual relationship that the same institution cannot rationally work for both.

    Psychosexual dynamics? Come on. Even you don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about here. You’re also stereotyping a very diverse group of people. There are lots of straight people that might not be cut out for marriage, does that mean the rest of the straights should be barred, too?

    I would argue that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex relationships, it makes it much easier for marriage to be redefined again to other forms of relationships I would argue that gays are exclusively interested in the benefits of marriage but are averse to the responsibilities of commitment and stability that make marriage socially valuable.

    No it doesn’t! There are still laws against marrying cats and kids and toaster ovens. This has got to be the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard.

    For but one example, gays in the military! By idiot’s logic, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell means that children, the disabled, and the elderly should be allowed to join the military! But hey, guess what? That’s not happening, because the rules in place regarding age and physical abilities are not nullified by changing the law. DUH! Some of us really need to go back to 7th grade civics class.

    There: Four arguments against gay marriage unrelated to religion.

    And they’re all incredibly stupid!

    Comment by Levi — December 10, 2012 @ 2:27 pm - December 10, 2012

  82. One has to remember, V the K and Livewire, that Aaron’s argument FOR gay-sex marriage is based solely on his antireligious bigotry: that is, he insists that since Christians tend to oppose it, the law is “tainted” and thus should be abolished.

    For example, as I pointed out, Aaron endorses and supports governmental officials punishing Christians for statements that they deem anti-gay while endorsing and supporting Obama supporters and the Obama base for making statements against Christians, Jews, AND gays.

    Hence the problem. Aaron isn’t looking at gay marriage as something useful or even valuable for the gay community; he’s looking at it as something to weaponize and use against the Christians he hates and wants to destroy.

    You can see that on the gay-sex marriage websites. Not a single one of them talks about monogamy or fidelity; not a one of them decries the high divorce rate; not a one of them suggests counseling or support prior to getting married and when having relationship troubles. They all preach antireligious bigotry and hate.

    In contrast, if you look at traditional-marriage websites like Focus on the Family and the like, they have enormous sections on the importance of monogamy and fidelity, counseling and support, and against the high divorce rate. That is because they genuinely value marriage for what it is and what it represents, rather than as a weapon to carry out hate as the gay and lesbian community uses it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 10, 2012 @ 2:28 pm - December 10, 2012

  83. NDT, which is why I think real marriage… in the long run… will survive long past whatever trendy plaything liberals think will give them validation and meaning this week.

    Comment by V the K — December 10, 2012 @ 2:39 pm - December 10, 2012

  84. You know absolutely nothing about world history if you believe that ‘marriage was created to provide a safe and stable place to raise children.’ For the first few thousand years of its existence, marriage was a property arrangement.

    LOL.

    And children were dumped out on the street to survive for themselves, with no parents taking care of them and only concerning themselves with property arrangements.

    The problem with you, Levi, is that your parents and you only married for money and property, and didn’t care anything about children or think marriage was valuable for raising children; hence you project that onto the whole of humanity and insist that marriage has never had any value or been in any way about childrearing.

    The more you blather, the more obvious it is how screwed up your parents were — and just how screwed up you thus became.

    What’s more, even if we buy your premise, this would mean that a castrated male or a barren female should be barred from marriage, since they can’t create kids either.

    Those are both biological defects. If you’re willing to claim homosexuals are biologically defective, then you can make that argument. Otherwise you’re just being ignorant and creating strawmen because you have no rational or intelligent argument to make.

    Psychosexual dynamics? Come on. Even you don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about here.

    Actually, he does.

    You seem quite irrational and incapable of acknowledging the varied differences between the genders, Levi. Is that because you’ve been taught to hate your maleness and think that, by bashing men and insisting that there are no gender differences whatsoever, that you become “progressive”?

    No it doesn’t! There are still laws against marrying cats and kids and toaster ovens.

    Which are all violations of “equal protection” since they prevent people from marrying those they “love”.

    And as I already pointed out, Levi, you support plural marriage and incest, so those are next in line.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 10, 2012 @ 2:41 pm - December 10, 2012

  85. Levi calling anything incredibly stupid, is a sight to behold.

    This from the guy who thinks that Piltdown Man is a valid part of evolutionary theory.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 10, 2012 @ 2:42 pm - December 10, 2012

  86. Um, having been in both types of relationships, I think I can vouch for the different psychosexual dynamics.

    This from the guy who thinks that Piltdown Man is a valid part of evolutionary theory.

    Or a guy who simultaneously argues that big deficits are good and necessary in a recession, but also taxes have to be raised during a recession because deficits are bad.

    I really can’t tell if he’s nuttier than a fruitcake, or fruitier than a nutcake.

    Comment by V the K — December 10, 2012 @ 2:54 pm - December 10, 2012

  87. NSFW.. . Well NSF for NDT, V, . . .

    From the People’s Republic of Seattle

    LOVE WINS

    http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/10/love-wins-gay-marriage-at-seattle-city-hall-sunday-morning-in-photos

    Comment by rusty — December 10, 2012 @ 3:09 pm - December 10, 2012

  88. NDT, which is why I think real marriage… in the long run… will survive long past whatever trendy plaything liberals think will give them validation and meaning this week.

    Again, open up a history book. Whatever constitutes ‘real marriage’ in your book, is likely not representative of 90% of marriages in the history of humankind.

    Comment by Levi — December 10, 2012 @ 3:16 pm - December 10, 2012

  89. Um, having been in both types of relationships, I think I can vouch for the different psychosexual dynamics.

    Uh, okay? Whatever? This is still no justification for allowing hetero marriage and banning gay marriage.

    Comment by Levi — December 10, 2012 @ 3:23 pm - December 10, 2012

  90. Because leftists define anything they want someone to give them as a “right.”

    Comment by V the K — December 10, 2012 @ 3:38 pm - December 10, 2012

  91. Comment by rusty — December 10, 2012 @ 3:09 pm – December 10, 2012

    LOL.

    Soon after New York passed the Marriage Equality Act on June 24 last year, Katie Marks and Dese’Rae Stage began planning their wedding day. A licensed masseuse and a photographer, both 28, the couple had been dating since 2008 and were already planning to get married — in Boston over the Memorial Day weekend of 2012 — but the euphoria of the moment moved everything forward. “It was kind of one of those things, to be a part of history,” Des says. On July 30, the first Saturday that gay marriages could be performed in New York City, Katie in a magenta dress and Des in skinny jeans and pink Chuck Taylors joined 23 other couples at the Pop Up Chapel, a one-day wedding event in Central Park, as part of New York City’s first wave of legally married gay couples. By January, though, things had started to come apart. Des and Katie have since separated and moved out of their Washington Heights apartment. They’re now one of the first married gay couples — if not the very first — in New York to divorce. “I feel like I’m the president of the loneliest club in the world,” Des says. “I was the first gay person in my group of friends to marry, and now I’m the only gay divorcée I know.”

    That’s what happens when all you care about is sticking it to the Christians, rusty.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 10, 2012 @ 3:53 pm - December 10, 2012

  92. Uh, okay? Whatever? This is still no justification for allowing hetero marriage and banning gay marriage.

    Comment by Levi — December 10, 2012 @ 3:23 pm – December 10, 2012

    Of course it isn’t to you, Levi; it’s scientifically based and it goes against what you want, so it never will qualify as “valid” in your book.

    Others see your denialism and anti-science bigotry, though.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 10, 2012 @ 3:55 pm - December 10, 2012

  93. From your link NDT

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/06/after-gay-marriage-comes-gay-divorce/53829/

    “Of course, the news made us sad,” says Bex Schwartz, one of the Pop Up Chapel’s organizers, “but as ministers who perform weddings, marriage equality means marriage is marriage. Unfortunately, the other side is divorce is divorce.”

    For all the best intentions, nearly half of U.S. marriages end in divorce. In a Williams Institute study by M.V. Lee Badgett and Jody L. Herman from November 2011, the authors chronicled data to provide a picture of the need for legal recognition of same-sex marriage and divorce. “In the U.S., over 140,000 same-sex couples have formalized their relationship under state law and nearly 50,000 have married,” they write. “The data show that same-sex couples marry at much higher rates than they enter civil unions or other legal statuses…. When a state allows marriage for same-sex couples, over 60 percent of those who marry come from other states.” Their research found that on average the annual divorce rate for same-sex couples is similar to, though slightly lower than, the rate for different-sex couples. About 1.1 percent of same-sex couples in legal unions end their relationship, they found, while about 2 percent of married different-sex couples divorce.

    Comment by rusty — December 10, 2012 @ 4:46 pm - December 10, 2012

  94. Aaron @ #78:

    When all arguments against an issue are seeded in religion, the government should naturally be on the opposite side. Acceptance of any policy dictated by religion is a perversion of a secular state.

    1984.

    Aaron and the little fascist sock puppet have recoded all of English Common Law and the practice of precedence. From this point on, We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America, which is a Godless, secular state and any policy dictated by religion is a perversion to the United States of America and to We the People including Jews and their silly hats and Muslims beating their wives. Hence forth, screw the Jews and their Sabbath, high school graduations will be just fine on Friday night. And Muslims need to get their asses off the sidewalk and out of the street when doing their Mecca bobbing and the Amish, what even needs to be stated? We are talking zero religious tolerance here. We the People demand a virgin secular state and we mean to have it.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 10, 2012 @ 4:59 pm - December 10, 2012

  95. “To strike down Prop 8 on ‘narrow grounds’ proposed by the 9th Circuit is so intellectually dishonest that if that is what the Court wished to do I think they would have refused to hear the case. I think Kennedy will overturn DOMA (perhaps joined by Roberts) and then uphold the right of states to refuse to accept gay marriage (i.e. uphold Prop 8). The victories this November for gay marriage at the polls make that outcome more likely. Justice Kennedy will likely see it as not at all unlikely voters will overturn Prop 8 soon and see that as a much better outcome than constitutionalizing gay marriage.” – Maggie Gallagher, commenting on the blog of former gay marriage opponent David Blankenhorn.

    Comment by rusty — December 10, 2012 @ 5:15 pm - December 10, 2012

  96. Levi in comment #67:

    Public opinion is not any kind of final authority in this country, and that’s particularly true when it comes to minority issues.

    Levi, back in comment #54:

    Keep in mind that gays are on the march. It’s becoming more accepted and less taboo every year.

    Comment by Ignatius — December 10, 2012 @ 7:31 pm - December 10, 2012

  97. Levi in comment #67:

    Public opinion is not any kind of final authority in this country, and that’s particularly true when it comes to minority issues.

    Levi, back in comment #54:

    Keep in mind that gays are on the march. It’s becoming more accepted and less taboo every year.

    These two statements are not in conflict!

    Comment by Levi — December 11, 2012 @ 7:17 am - December 11, 2012

  98. LOL,

    Levi continues to beclown himself.

    At least Aaron has conceeded that there’s no Federal question about the states defining marriage.

    @ Rusty,

    Maggie’s predicted outcome wouldn’t surprise me.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 11, 2012 @ 8:11 am - December 11, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.392 Powered by Wordpress