Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Supreme Court to decide whether Gay Marriage is constitutional right (Reader Poll – How will SCOTUS Rule?)

Supreme Court to decide whether Gay Marriage is constitutional right (Reader Poll – How will SCOTUS Rule?)

The Big One.

This is breaking news — the Supreme Court has agreed to hear four cases involving Gay Marriage:

Twitter Supreme Court takes Gay Marriage Cases

Here is the Court Order:

The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

A total of ninety minutes is allotted for oral argument on Question 1. A total of one hour is allotted for oral argument on Question 2. The parties are limited to filing briefs on the merits and presenting
oral argument on the questions presented in their respective petitions. The briefs of petitioners are to be filed on or before 2 p.m., Friday, February 27, 2015. The briefs of respondents are to be filed on or before 2 p.m., Friday, March 27, 2015. The reply briefs are to be filed on or before 2 p.m., Friday, April 17, 2015.

So what do you think? How will SCOTUS rule? (NOT how do you want it to rule)

Polls open until Midnight Eastern on Saturday, January 17



DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I have zero confidence this turn out well.

DINORightMarie | January 16, 2015 at 3:50 pm

Wow. This is limited — it doesn’t address the exemption of a business regarding gay weddings (e.g. refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding if it is in violation of religious beliefs).

But still, huge!

    Gremlin1974 in reply to DINORightMarie. | January 16, 2015 at 5:36 pm

    I think it would. If it is not a constitutionally protected right then it can’t be violated, therefore people can’t be censured for violating it.

“How will SCOTUS rule?”

Wow.

TOTALLY WRONG question, Prof.

“How SHOULD the SCOTUS rule” is the right question. Your question is a “guess what they think” query, which is utterly vacant. WTF cares?

    You’re reading the wrong meaning into ‘how.’ We already are fairly sure the direction the Supreme Court will rule on these cases, i.e. gay marriage is perfectly fine, legal, and any state that opposes it will be drowned in lawsuits. What we are guessing at is exactly how they will twist the meaning of otherwise perfectly ordinary words and turn them into what they want. Remember, after all, that Obamacare is a tax, as defined by SCOTUS.

      Estragon in reply to georgfelis. | January 16, 2015 at 9:43 pm

      ObamaCare’s mandate IS a tax, as every single elected Republican and every conservative pundit argued in 2009 and 2010, as the Democrats and Obama insisted it was not. Gruber admitted we were right (privately at the time, only now made public).

      You don’t have to like a decision, but you should try not to look foolish by giving stupid reasons for opposing it.

        platypus in reply to Estragon. | January 16, 2015 at 10:16 pm

        Easy there, big fella! 🙂

        Except it was specifically written NOT to be a tax (claim of ‘revenue neutral’ regardless of what we all knew that it was) in order to allow Democrats cover to claim that “we’re not voting for a tax increase” and scored fraudulently by the CBO to give cover thereof.

        Further, it CANNOT be a tax (a bill to raise revenue), because it didn’t originate in the House of Representatives, in violation of the CONSTITUTION.

        But this is not a rehashing of the failings of John Roberts the Traitor or of Obamacare (although the introduction of same-sex marriage will have broad consequences to the PPACA which I am SURE have not been thought through).

on the side of sodomy like normal

buckeyeminuteman | January 16, 2015 at 4:30 pm

Given John Roberts’ track record, I do not have high hopes for this one.

Their ruling will be one of two things. 1) do nothing 2) rule that gay marriage is a constitutional right. They won’t say “no”. It’s too much of a political nightmare if they just say no.

They will discover that in the penumbra there exists a rationalization to uphold homosexual marriage while selectively excluding other loving and not so loving relationships. Anyway, they will create yet another moral hazard for our surviving Posterity to cope with and reconcile.

    Yeah, that ‘limitation’ if so stated will last all of 10 minutes before there is a FLOOD of litigation regarding each and every limitation on marriage relationships and that in light of the same-sex marriage decision that any limitation is void for being arbitrary and capricious, including polygamy, incest and age restrictions.

Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will vote against sanctioning same-sex marriage. All the others will vote for it.

Henry Hawkins | January 16, 2015 at 4:39 pm

RE: John Roberts… perhaps this is where he redeems himself for the Obamacare tax decision. Why not? I don’t think it’s actual law that guides him….

Subotai Bahadur | January 16, 2015 at 4:58 pm

Roberts, and the majority of the court, will fully support gay marriage and set things up to eliminate any state restrictions on the number of people who can be in a marriage and on any age restrictions on sexual conduct.

This will be because of a combination of extortion, ideology, and an innate hatred for any laws set below the Federal level with the consent of the governed.

    The Court will have to be very, very careful in their language to avoid that exact scenario. I guarantee you that the polygamy crowd will parse the decision that comes out of SCOTUS on this for every single word that they can use in their fight to legalize poly-marriage.

    If the decision is even the slightest bit ambiguous toward poly-marriage, I expect that you’ll see Utah repeal it’s anti-polygamy law within the next 5 years, or a State Constitutional amendment on the ballot there allowing for poly-marriage forced through by the FLDS crowd.

      Actually it seems to me polygamy is a far more natural and historically far more common than gay marriage. Many cultures have had polygamy or polyandry but, other than ours, I don’t know of any that have sanctioned formalized gay marriage.

    Karen Sacandy in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | January 16, 2015 at 8:34 pm

    Bingo.

    Our country is now more a reflection of the desires and inclinations of SCOTUS than of citizens.

    And if they like the condition it’s in, it tells you what a sad bunch they are.

Pogo Hears a Who | January 16, 2015 at 5:12 pm

The Dread Justice Roberts will once again declare the penalty is really a tax, and find buried in the second amendment that the clause “a well regulated Militia” actually refers to gay marriage.

Pogo Hears a Who | January 16, 2015 at 5:18 pm

Oh, here, I found it for DJ Roberts:
The 20th Amendment.

“Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Clearly, “noon” refers to ‘gay’ and “January” refers to ‘marriage.’
Ipso fatso, gay marriage is constitutional.

Even LI’s Branco gets the danger gay marriage poses to the First Amendment.

http://comicallyincorrect.com/2013/04/04/on-a-roll/

What do you think will happen if the Court rules in favor of gay marriage? There will be even more lawsuits and attacks on anyone who dares question the morality of gay marriage or homosexuality. They really want to go after churches and silence all opposition. You can’t appease this group. And then make way for the polygamy lawsuits and incests ones too. Because if love is all you need, you have no grounds for opposing anyone who just wants to be with the one they love.

    That will be the problem: If homosexual marriage is forced upon the States which currently have Constitutional Amendments prohibiting it, if the language of that forcing is in any way ambiguous, the SCOTUS will have destroyed the safeguards without creating any ‘limiting principle’ in order to justify having ANY restrictions on marriage.

    Example:

    SCOTUS rules that: Marriage is a fundamental right, and therefore any state law or practice banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.

    It will only be a matter of time before 3 gay men attempt to marry, and file suit on the grounds that their fundamental right is being impeded. Any law preventing such union will be challenged as arbitrary and capricious, and without ‘rational basis’ in law.

    It would be a hoot to watch from a legal perspective, if I were not weeping from the damage that it will inflict upon the quickly disintegrating family dynamic and social structure of the nation.

      “It would be a hoot to watch from a legal perspective, if I were not weeping from the damage that it will inflict upon the quickly disintegrating family dynamic and social structure of the nation.”

      Gay marriage has been the law of the land in many places for at least several years. Do you have any actual evidence of this “disintegration” you speak of?

        We’ve been watching marriage and family structure break down for six decades since the sexual revolution of the 60s. Gay marriage is just the most recent act of and symptom of the larger destruction. The destruction of the family unit allows for an entire abandonment of any sort of learned personal responsibility.

        But, every tug on the thread of that social fabric further destroys the tapestry as a whole.

          el polacko in reply to Chuck Skinner. | January 17, 2015 at 8:29 pm

          people who happen to be gay are a part of the social “tapestry as a whole”. they come from families and have families of their own. what is a couple legally swearing to support each other if not taking “personal responsiblity” ?

          No people happen to be ‘gay’ or whatever you want to call it. It’s a choice and everybody knows it, which is why it CANNOT be a suspect class (unless the constitution gets amended). A suspect class is based on enumerated constitutional rights. At best, ‘gay rights’ can be granted by states but they can never properly intrude on federal civil rights of others.

          jhkrischel in reply to Chuck Skinner. | January 18, 2015 at 11:21 am

          Same challenge to you – if being gay is a choice, choose to be gay for two weeks. Watch lots of gay porn and get yourself *really* excited. Have lots of gay sex, and be *really* into it. Then switch back.

          Perhaps you think that all straight men have to overcome homosexual attractions and tendencies, but let me assure you, nothing drives my libido to zero faster than the idea of having sex with a man, and no amount of choice on my part could change that. Perhaps you’re different, and you have to continually fight off choosing to be homosexual, the same way fat people have to fight off choosing to eat carbohydrates, or drug addicts have to fight off using drugs…

    Karen Sacandy in reply to Blue Collar Todd. | January 16, 2015 at 8:36 pm

    The reason you can’t appease this group is this:

    Under the statute, if they WIN, they get attorney’s fees. The lawyers LOVE it!

    And for some reason which I’m unable to fathom, I’ve heard of no proposals to STRIP the attorney’s fees provision, which Congress has authority to do.

    Follow the money. If these intolerant atheist types had to pay for the lawyers, they wouldn’t be chasing these dog and pony shows.

Long story short, marriage is a constitutional right for all consenting adults, or it’s not something the government should be involved in at all. Gay, straight, angry, happy, black, white, tall, short, good, evil, just doesn’t enter into the equation.

The SCOTUS will choose to expand the franchise, rather than eliminate any government acknowledgement, simply on practical grounds, and the worst laid fears of a massive tidal wave of homosexual conversions won’t come to pass. People who believe that being gay is an irresponsible or immoral personal choice will continue to rail at the unfairness of it all, and no doubt a bunch of left-wing nuts will start banging on the transgender drum next.

For the rest of the world, life will go on, and things won’t be as bad as either side imagines.

Remember don’t ask, don’t tell? My kids don’t.

    See, that analysis, right there, is the problem.

    Marriage isn’t a ‘Constitutional Right’ at ALL. It is a STATE creation of social contract.

    It’s part of the body of laws that are best referred to as “police power:” the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitant.

    The Federal Government doesn’t have a ‘police power’ (or it is not supposed to, given the 10th Amendment). By intruding into those ‘State’s Rights’ the Federal Government both exceeds its scope of authority AND treads on what was supposed to be guaranteed State sovereignty in decision-making.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Chuck Skinner. | January 16, 2015 at 9:24 pm

      Oh, Chuck. It isn’t about any silly old laws. It’s about fairness and feeling good ourselves and ‘constitutional rights’ created out of unicorn shit.

      jhkrischel in reply to Chuck Skinner. | January 16, 2015 at 9:52 pm

      If you’re going to allow hetero couples engage in a state sanctioned contract of marriage, it’s the 14th amendment that requires equal treatment of homo couples.

      Now, it’s an open question as to whether or not the “state” (be it on the federal or state level) should have any laws regarding marriage – frankly, it’s silly for the government to be involved at all, but if it is going to be involved, it’s got to keep the franchise open to all consenting adults.

      Given the observed incompetence of government at all levels, I’m hardly eager for them to try and regulate behavior related to health, safety, morals, or the wonderfully ambiguous “general welfare”. As far as I’m concerned, government should take the role advocated by Bastiat – it is the collective use of force in the defense of private property. Government is a necessary evil, of course, but just because it is necessary doesn’t mean it has to be expansive.

      Now, that all being said, states rights was destroyed by Lincoln’s war of Northern Aggression – while we may both pine for the days when our union was a voluntary one of sovereign states, and we may both work towards diluting the power of the federal government, the world we live in is one where de facto, the states are subjugated by the feds.

      So yes, “marriage” isn’t a constitutional right – but equal protection under the laws is, and if the “state” is going to create a social contract, it has to be open to all. (And yes, I’ve heard the argument about gays and lesbians having no restrictions on marrying someone of the opposite sex, but that’s like arguing that miscegenation laws are okay because people of any race can marry member of their own race.)

        platypus in reply to jhkrischel. | January 16, 2015 at 10:59 pm

        You could not be more wrong if you tried. The state is not required to do anything that isn’t constitutional in nature.

        If a state had a law that prevented any random male from marrying, you might have a point. But every male has a right to marry a willing female if he is not already married. And vice versa.

        Huge amounts of judicial resources and billable hours ar being wasted trying (and largely succeeding) to create false law when there is a distinct shortage of public defenders and other legal necessities like paralegals.

        At some point, this pyramid of false law will either collapse or crate a huge conundrum. And we the people will have to pay to clean it up.

        No federal judge has jurisdiction over state constitutions. Federal judges are statutory judges and have only the jurisdiction Congress has provided to them. And we all should know that Congress cannot pass a law that invalidates the Eleventh Amendment which states that a state has to consent to suit. I would posit that a state cannot surrender its sovereign right to exist under its own constitution (parties cannot stipulate to a court’s subject matter jurisdiction). A guarantee of a republican form of government is incompatible with implied control by the fed govt.

          jhkrischel in reply to platypus. | January 17, 2015 at 4:42 am

          Your example seems to justify miscegenation laws, since every person was allowed to marry someone of their own race under them.

          As for the concept of “false law”…not quite sure what disaster you befalling us all requiring some great monetary cleanup or some “conundrum”, just because homosexuals marry. I suppose everyone has personal fears, but this is one I just don’t grok.

          Now, that being said, I agree with you that our republican form of government is threatened by a strong federal government, and I lay the blame for that at the feet of Lincoln’s war of Northern Aggression, but we live in a world that doesn’t care about what ifs and what might have beens – the South was beaten, subjugated, the constitution was torn to shreds, and government has expanded to heights unimaginable at the founding of our country.

          Frankly, of all the things to fight the federal government on, gay marriage seems the least important – the abuse of the commerce clause affects us all more on a daily, and intimate basis, than the assertion of equal protection under the laws.

          anoNY in reply to platypus. | January 17, 2015 at 5:35 am

          “No federal judge has jurisdiction over state constitutions. Federal judges are statutory judges and have only the jurisdiction Congress has provided to them.”

          Bzzzt, that’s wrong! Federal judges interpret federal law, which includes the federal Constitution. The federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Thus, federal judges certainly DO have “jurisdiction” (to use your term) over state constitutions.

        malclave in reply to jhkrischel. | January 17, 2015 at 12:23 am

        If you’re going to allow hetero couples engage in a state sanctioned contract of marriage, it’s the 14th amendment that requires equal treatment of homo couples.

        I always thought that rights belonged to individuals, not groups.

          jhkrischel in reply to malclave. | January 17, 2015 at 4:46 am

          Absolutely. And a hetero adult has the right to pick a consenting adult partner for marriage just as a homo adult does. Violating an individual’s right to choose their marriage partner by limiting either the race, or sex, of their chosen partner is prima facie unconstitutional.

          How else do you justify the prohibition against miscegenation laws, if not on the basis of equal protection?

          Your example seems to justify miscegenation laws, since every person was allowed to marry someone of their own race under them.

          Absolutely. And a hetero adult has the right to pick a consenting adult partner for marriage just as a homo adult does. Violating an individual’s right to choose their marriage partner by limiting either the race, or sex, of their chosen partner is prima facie unconstitutional.

          jhkrischel – Please show me where in the Constitution “Gender” is a protected class.

          Your insertion of “sex” into the above statement is an unwarranted and unsupported attempt at expansion of rights which has no basis in law or fact.

          “miscegenation laws” is the constant scream of those who do not understand the Constitution. That document, which lists certain categories of protection, most certainly DOES NOT protect “gender,” regardless of attempt after attempt to expand the definitions without actually changing the text.

          ‘Marriage’ is not, and has never been determined to be a “privilege and immunity of Citizens of the several States” as part of Article IV, Section 2.

          Amendment XIV, responding to Dredd Scott, states specifically “ZNo State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Amendment XIV, Section 1. See immediately above paragraph for why this does not apply to same-sex marriage.

          Amendment XV – states specifically “The right of citizens of the United States to VOTE shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.” (Emphasis mine).

          Amendment XIX – states specifically “The right of citizens of the United States to VOTE shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

          THERE REMAINS NO PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT DENY EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS (Chemerinsky, Erwin Constitutional Law, Second Ed. New York. p.617. 2005.) The closest thing that exists is Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 US 497 (1954), shoe-horning it into the 5th Amendment “Due Process” clause and simply has declared “discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process” without any other basis in law.

          So, it is discrimination to limit marriage to a man and a woman? Yes. Is that discrimination prohibited Constitutionally? NO!

          If this were a question of “Gender”, look to United States v. Virginia 518 US 515, 533 (1996) LIMITS scrutiny of “gender” questions to “intermediate” scrutiny – a level which the law may be upheld if it “is substantially related to an important government purpose.” (meaning that it has a “substantial relationship” to the end being sought). But it isn’t a question of gender. It’s a question of social contract that the state happens to approve.

          That being said, this is pushed clearly into the “rational basis” category.

          jhkrischel in reply to malclave. | January 17, 2015 at 1:19 pm

          First, let’s talk protected classes under federal law – sex is definitely one of them:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

          Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964

          Now, to the constitution:

          “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

          Is a homosexual not a sub-category of “person”?

          All that being said, denying homosexual marriage fails even under intermediate scrutiny – there is no rational government purpose for denying adult homosexuals their choice of consenting, adult partners. One might go so far as to argue that the government has no rational purpose for creating a special, limited social contract called “marriage” (since existing contract law should cover it).

          Which then of course, begs the question – if the social contract of marriage can be replicated by existing contract law, why does it even exist?

          Put another way – what would you propose to take away from a married gay couple in California, to turn their marriage into just a standard legal contract? Are you opposed to survivor’s benefits? The right to see each other in the hospital? Besides just the word “marriage”, what exactly do you expect the state to deny homosexual couples?

          FAIL! Nice try though. We’re talking about CONSTITUTIONAL law, not the equal protection of ‘Federal Law’ passed by Congress.

          Now, if you can get Congress to pass a law that says “no state may discriminate against an individual in the issuance of a marriage license” OR “no state or the federal government may discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation” you would THEN be correct. However, absent that, you’re out of luck (and it will NEVER happen. Period.).

          Equal Pay act of 63 and Civil Rights Act of 64: Ok. That gives SPECIFIC protections for specific items. NONE of which deal with marriage or sexual orientation, or are being discussed here. Again, FAIL! See above.

          What “Federal Law” is a gay couple being denied the “equal protection” thereof? You’re only entitled to certain benefits IF AND ONLY IF YOU ALREADY POSSESS A STATUS OF ‘MARRIED’ THAT HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE STATE. If you can name ONE, JUST ONE, not built on a state law, I’ll be VERY impressed.

          Of course homosexual is a sub-category of ‘Person.’ You’re sad attempt at a straw-man argument deserves ridicule, and thus, I will ridicule it: really? You’re going to attempt to go there when it’s not what is being discussed? Don’t be a Moron, please.

          As for the social contract being replicated by other existing contractual law, it cannot be without VAST changes to existing law. There are benefits that are bestowed that are unique to the marriage relationship: the ability to pass unlimited property ‘tax free,’ the right to inherit under State inheritance laws, the ability to recognize parentage of an individual (you can only have ONE parent of a specific gender; aka ONE mother and ONE father), decisional benefits regarding care without prior legal documentation, ‘Community Property’ in the states that recognize that arrangement, the list goes on and on. These things CANNOT necessarily be done in contract law, because they may only be undertaken with ONE PERSON AT A TIME. If you try to shoe-horn it into standard contract law, then you could undertake as many contracts regarding these things as you wanted at once, or divide them across multiple individuals. (and no, you can’t limit it via legislation, there are too many unintended consequences to even TRY).

          The short answer is that there is a LOT of subtle law weaved into the fabric of everyday life which allows for individuals who are married to dispense with certain legal documentation.

          As for WHY it exists: It exists because the legislatures of the various States and the Federal government has chosen to bestow benefits on a certain social arrangement in order to encourage it, on the basis that social arrangement provides stability to society in the form of relationships, parentage, social interaction and familial expectations. That, and that ALONE is sufficient to pass a “rational basis” test.

          jhkrischel in reply to malclave. | January 17, 2015 at 10:36 pm

          “There are benefits that are bestowed that are unique to the marriage relationship: the ability to pass unlimited property ‘tax free,’ the right to inherit under State inheritance laws, the ability to recognize parentage of an individual, decisional benefits regarding care without prior legal documentation, ‘Community Property’ in the states that recognize that arrangement, the list goes on and on.”

          And exactly which of these many, many benefits do you insist that homosexual couples should not have?

          “chosen to bestow benefits on a certain social arrangement in order to encourage it, on the basis that social arrangement provides stability to society in the form of relationships, parentage, social interaction and familial expectations.”

          BZZT. Nice try, but if you want to make that case, then divorce should be illegal. Nobody insists that hetero married couples be faithful, or good, or responsible parents, or any other moral quality before they get married.

          I understand that at the core, you must believe that homosexuality is some sort of immoral choice of individuals, rather than just the way they’re born. But that premise drives you to some very disjointed conclusions.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to malclave. | January 17, 2015 at 11:10 pm

          “I understand that at the core, you must believe that homosexuality is some sort of immoral choice of individuals”

          Actually I don’t think it is an immoral choice, I do believe it is a choice. I believe that way because every attempt to prove otherwise, whether it be the “gay gene” or any of the failed theories, has met with miserable and complete failure.

          jhkrischel in reply to malclave. | January 17, 2015 at 11:19 pm

          If you want to prove to me that homosexuality is a choice, become gay for just two weeks. Choose to be really excited by the same sex for two weeks. Have lots of gay sex, and *really* enjoy it. When you’re done with the two weeks, choose the other direction.

          Personally, I can’t imagine being attracted to anything but women – on the kinsey scale, I’ve got exactly zero libido for men. But hey, maybe for you, it’s really 50/50, and you’ve made the conscious choice to go the straight route. 🙂

          Gremlin1974 in reply to malclave. | January 17, 2015 at 11:25 pm

          “If you want to prove to me that homosexuality is a choice, become gay for just two weeks.”

          I am not trying to prove anything, you are gonna have your opinion regardless of what I say. Just like you I am simply expressing my opinion.

          However, the “choice” I speak of is the choice to go against how we are made. Reproduction and attraction to the opposite sex is a biological imperative, simply put we are built to be attracted to the opposite sex. So I don’t have to chose to be attracted to women, it is the way humans are built.

          jhkrischel in reply to malclave. | January 18, 2015 at 11:28 am

          “So I don’t have to chose to be attracted to women, it is the way humans are built.”

          Not all male humans are built that way.

          Heck, not all male animals are built that way – I remember a 3rd grade field trip to the zoo, where one giraffe was trying to mount another giraffe – and I was the kid who pointed out that they were both male 🙂

          Now, perhaps you believe that gay men who watch gay porn and have gay sex and really enjoy it, who say they are completely turned off by women, are just faking it? What incentive do you think there is for them to overcome the “natural” libido of men towards women, and instead forcefully overcome that natural tendency?

          Gremlin1974 in reply to malclave. | January 19, 2015 at 4:15 am

          @jhkrischel

          I just love it when people try to use the behavior of animals to justify the point that being homosexual isn’t a choice. Two big reasons that argument is flawed; First I haven’t seen many talking Giraffe, nor have I seen any with anything other than base instinct. So prove to me that that Giraffe actually knew the difference and could articulate the difference, then I will agree with you.

          I also haven’t seem many Giraffe’s that form long term relationships, which are highly rare in the animal kingdom. So that basic argument comes down to; “Well since unthinking animals will hump anything, it must be normal.”

          There is also the point that even if they “try to mount” other male animals, it is still their natural instinct to find a female and procreate.

          Once what you are trying to do is use weak arguments to say that there is no choice in being homosexual has been supported by science, which could not be further from the truth.

          jhkrischel in reply to malclave. | January 19, 2015 at 2:24 pm

          Are you honestly asserting that animals simply can’t tell what sex is what? 🙂

          Look, if some male giraffes have a base instinct to mount females, and others have a base instinct to mount males, obviously these are instincts, not choices. As humans are also animals, doesn’t it follow they might also have similar base instincts?

          Remember, it’s not necessary for every animal to procreate in order to perpetuate the species – in fact, in quite a few species, only the alpha male is allowed to procreate, and the other males are pretty much disposable protectors.

          The basic argument here is that humans are animals, animals have homosexual proclivities without free will, so it follows that some humans will have the same pattern.

          You can of course, disprove my theory by making the choice to be gay (really, really, enjoying gay sex and gay porn gay), and then choosing back. 🙂

          Gremlin1974 in reply to malclave. | January 19, 2015 at 3:44 pm

          @jhkrischel

          “Are you honestly asserting that animals simply can’t tell what sex is what?”

          No actually I asserted that that animal, who was most likely born in captivity so would have had muted base instincts may not have known the difference.

          “Look, if some male giraffes have a base instinct to mount females, and others have a base instinct to mount males, obviously these are instincts, not choices.”

          LOL, nice try, but that is not what I said and there is no credible scientific proof that this is the case.

          “As humans are also animals, doesn’t it follow they might also have similar base instincts?”

          Not necessarily, if you leave out the thing that makes humans unique and that is that we have developed the ability to overcome base instinct, even though some of the biological imperatives still remain, like the imperative to find a mate who can produce offspring. This is probably the most powerful of the imperatives second only to self preservation.

          “Remember, it’s not necessary for every animal to procreate in order to perpetuate the species”

          Correct, however that doesn’t change the biological imperative for those disposable protectors which is evidenced if you have ever seen what those disposable protectors will do to the alpha male and each other if the alpha is wounded or killed.

          “The basic argument here is that humans are animals, animals have homosexual proclivities without free will”

          The problem is that there is no evidence that this is true and all attempts to prove it true have failed miserably.

          “so it follows that some humans will have the same pattern.”

          Except that the two aren’t actually scientifically comparable in the credible ways. In fact if you are honest about it since we have developed the ability to overcome biological imperatives by making a choice that animals do not have, doesn’t that point more to a choice?

          “You can of course, disprove my theory by making the choice to be gay (really, really, enjoying gay sex and gay porn gay), and then choosing back.”

          So you want me to override my base biological imperative and be gay, lol. Thanks for that, by asking me to prove a negative you have just discounted your own argument.

    Ragspierre in reply to jhkrischel. | January 17, 2015 at 11:26 am

    “…marriage is a constitutional right for all consenting adults…”

    That rite thar is one of the stupidest word-strings ever concocted in the English language.

    Marriage has ALWAYS…LONG before there was a Constitution…been a permissive rite. Nobody, nowhere, at any point in history has had a “right” to marry.

    And they do NOT now.

      jhkrischel in reply to Ragspierre. | January 17, 2015 at 1:21 pm

      Marriage was also historically polygamous, and in the case of our dear islamic founder, with a 9 year old.

      Of course times change 🙂

      They’re changing now 🙂

        Ragspierre in reply to jhkrischel. | January 17, 2015 at 1:32 pm

        Marriage was RARELY polygamous, BUT always between a man and a woman or some variation on that theme. 🙂

        The cultural norm across the planet and history is and has been monogamous marriage. Liar. 😉 Even in ancient Greece, where homosexuality was considered a good thing.

        That is a lesson of all human experience, and, while you MAY pervert the meaning of a term, you stupidly supplant those kinds of lessons at great peril. 😉

        And NOBODY, EVER, ANYWHERE had or does have a “right” to marry. 😉

          jhkrischel in reply to Ragspierre. | January 17, 2015 at 10:38 pm

          Not that I’m an expert on the history of marriage, but you’d have to show a citation proving polygamy was anything near “rare” – perhaps per capita, given the massive population we have now, but as a tradition, that just doesn’t pass the smell test.

          As for cultural norms, they’re changing, even if you’re not 🙂

        Ragspierre in reply to jhkrischel. | January 18, 2015 at 9:30 am

        Nope. Let’s go back to BEFORE you drug your polygamy red herring across the thread.

        Marriage is a PERMISSIVE rite. It always was, everywhere, for everyone. NOBODY has or had a “right” to marry. Ever. Anywhere.

        “Times change” is just a stupid, vacant chant. 😉

        If you pervert “citizen” with “illegal”, that does not make the concept of “citizenship” mean whatever you want, including the OPPOSITE of its real, normative meaning.

        If you pervert “marriage” with “gay”, that does not make “marriage” mean something it has NEVER meant.

        Words…and concepts…mean things and are terribly important, even if you don’t have the wit to comprehend them.

          jhkrischel in reply to Ragspierre. | January 18, 2015 at 11:34 am

          Perhaps you don’t understand the statement “times change”. You can argue that in the entire history of mankind, marriage was considered a privilege, not a right. That still does not invalidate the truth that in some jurisdictions today, it is not considered a privilege to be doled out only if someone meets certain racial, orientation, or moral qualifications.

          Now, beyond times changing, words change too – and the fact that you don’t have the wit to comprehend those changes means you are unable to realize some terribly important things 🙂

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(slang)

          Originally, “faggot” meant “old woman”. Now, perhaps you’d like to insist on using it in the archaic form, rather than acknowledging its change over time – that’s definitely your prerogative.

        Ragspierre in reply to jhkrischel. | January 18, 2015 at 12:12 pm

        “…marriage is a constitutional right for all consenting adults…”

        Again. Slowly.

        No. It is NOT.

        Nor did anyone say it was a “privilege”, you lying SOS.

        It has always been, for everyone, everywhere a permissive rite.

        Nobody, anywhere, at any time EVER had a “right” to marry.

        And you cannot create new “constitutional” rights out of whole cloth. You CAN PRETEND to, and every time that’s been done, it has been a societal disaster.

        Times change every which way, you moron. Sometimes we correct very bad mistakes.

        But there will never be “gay marriage”, just as there cannot be “illegal citizens”.

        The rest of your bullshit is just you blathering. A “faggot” was a bundle of sticks before it was slang for an old crone. Still a perfectly good word. I hope that doesn’t make you feel all queer.

          jhkrischel in reply to Ragspierre. | January 19, 2015 at 2:27 pm

          So, if it’s not a right, and it’s not a privilege, exactly what *is* it?

          You call it a “permissive rite”, which is “allowed but not obligatory; optional”.

          But then you insist that this rite be limited to a specific subgroup, i.e., a privilege: “a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.”

          As for correcting very bad mistakes, I agree with you – and opening the franchise of marriage to homosexual couples is the rectification of a terribly bad mistake imposed for a very long time. 🙂

          It seems you fear the changes happening before you – I hope you can find the courage to eventually face them 🙂

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 19, 2015 at 3:26 pm

          You are a persistent moron. Which is no virtue.

          Religious/cultural marriages have always been permissive.

          Civil marriages have always been permissive.

          There ARE classes of people to whom the rite has always been barred.

          And, of course, you know this, and prefer to simply lie about it.

          The very concept has ALWAYS contemplated the blending of the two (not forty) sexes. NEVER the same sex as a norm.

          And NOBODY has EVER had a “right” to marry. (I can repeat this truism as long as you can blather, BTW.)

    Gremlin1974 in reply to jhkrischel. | January 17, 2015 at 7:24 pm

    I won’t argue with you since I think Chuck has more that adequately trounced your argument. I do however agree with part of your original statement; “it’s not something the government should be involved in at all.” This I agree with 100%.

    One of the big arguments made by the pro-gay marriage crowd is that same sex “spouses” don’t have the same rights as hetero-spouses. They can’t make medical decisions and they are not entitled to property after the death of a “spouse”.

    Frankly, as far as I am concerned the government has no reason to be involved in marriage and if the government did become involved in marriage then it was because government believed they could make money off of it (i.e. Marriage licenses).

    Each individual should have the right to decided who gets their property after death and who is able to make decisions in “worst case” situations and it should take no more than a simple single page document.

    However, that is not what the pro-gay marriage movement wants. They want to make it illegal for anyone to disagree with them and to be able to destroy them if they do.

      jhkrischel in reply to Gremlin1974. | January 17, 2015 at 10:43 pm

      Thank you!

      Now, I fully understand there are left wing Social Justice Warriors out there that clothe their fascist tendencies in victimhood mentality and demand subjugation of other points of view. But honestly, they’re a minority even in the homosexual community.

      Most of the gays and lesbians I know, don’t care what you teach your kids, or whether or not you believe homosexuals can be “saved” – they’re not out there to destroy you, and frankly, believe enough in freedom of speech that they’ll support your right to disagree with them, their morality, their actions, or whatever else you want to disagree with.

      I get it – I get the fear of left-wing fascism, and yes, I don’t deny that some promoting gay marriage simply do so because of their inherent need to dominate over others and eliminate all conflicting viewpoints from the world – but please, don’t believe that *everyone* who supports gay marriage feels that way. It’s as troublesome a stereotype as “all people with guns just want to play cop”.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to jhkrischel. | January 17, 2015 at 11:18 pm

        “They want to make it illegal for anyone to disagree with them and to be able to destroy them if they do.”

        Granted, I should have qualified that that is what the loudest want, not all or even most of them.

        “Frankly, as far as I am concerned the government has no reason to be involved in marriage and if the government did become involved in marriage then it was because government believed they could make money off of it (i.e. Marriage licenses).

        Each individual should have the right to decided who gets their property after death and who is able to make decisions in “worst case” situations and it should take no more than a simple single page document.”

        Look, I don’t know how to be more clear than that, I didn’t bring religion or morality into it, so I don’t know how you pulled that out of my statement. My personal opinion is that I don’t care, frankly I think it should all be kept behind the firmly closed bedroom door no matter who your chosen partner may be.

          platypus in reply to Gremlin1974. | January 18, 2015 at 12:02 am

          Of course it’s the loudest; the ones who aren’t drawing attention to themselves are usually busy living their lives. And they don’t necessarily think the laws should be changed. Maybe they do maybe they don’t – but they aren’t the ones who bypass “ghey” bakeries in order to try to force a Christian bakery to submit to their demands.

          There are all kinds of wheels but it’s the squeaky one that gets attention.

Like the European, globalist “elite” who are being pulled out by the tide of rising nationalism as the peoples of Europe re-assert there identity as French, as German, as English, the massive, centralized, fragile ‘leaders’ who purport to rule us are in over there heads.

The court can rule as it may, and the mores of pagan Rome will be the official mores of official America.

We the people will not put up with this. The court can go to hell.

    What will you do, burn down the county clerks offices? No really, I want to know what you will do! Will you start a revolution over two gay guys getting married? Is it that big of a deal?

      What I have already done; withdraw consent. When forced, refuse and resist.

      You can see it now in Europe. Despite the “rulings” and the “laws” there are deeper forces at work that will confound the “elite” (and you).

      An example of the “elite” being confounded is the refusal of the muslim children in France to honor the moment of silence for the slaughter of the Charlie Hebdo. The “elites” plans are/were multiculturalism and that is currently blowing up in their faces. In importing a foreign people, they have lost control.

      Analogously, the “elites” here, thinking themselves wise, will lose control as His people abandon the fools.

      This story is not new in history. God exists and He judges men and nations. Men like you think your “wisdom” and intellect are beyond such notions, but for His people who hear His words and head His voice will never comply and will never submit.

      You, meanwhile, will go the way of Rome.

        “God exists and He judges men and nations. Men like you think your “wisdom” and intellect are beyond such notions, but for His people who hear His words and head His voice will never comply and will never submit.”

        According to my Bible, God himself said that anyone who works on the Sabbath shall be put to death (Exodus 31-12). Since we obviously do not follow this command to put those poor workers to death, it is my contention that we as a nation are already screwed.

        Or, it is more likely that the holy words you are talking about are complete fabrications made up by men who were not afraid to put words in God’s mouth…

        Silly me! I almost forgot the best example of how we as a nation are screwed if you believe the Bible! We allow other gods to be worshiped here! We allow Muslims and Hindus and all other religions to create graven images.

        If that was not enough to get God to wipe America off the face of the earth (considering it violates one of the actual commandments, unlike homosexuality), nothing is!

          I do not think that you believe that your cheap apologetics for apostasy will win the day with people of faith.

          You are going to have to make an argument on ground that is too solid for you to tread on. Put please,fool,rush in.

          anoNY in reply to anoNY. | January 18, 2015 at 5:48 am

          It’s true, I am a realist when it comes to the question of whether any argument at all could win over people of faith. “Faith” itself is a rejection of argument in favor of blindness.

          You mistakenly define “faith” as willful delusion in the face of facts. It is something quite different.

          Your mistake is an evidence of the divide between your society and mine. Yours is a latter-day Rome or Babylon and will go the way of both.

          My society has defeated both pagan Rome and Babylon and will outlast and defeat this wayward nation as well.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to anoNY. | January 19, 2015 at 4:19 am

          Except that you miss one really key point. Since the coming of Christ, God no longer judges nations, he only judges individuals and then only after their mortal death.

        jhkrischel in reply to gettimothy. | January 17, 2015 at 1:23 pm

        Withdraw consent? Not sure if I understand what you mean there.

        Maybe you could explain by illustrating how a person who didn’t believe in anti-miscegenation withdrew consent…or how a person who didn’t believe in the war of Northern Aggression withdrew consent…

          “… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

          You know, you’re really hammering on this anti-miscegenation angle. It’s not the same, and if you think that it is, you are sadly deluded.

          But, I’ll humor you for the moment in terms of how individuals withdraw:

          1.) Some close up shop and go out of business, rather than engage with what they believe to be wrong. MANY restaurants in the South did this rather than serve Black customers in the immediate aftermath of Court decisions requiring service to all individuals. That deprived the communities of institutions which previously some service (although it opened opportunities,/i> for others to take their place). Some STILL have not.

          2.) Others MOVED from areas where Blacks were congregated. Some attempted to move to areas where pre-existing property agreements were in place restricting Black ownership (which ultimately failed). Others moved to areas where Blacks would be generally unable to afford purchase (more successful, short term, but ultimately also useless as Black population became more economically mobile). see ‘White Flight.’

          As for those who withdrew from the “War of Northern Aggression” (better known as the “Civil War”), there were two methods, depending on which side you were on:

          1.) those in the South (aka the Secessionists) withdrew by taking up arms. They very nearly WON, and would have had they not had a few key military blunders and had the will to do as Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman did (burn EVERYTHING, scorch the earth, and march to the sea killing everything in 60-mile-wide swath of your path) (aka ‘TOTAL WAR’).

          [Side note:]Incidentally, this has been my recommendation to the Israelis on more than one occasion: Cut a mile-wide swath through Gaza killing everything in their path. Break their will, and there will be no more uprising. [End note]

          Had Confederate General Albert Sidney Johnston not been killed and his subordinate P. G. T. Beauregard blundered BADLY at Shiloh by allowing Grant and Sherman to regroup in deciding not to press the attack the first night, Grant and Sherman would have been defeated, and the “War of Northern Aggression” would have ended VERY differently.

          2.) For those in the North they had the choice of not supporting the war effort, and many chose not to do so. Then there were the armed insurrectionists: “The Copperheads” in the Midwest; the Irish Catholics rioted in New York City (NY Draft Riots 1963); there was prominent draft-dodging; and many Unionists left the ranks of the Union Army after the emancipation proclamation, believing that Slavery should NOT be abolished.

          As for how they withdraw now, again there are lots of ways:

          1.) elect County Clerks and County Officials who will refuse to implement any hand-down from SCOTUS, along with Legislature Members who will not pass laws requiring it and Governors who will not enforce it. Somehow I don’t foresee Obama deploying the National Guard to make a clerk issue a Marriage Certificate.

          I know here in El Paso the Judges are spooked that they might have opposition due to a minor disagreement over indigent appointment of counsel and looking bad on the news. Exactly how terrified do you think they’ll be if the entire Mexican Catholic population (which is 40+% of the local population and HIGHLY OPPOSED to homosexual marriage) turns on them? You’ll see opposed Judicial races INSTANTLY with gay marriage being the top issue. That doesn’t even count the Evangelical population. That dynamic will play out everywhere in Texas except ~maybe~ Austin, and under that weight the Legislature and Governor (VASTLY Republican and largely Conservative) will not enforce any “Federal” mandate to issue marriage licenses over local objections.

          2.) Armed insurrection is not out of the question. Not in the big cities, but I can foresee some of the rural, small counties Clerks Offices being burned to the ground by an angry mob. It is neither unheard of nor impossible. Above someone mentioned this as “the straw that breaks the camel’s back.”

          We have 254 counties in Texas ALONE. There are not the resources to defend Clerks Offices 24/7 in ALL of them in even a medium-sized uprising, and the more rural ones are HOURS from any serious military support, even IF it WERE authorized on US Soil (which is a BIG IF).

          Depending on how the ruling is structured: There will be some businesses which will simply REFUSE to do business with same-sex couples. Acts of Civil Disobedience may become commonplace, and with enough disruption by the majority population, the experiment will be abandoned. When 35-40% of the population engages in anti-action protests, those 5% who actually support full same-sex marriage will be drowned out (and it IS that low of a number in many, if not most locations). Only in places like (again) Austin, will you see any sort of moderate Same-Sex Marriage support.

          jhkrischel in reply to jhkrischel. | January 17, 2015 at 10:57 pm

          Sorry, Chuck, but the shoe fits, and you gotta wear it 🙂 If you’re going to assert equal protection is satisfied for the institution of marriage because gay men can marry women just like straight men, the same logic applies for asserting black men can marry women of their own race just like white men.

          1) I certainly hope you’re not supporting the actions of southerners who closed businesses rather than served blacks;

          2) I certainly hope you’re not supporting “covenant deeds” that enabled “white flight” by restricting the purchase of property by blacks;

          3) the south could have won the war of northern aggression if they had actually been willing to slam the door and occupy Washington DC after the First Battle of Bull Run – they failed do so because they were playing “nice”, and just defending themselves – by Shiloh, it was already too late;

          4) the problem with a single clerk refusing to give out marriage certificates, is that they’ll certainly make an example of them with the full force and power of government – and you don’t have enough of a constituency to actually make it more than token efforts here and there – even the most republican and conservative areas couldn’t make a difference to the overwhelming majority that simply doesn’t care about gay marriage;

          5) I might’ve been willing to stand up to the feds at Bundy’s ranch, but burn a clerks office because they gave away a marriage license to a gay couple? Rioting and burning are the bailiwick of thugs under Sharpton, not traditional marriage activists.

          I think you vastly overestimate the size of the population that cares that vehemently about gay marriage 🙂

          jhkrischel – Stop ignoring the point. It’s becoming tedious.

          YOU asked for examples as to how individuals withdraw consent. I gave you several very thorough examples. NOW you’re nit-picking them. I didn’t say I approved of them. I didn’t even say they were a good idea. But they ARE THERE.

          Again, you’re trying ad hominim attacks and straw-man arguments. My guess is that 95%+ of the readership who have muddled through the thread recognize both, and have already written you off as an insufferable twit, or worse, an agitating troll, as you’re consistently both putting words into other peoples mouths AND moving the goal posts when someone actually responds to your questioning.

          You tried to belittle Gremlin1974 by framing his statements in religion when they were not framed in that way. You belittled Ragspierre as not changing with the times and about his knowledge of marriage history. Let me tell you, Rags could probably teach a undergraduate semester CLASS in history from MEMORY (I’m only exaggerating a little; he knows a LOT). It’s not going to work.

          I think that you vastly UNDERESTIMATE the size of the people who are getting to the point of being entirely fed up with the government not respecting their culture, traditions and beliefs.

          By the by – you have OBVIOUSLY never studied Constitutional Law. You would have received an F.

          RACE is a “Strict Scrutiny” topic from a Constitutional protection standpoint.

          GENDER (at best) is “Intermediate Scrutiny” and that is only a very recent development. Until a few years ago, Gender (which is what same-sex marriage would fall under) was, and largely still is, “Rational Basis” analysis.

          jhkrischel in reply to jhkrischel. | January 18, 2015 at 11:42 am

          Regardless of strict scrutiny, or intermediate scrutiny or rational basis, the prohibition of gay marriage gets an F 🙂

          While the fears of some left wing gay agenda are *real*, and I don’t doubt the sincerity with which they’re held, they are not *rational* fears.

          I think what you fail tor realize here is that I fully understand your argument – I just don’t agree with it. There are people who argue that the annexation of Hawaii in 1898 was illegal under constitutional law because it wasn’t enacted by treaty – they have the same passion as you have for traditional marriage, and make extensive, and even persuasive arguments for their position. But despite all that, I see their (and your) argument as specious, juvenile, semantic, misguided, and ultimately, wrong.

          My bet is that despite giving a great deal of though to the matter, you really don’t understand my argument at all. 🙂

          Anyway, our argument, of course is purely academic – in our country, for better or worse, the actual constitutionality of something and any given time is determined by the Supreme Court at any given time. Perhaps one day, there will be a SCOTUS that determines that miscegenation laws are legal. Perhaps one day, there will be a SCOTUS that determines that the annexation of Hawaii in 1898 was illegal.

          Regardless of strict scrutiny, or intermediate scrutiny or rational basis, the prohibition of gay marriage gets an F

          Agitating Troll: Got it.

          I understand your argument completely.

          You’ve taken the “It’s not fair that some people who love each other get to marry and some people who love each other don’t get to marry because of the color of their skin” argument from Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) and modified it to the following:

          “It’s not fair that some people who love each other get to marry and some people who love each other don’t get to marry because of what is between their legs.”

          I’ll say it ONE MORE TIME. If you don’t get it, you’re a lost cause: IT IS NOT THE SAME. GENDER IS NOT A STRICT SCRUTINY PROTECTED CLASS CONSTITUTIONALLY. WITHOUT MORE, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, BUT ONE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL STATES UNDER THE POLICE POWER TO REGULATE HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE AND MORALS.

          Now, if SCOTUS wants to reach out and claim that GENDER is now a “protected class” and all regulations regarding it are subject to “strict scrutiny,” I GUARANTEE you they WILL regret it. Why? Because enterprising lawyers like me who regularly practice FAMILY LAW will blow up about a dozen or more “Interstate Compacts” and International Treaties which will no longer be justified in light of the new, higher-level scrutiny required. We will start with the ICPC, which one of my colleagues ALREADY has sued the State of Texas in Federal Court to find Unconstitutional on Equal Protection grounds of Parents Rights in different States.

          This isn’t about “feelings” or “fairness” but about torturing words to make them mean what they historically don’t because it suits a particular group’s agenda at THIS moment in history.

          Chuck K. Skinner.

          If the comment software would allow it, I would have up-voted all your comments. Let this comment suffice.

          jhkrischel in reply to jhkrischel. | January 18, 2015 at 4:33 pm

          “GENDER IS NOT A STRICT SCRUTINY PROTECTED CLASS CONSTITUTIONALLY.”

          I get that. But your argument fails even the rational basis test. Prohibiting same sex marriage has no plausible, rational basis, end of story, full stop. We don’t need a protected class designation at all.

          Miscegenation fails the rational basis test as well.

          FWIW, Loving v Virginia has nothing to do with whether or not people of different colors love each other – there is no requirement that marriage be one that is based on love, physical or emotional, between the parties in question.

      SDN in reply to anoNY. | January 17, 2015 at 11:08 am

      Is it that big a deal? More like the straw that broke the camel’s back.

What effect will a ruling requiring states to recognize gay marriage licenses from another state have on concealed carry permits? One right IS specifically mentioned in the Constitution – I think a good legal argument can be made in favor of cross state recognition

Phillep Harding | January 16, 2015 at 9:16 pm

Marriage is a social contract for the benefit of any children produced, neither gov’t nor church created. Church and State got involved for record keeping purposes and because the bride or the bride’s mother wanted a big to-do.

Properly speaking, neither should be involved with legislating marriage, including polygamy, except in relation to under age children being married off, or enforcing provisions related to any children produced.

Eastwood Ravine | January 16, 2015 at 9:45 pm

I think it will be 5-4 for it, but the surprise will be Kennedy voting no. He’ll want to punt it and kick it back as a states issue. He’s done enough to move it forward. He doesn’t want to move gay marriage further down the road while he is on the court.

Roberts will vote for it, because I think Obama’s people have got the fix on him. There’s no other way to explain him first against, then for Obamacare as the serious reports have suggested back in 2012.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Eastwood Ravine. | January 17, 2015 at 7:30 pm

    Yea, I expect a 3 way split like on obamacare. I also believe you are correct on Roberts, I don’t know what they have on him but it must be good.

Dear “Traditional Marriage” folks:

The Supreme Court is about to make gay marriage available nationwide, even in your home towns! This is a good thing, as the government should not be restricting marriage licenses to straight couples without a compelling reason to do so.

The best part is that none of this will affect any of your marriages! You will still have your wife/husband and all will be well.

In 10 years, we will all look back on this and see that absolutely nothing really changed after this decision. Furthermore, gay marriage will no longer be a campaign issue, which means conservative Republican candidates may actually start getting votes from moderates again! It’s Win-win-win!

Anyway, I just wanted to get this in so that in the future I could say “I told you so!”

    nordic_prince in reply to anoNY. | January 17, 2015 at 10:42 am

    Logically speaking, then, you should have no problems accepting other people using fake $20s. After all, flooding the market with counterfeits should have absolutely NO effect on the real deal in your pocket.

    Fool – the presence of the fake always denigrates the genuine.

      jhkrischel in reply to nordic_prince. | January 17, 2015 at 1:25 pm

      When people start using marriage licenses as a form of currency, I suppose your argument might hold some water…but, in this new digital world, where data is data, and a “fake” copy is just as good as the original (down to the bit), I think your analogy falls flat.

      What was the last thing you tried to purchase with your marriage license, and how much less did you get because gay marriage and green card marriage exist?

        You will need a better straw man argument than that.

          jhkrischel in reply to gettimothy. | January 17, 2015 at 10:58 pm

          A better straw man than say, asserting that marriages that aren’t “real” somehow devalue “real” marriages because forged currency? 🙂

          I will reply on the same level I replied to anoNY. I don’t care what your laws are. There is a God and He has laws; when a person or a nation runs afoul of those laws, it is my duty to resist and not comply with your evil edicts.

          In Rome, it was the law that a Christian must offer a pinch of incense as Caesar paraded by–just a pinch. The point was that Caesar claimed power over God. The Christians refused and where killed for it.

          The same dynamic is happening here in America. Your supreme court and laws are in defiance of God’s law. You reject that, I understand that. I also do not care. Take your incense and shove it up your ass, little Caesar.

          We have 2000 years of history and growth. We also reproduce. John Roberts will be worms and dust in 50 years. This supreme court will be words in the wind. There is a power that is greater than them and you.

          I am giving notice that my allegiance is to it and, God willing, I will die before I submit to your evil.

          Clear?

          jhkrischel in reply to gettimothy. | January 18, 2015 at 11:47 am

          Your God is not my God, nor necessarily anyone else’s God. In fact, it’s arguable that the laws you attribute to your God have been filtered, adjusted, and tempered by any number of people, including yourself.

          That all being said, you sound a lot like a muslim who insists they will refuse to submit to the mocking of their prophet, since Allah and his laws are supreme. Nobody is asking the muslim to actually mock their own prophet, or even buy the magazine that publishes such cartoons, and neither is anyone asking you to marry someone of your own sex, or attend any same sex wedding.

          We are free to reject God. You have chosen to.

          The road splits here. You will or will not reap the consequences of your choice.

          What I will continue to do is disabuse you of the notion that others will follow you; we will not.

          To disabuse you of the notion that your State and its laws are the end all and be all of human existence; it is not.

          To disabuse you of the notion that your contention that following that path will end well; it will not.

          To disabuse you of the notion that this time is different (Hello, Weimar Republic!); it is not.

          To disabuse you of the notion that your wit and cleverness trump reality–they do not.

          Regarding the muslims, I am not one.

          What I illustrated is the folly of the “elites” regarding the multi-cultural project. The arguments used to advance that bear a remarkable similarity to yours.

          1. We are all the same people under the skin.
          2. We are solely a product of our environment.
          3. Economics trumps all.
          4. There is no culture, just wonderful human vibrancy.
          5. Trust us! It will be great!

          bah.

          You invited the barbarian into the heart of Christendom and the barbarian decided to kill you.

          The state, in its public schools, cannot change the children of the barbarian, they do not give one whit for the secular republic of France.

          The best efforts of your best and brightest have exploded like a muslim in a suicide vest.

          Your secular project failed. spectacularly.

          The Jews have seen this, they are leaving France for Israel.

          The Christians have seen this and they are returning to The Church.

          Yet, you persist in your folly.

          Your pleas and arguments are falling on deaf ears. Christendom is not listening to you anymore. We are rebuilding our civilisation no matter what your damn courts do or say.

          These things are bigger than you. They are bigger than your feeble arguments.

          You can see it or not.

          I hope you do.

          jhkrischel in reply to gettimothy. | January 18, 2015 at 4:40 pm

          Let’s be clear – I reject *your* God. It is the same God that inspires islamic terrorists to lash out at freedoms exercised by other people.

          But let’s be clear, even if we *did* share the same moral compass, I wouldn’t trust any government with the power to regulate morality.

          1) We are all human – self deceptions about “race” mean nothing;
          2) We are a product of both our own natures, as well as environment;
          3) Free market capitalism, for all its dangers, is the only known way to improve the economic well being of people;
          4) Not all cultures are equal – some are worse than others;
          5) Trust no one.

          As for public schools, they shouldn’t exist. Created to indoctrinate the youth into the worship of the state, and work as good minions in factories, they’re well beyond the reasonable realm of government – even though the proponents insist that it’s “for our own good” 🙂

          As for “Christendom”, I’ll refer you to Bart Ehrman, if you truly want to learn something of the origins of your current faith 🙂

          @jhkrischel

          “Let’s be clear – I reject *your* God.”

          Thy will be done.

          “It is the same God that inspires islamic terrorists to lash out at freedoms exercised by other people.”

          Really? The Battle of Lepanto was an example of self-flaggelation, the gates of Vienna where opened in welcome and the Battle of Tours marked the merger of Christianity and Islam. Interesting and revealing comment there, lawyer.

          “But let’s be clear, even if we *did* share the same moral compass, I wouldn’t trust any government with the power to regulate morality.”

          Thou shalt not steal One of the legitimate tasks of a legitimate government and you reject it. Fascinating.

          Governments must embrace a moral framework, its inescapable.
          Contrast Thou shalt not steal with You didn’t build that.Two moral frameworks on display. The two views of civilisation are incompatible; no compromise is possible. the peoples holding those opposing views do not inhabit the same civilisation; they will not play nice with each other.

          Tell me then, lawyerly one, if disparate notions of property can cleave a nation by what principle will two peoples who do not agree on what marriage is co-exist? Surely sex and procreation is more fundamental than property! Of course it is; the perverts would not be attacking it where it not.

          As for public schools, they shouldn’t exist. Created to indoctrinate the youth into the worship of the state, and work as good minions in factories, they’re well beyond the reasonable realm of government – even though the proponents insist that it’s “for our own good”

          We agree here. The Christian home-schooling movement is producing excellent scholars and removing our children from the grasp of the state. This trend will continue as the state loses its claim on the moral sentiments of our people. You are correct. The times are changing–just not the way you think they are.

          As for “Christendom”, I’ll refer you to Bart Ehrman, if you truly want to learn something of the origins of your current faith

          Your condescension, it drips.

          Notice the meta-issue on display in this back and forth.We are not discussing “the law” but “who we are”. You have demonstrated that this divide is beyond the reach of “the law”. It will get worse.

          jhkrischel in reply to gettimothy. | January 19, 2015 at 2:37 pm

          “the Battle of Tours marked the merger of Christianity and Islam.”

          I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that Christians and Muslims were now merged 🙂

          “Thou shalt not steal One of the legitimate tasks of a legitimate government and you reject it.”

          The only acceptable purpose of government (as per Bastiat), is the collective use of force in the defense of private property rights, so theft is already covered without relying on any sort of religious stricture.

          “Governments must embrace a moral framework, its inescapable.”

          And we keep that moral framework to the bare minimum to allow for maximum freedom.

          “Surely sex and procreation is more fundamental than property!”

          No. Our rights start with private property rights, and our first property is our own bodies. How we wish to use our bodies, engage or not engage in sex, or engage or not engage in procreation, is a fundamental right we all have.

          Were government in charge of sex and procreation, we’d require licenses to mate, and disband any marriage that was barren. Forgive me if I value freedom beyond those kinds of restrictions.

          “The Christian home-schooling movement is producing excellent scholars and removing our children from the grasp of the state.”

          It’s not just Christians 🙂 The home schooling movement isn’t just a religious movement, it’s a libertarian one as well. My favorite part about it is not having to pledge allegiance to a flag, under some arbitrary God 🙂

          “Your condescension, it drips.”

          Of course I’m condescending – you’re just like the self-righteous and implacable muslims that cheered on the slaughter at Charlie Hebdo – why should I have any respect for your mantra of “I only follow God’s laws”?

          The problem is this – your ultimate argument, “my God Said so”, is a cop out. You’ve outsourced your rational thought processes to a higher power, and since that higher power isn’t around to actually defend its dogmas, there is no rational defense for your assertions.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to gettimothy. | January 19, 2015 at 3:56 pm

          @jhkrischel

          “you’re just like the self-righteous and implacable muslims that cheered on the slaughter at Charlie Hebdo”

          Seriously, so not allowing gays to marry is equal to mass murder or the celebration of mass murder, by people who have so little confidence in their religion that they can’t take a bit or ribbing and goofy pictures? I am sure you have seen the video of muslims throwing gay men from the top of a building, so disagreeing with gay marriage is equal to that?

          Thank you for that, with one part of a sentence you have shown me that you are nothing more than an anti-religious zealot and no longer worth my time. The only suggestion I will leave you with is to seek the help of a medical psychiatric professional, because you have serious psychiatric issues. (Oh, and before you try to make the accusation, no I am not talking about sexual orientation therapy or whatever they call it.)

      I guess you would say the same thing about people following other religions, considering them “fake” as well? Does Judaism denigrate your faith?

      Anyway, merely using the word “logically” does not make your argument logical. Support for forgery does not follow from support of gay marriage.

    Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | January 17, 2015 at 11:30 am

    There will never be “gay marriage”. You can pervert terms, but you can’t change reality.

      el polacko in reply to Ragspierre. | January 17, 2015 at 8:47 pm

      that’s because it’s not “gay marriage”, it’s just ‘marriage’. both straight and gay couples get exactly the same license from the state.

        Ragspierre in reply to el polacko. | January 18, 2015 at 1:49 pm

        And government can issue a piece of paper that says the sky is green.

        That CO2 is a “pollutant”.

        Or that low-intensity invaders are now “citizens”.

        Is that all that comprises your reality…???

        Are you THAT stupid…???

          jhkrischel in reply to Ragspierre. | January 18, 2015 at 4:42 pm

          So, if you don’t trust government at all, do you think it should be involved in the institution of marriage at all?

          Or are you in favor of government only so far as it is enforcing the social ideals you agree with?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 18, 2015 at 5:07 pm

          More of your straw-man bullshit.

          But, to deal honestly with your dishonest question…

          I don’t think government has NO business in basic social norms.

          The British are suffering a plague of birth defects from the Pakistani custom of in-breeding (cousins marrying and reproducing).

          As I’ve said, there are excellent reasons for the social norms you don’t comprehend or care to acknowledge.

          And there is no “right” to marry, stupid.

          jhkrischel in reply to Ragspierre. | January 19, 2015 at 2:40 pm

          “The British are suffering a plague of birth defects from the Pakistani custom of in-breeding (cousins marrying and reproducing).”

          Funny, if homosexual cousins married, they wouldn’t be able to reproduce with each other, and therefore have no birth defects…perhaps we should insist on gay marriage for cousins? 🙂

          Prohibitions on incest, due to the birth defects, are rational. Prohibitions on homosexual monogamy institutionalized by the social contract of marriage, are not.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 19, 2015 at 3:04 pm

          Which is nothing BUT your own broke-dick opinion.

          Regardless of which, there is NO “right” to marry.

          You are simply…and stupidly…WRONG in your base assertion.

          And homosexuals are perfectly free to live in a monogamous relationship. They should have the rights that civil law grants any married (real marriage) couple, and I’ve provided my gay clients all those benefits except one. The tax code is the only barrier.

          Homosexuals are not free to corrupt a societal norm on demand.

      So why are you all getting so upset that gays can get married now, if you don’t consider it real marriage? Is it upsetting that other people consider it real?

    el polacko in reply to anoNY. | January 17, 2015 at 8:43 pm

    it’s already happened. we have over a decade of experience with marriage equality both here in the u.s. and in other countries around the world. none of the dire predictions made by the anti-gay folks have come to pass…no uptick in bestiality or incest, no fire and brimstone…nothing other than happy, legally-joined gay couples and happy, legally-joined straight couples and life has gone on.

      jhkrischel in reply to el polacko. | January 17, 2015 at 11:05 pm

      But…but…think about the children! They’re putting the gay agenda into our schools! They want to destroy us! 🙂

      But seriously, there are some fears on the side of traditional marriage supporters – irrational fears, but very real ones. Sadly, they have little to do with gay marriage directly, and more to do with the entire left wing politically correct thought police.

      There exist in this world, gun toting, freedom loving, homosexual couples who don’t believe in hate crimes, or rape culture, or quotas for the oscars, or hate speech, or any other of that liberal fascist nonsense. I’m not saying that all gay couples are like that, but I think the actual proportion would surprise some of the traditional marriage supporters.

      Several points.

      1. Lesbian Camille Paglia disagrees with your “nothing happens” take:

      “History shows that male homosexuality, which like prostitution flourishes with urbanization and soon becomes predictably ritualized, always tends toward decadence”

      http://thinkexist.com/quotation/history_shows_that_male_homosexuality-which_like/173409.html

      2. We Christians cite “Natural Law” or “Moral Law” or “Gods Law”. One cannot break the law, one can only break oneself on it.

      None of these arguments matter in the end because we are not the same people.

      Perhaps there is a way out via federalism-you do, for now, tend to leave the Amish alone-but it is not the nature of your movement to leave well enough alone.

I’m against the death penalty, even though the Constitution allows it. But I’m not held to the same hostility if I disagree with marriage public policy.

I hold to the less popular view, not out of hate. Everyone has a mom & dad, nothing wrong stating a relationship has a state’s interest, because ideally we want mom & dad to parent together.

Even gay kids got a mom & dad.

    anoNY in reply to ReneeA. | January 18, 2015 at 5:59 am

    Where is the evidence that a mom and a dad together are better than two dads or two moms? The social science hasn’t found that benefit yet.

    Either way, it would be even better if we did not allow divorce…

      jhkrischel in reply to anoNY. | January 18, 2015 at 11:52 am

      Even if social science did find some statistical benefit to a mom and a dad, versus 2 moms or 2 dads (and I believe that such statistical benefit, is at least *plausible*), here’s the real problem: What about other factors with more of a statistical difference? What if mixed race couples were at a statistical disadvantage? What if non-college educated couples were at a statistical disadvantage? At a certain point, do we line up all the social scientists, let them play with statistics, and then apply those observed correlations, that may have nothing to do with individual cases, and then prohibit marriage?

      If you know anything about how statistics are tortured to give support to the Church of Global Warming, you’d be hesitant to rely on statistical studies to drive law and policy.

    Good for you.

    As the Social Just Warrior (SJW) debates are showing, the volume of the pro-perversity side is inversely proportional to their numbers and their “courage”.

    That good sense you exhibit is a good thing; it is what builds families, communities and civilisations. Do not let your enemies derail or deflect your case with irrelevant segues into statistics and social “proofs”.

Wonder how many drafters of the 14th Amendment voted for the Morrill AntI-Bigamy Act.?

This case is going to be very interesting. The legal issues that the court has chosen to address make it very likely that the Court will rule that legally protected homosexual union is mandated by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Both the political situation and the direction of the Court in this area makes this so. The kicker, in this area, will be whether the Court requires that a homosexual union, analogous to marriage MUST be called marriage.

The most interesting facet of this potential decision is how the Court will word the decision so as to allow only a monogamous legal union which can still be restricted on the basis of filial relationships.

Also, if the Court rules that homosexual marriage must be allowed, under Equal Protection, then this could open the floodgates for civil litigation for any perceived discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

There is a potential for massive societal change in this case, not all of it for the good.

    anoNY in reply to Mac45. | January 18, 2015 at 6:03 am

    “The most interesting facet of this potential decision is how the Court will word the decision so as to allow only a monogamous legal union which can still be restricted on the basis of filial relationships.”

    This is off base. The Court has already held that marriage is a fundamental right, and that decision did not weaken the laws against siblings getting married. There is nothing about gay marriage that would make it any more likely that a bother and sister would marry (And that is what we truly don’t want, considering the potential for birth defects. Ironically, a gay incestuous marriage would be LESS risky…).

It will all depend upon the rationale used to decide the issue.

It is interesting that that you would suggest that a person be denied the right to marry a close familial relation solely because of the potential for birth defects. How discriminatory is that? Should we bar the marriage of Jews to guard against Tay Sachs or the marriage of African Americans because of the possibility of Sickle Cell Anemia? Remember, one of the arguments for same gender marriage is that marriage has little or nothing to do with procreation, only with emotional love and legal protections for the spouses. Then there is the question of polygamy and the attendant issues of bigamy and adultery.

These are all double edged swords and once you take them out of the scabbard, they can cut two ways. The question here is not whether marriage is a right, but exactly what constitutes marriage. And, this is going to have to be decided under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Any rationale for stripping the states of the authority to limit marriage to monogamous unions of non-familial people of differing gender is only going to set up strong arguments for removing all rationale for limiting marriage. And any such decision would apply to the Federal Government as well.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Subotai Bahadur | January 18, 2015 at 4:06 pm

In concert with my prediction above, let me note that in the highly unlikely case that the Supreme Court rules against gay marriage, or even if it rules that Federalism applies and states have the option to allow it or not in their borders; that the Federal government will ignore the Supreme Court and de facto treat gay marriage as a fait accompli. Because the Federal government, to use an apt phrase from earlier in this thread, has “withdrawn from” the Constitution, the rule of law, and from consent of the governed.

All of which make up the social contract that the Left are so dependent on. In the absence of such a contract, there is no reason, other than the application of coercive force, for those who disagree with the actions of the government to obey that government or give it aid and comfort. That aid and comfort can come in many forms from taxes to a willingness to do business with the government and its supporters. But if a significant portion of the population decide that the government no longer has legitimacy, we are back in what the creators of the concept of the Social Contract the advocates of gay marriage so depend on [John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau] referred to pre-Contract as “the State of Nature, red of tooth and claw”.

He who would use the coercive power of the State to piss off the population had best be good at counting heads. For if in the absence of a Constitution, a Rule of Law, or Consent of the Governed, force becomes the determinant of “legitimacy”; then both sides can use it in lieu of a Constitution, a Rule of Law, or Consent of the Governed. We are already well on the way to not having a common definition of political legitimacy in this country.

As for my personal stand, if you will bear with me:

1) I am not of the Judeo-Christian faith tradition.
2) That said, I appreciate the fact that our country is founded on and governed by that tradition. It is the only one where the Deity himself can be held to the terms of a Covenant, and that sacredness of Covenant underlies the over-riding power of a Constitution that can limit the power and scope of government. Every other faith tradition has no way to hold those in power to any account. Which is necessary for liberty under law.
3) Personally, I have no problem with gays being able to marry so long as they have the same legal responsibilities that go along with the benefits of marriage. Many of those who are eager for gay marriage want to ignore the responsibilities part.
4) Yes, there is a Social Contract; and the rule of law, the Constitution, and Consent of the governed are some, but not all of the component parts.
5) Contracts can evolve as conditions change. And the component parts of the contract have to evolve pretty much in step to make things work. Using the coercive power of the State and the Courts alone to force the component parts to accept one view is a way to short circuit that evolution, and void the other components of the contract. Consent of the governed is key.
6) The best way to determine what is consented to is a public vote. Even if you lose the vote, the tendency is to accept the outcome because of the rule of law and the Constitution, if you lost “fair and square”.
7) Two examples. The right of women to vote seems elementary today, and to many during the fight over the 19th Amendment. Did they go to the courts to force all states to grant the right to vote? No, they did the hard political work [and sometimes dangerous political work] of using the legal and political system to get the 19th Amendment on the ballot in every state of the Union. And they fought and won those campaigns. And once the Amendment was ratified, even though there were a huge number of those who had opposed it, there has been no problem or serious argument against women’s suffrage since. The system evolved with the consent of the governed, by Constitutional process, according to law, and everyone had their say.

Now look at an equally contentious matter, Abortion. At the time of the 1973 Roe -v- Wade decision abortion was in fact becoming legal across the nation. 30 states banned abortion, but 20 states had legalized it in various forms, 19 of which using the formulation of “woman’s health” which made it her choice. My own state of Colorado was the second state to make it legal.

Roe -v- Wade short circuited that process. Further, as most court decisions do, they deliberately obfuscated the matter. “Shadow of a Penumbra” is not a firm legal standard that convinces most people. And the aftermath of Roe -v- Wade was such as to convince people that any restrictions imposed by the courts would be ignored afterwards. Look at the trimester system laid out in Roe -v- Wade. Now look at the ongoing battles over partial birth abortion or the battles to make abortion clinics [which are in fact outpatient surgical clinics] meet the SAME purely medical standards that other outpatient surgical clinics have to meet. When you attach the word abortion to anything, the Left assumes that it is above the law and functionally it is. So you have lost the rule of law and the consent of the governed. And taught the hard lesson that the Left will always go outside both and get away with it.

States have had votes. And they have banned gay marriage. And in every case legal maneuvering and Leftist judges and lawyers have overturned the consent of the governed. They have functionally said directly, that voting is pointless because we are under a dictatorship of Leftist judges.

Like I said before, you probably will get gay marriage imposed on the country against its will. And on terms that are deliberately designed to offend those of the Judeo-Christian faiths as much as possible. [quick test of the intent of gay marriage activists: They are more than willing to go to a Jewish or Christian baker and force them by law to make a gay wedding cake for them. Why have they never gone to a Muslim baker and done the same thing? Who do they see as their friends and who their mortal enemies? The deliberate intent is the attack on the Judeo-Christian faith tradition.]

But you are bringing closer the collapse of the system that prevents you from having to count heads to survive.

Subotai Bahadur

It is now evident you are a sophomoric ideologue whose grasp of human nature and depth of experience approximates that of a fifteen year old Ayn Rand acolyte (I know the type, I was one; yes, I do have a soft spot for Rand.).

Since you bore me, I cite only one evidence of your shallowness; it is from the following exchange:

At this comment:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2015/01/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-gay-marriage-is-constitutional-right/comment-page-1/#comment-564530

you wrote:

It is the same God that inspires islamic terrorists to lash out at freedoms exercised by other people.

It is a special sort of stupid that equates God with the demigod of the moslem. I highlighted your stupidity and ignorance with the sarcastic quip:

“the Battle of Tours marked the merger of Christianity and Islam.”

Having stated that they where in fact “merged” You then doubled down on stupid and embarassed yourself with:

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that Christians and Muslims were now merged

It is this stunning intellect–yours–that purports to supplant the wisdom of the Church.

No.

My country was founded by brave, Christian men who fought those who would rule over them. They wrote:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

They then followed with a list of particulars; our declaration of causes is much shorter. It starts with

Because you are evil.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend