Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Gay Marriage Day at SCOTUS Highlights Divide

Gay Marriage Day at SCOTUS Highlights Divide

Here we go again

No matter which way you come down on the issue of gay marriage, today was a big day at the Supreme Court. Those who wished to sit in the courtroom (and who weren’t lucky enough to hold membership in the Supreme Court Bar, or the media) camped for several nights outside the courthouse, and today, protesters (both hopeful and defiant) gathered on the steps to make their voices heard.

Obergefell v. Hodges is consolidated with three other cases, and the issues at hand are pretty simple compared to those contained in other cases we’ve covered:

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?

So, here we are. “Finally,” some would say. Is gay marriage an idea whose time has come, or an idea that should be left untouched by the government? Both parties had their day in court today, and the ebb and flow of oral arguments revealed a divide in the Court that has left many SCOTUS watchers hesitant to make a prediction.

During oral arguments, the Court appeared to divide itself along ideological lines, with the attorney for the states John Bursch facing off with the more liberal wing of the bench:

The question, he made clear, was who gets to decide whether the states must allow same-sex marriages. And he asked the Court to uphold a different right: the voters’ “individual fundamental liberty interest” to define the meaning of marriage.

Bursch spent most of his oral argument time sparring with the Court’s four more liberal Justices – Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor – about the states’ rationale for prohibiting same-sex marriage. Bursch maintained that the states were not limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples because they wanted to confer second-class status on same-sex couples, but because of society’s vision of marriage as an institution centered around having children and encouraging parents to stay married and bonded to their children. The idea that marriage is about love and commitment is important, he said, but the state doesn’t have any interest in that idea.

Kennedy remained disturbingly quiet for much of the oral arguments (has he already made up his mind? Only time will tell) while Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to want to work through things by putting both attorneys through their paces.

Of course, the media is already on the march with theories, explanations, and anticipatory strikes. My favorite one I’ve found so far comes from NPR, and offers up a passive-aggressive list of reasons why Republicans would support a pro-gay marriage ruling. They mention the evolution of public opinion, and a possible truce in the culture wars, but this chunk in the middle takes the cake:

A court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage would let Republican candidates off the hook.

Republican presidential candidates are doubling down on their opposition to gay marriage while at the same time trying to prove they respect gay people. It’s an ungainly two-step. This weekend at the Faith and Freedom Coalition meeting in Iowa, Sen. Marco Rubio told the Christian Broadcasting Network that there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

“You have to have a ridiculous reading of the U.S. Constitution to reach the conclusion that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex,” Rubio said. But Rubio knows that support for gay marriage is now a proxy for tolerance, especially among millennials, who tend to dismiss candidates they think are old-fashioned and out of touch.

So Rubio, who is presenting himself as a new-generation Republican, has also said that he would attend a gay wedding — and that he believes being gay is not a choice. Even Ted Cruz — the Tea Party-backed conservative firebrand who announced his candidacy with a clarion call for traditional marriage — held an event at a gay couple’s home in New York City, where he told them he would be comfortable if his daughter were gay. Republicans would much rather not be talking about this at all, and if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality, many Republican candidates would heave a (private) sigh of relief. It would also allow them to talk about other social issues on which public opinion is more divided, like religious liberty or abortion.

I don’t have the strength.

First of all, this is a ridiculous presumption to make. The controversial pro-Obamacare ruling didn’t cause conservatives to let candidates off the hook; it emboldened activists and prompted lawsuits from half the states in the nation. Similarly, a pro-gay marriage ruling in this instance won’t make the issue go away. There are plenty of republicans who support gay marriage, but there are also plenty of republicans who feel like the issue should come down to the states, or should not be handled by the courts at all. The conversation will continue no matter what happens.

It’s proof that the left—especially the institutional left—doesn’t want the more conservative wing of the party to “evolve,” even on its own terms. They crave the culture war that allows them to write think pieces about Republican candidates, and print salacious speculation about what this politician or that politician may do when confronted with an invitation to a gay wedding.

How will this come down? I have no idea; the only thing I’m sure about is that the discussion won’t end once the decision is read.

And now, we hold our breath until June.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

It boggles the mind that a thousand year definition of marriage accepted by the world now comes down to a just a few people.

    siguiriya in reply to walls. | April 29, 2015 at 8:02 pm

    “It boggles the mind that a thousand year definition of marriage accepted by the world now comes down to a just a few people.”

    And not only a definition across time, but also across cultures, geographic areas, language groups, races, and any other category, marriage has always involved both male and female — even in cultures in which same-sex relationships were permitted in other contexts. Amazing to me that the Left is so anxious to be rid of such a universal definition.

    Of course same-sex “marriage” is not really about marriage, but is ultimely about creating a “brave new world” in which what we now call “marriage” is only one of many lifestyle options, no better or worse than any other option.

I have not seen any discussion about whether the justifications and methods of giving full faith and credit in other areas of law have application to this case. There are areas in family law, for instance, in which foreign decrees and orders cannot be recognized here in WA state because we have no comparable provisions in our law. Ditto for criminal convictions regardless of what the name of the crime is. If our prosecutors want to count a foreign conviction as a strike under our law, they have to be prepared to go line by line between the two statutes to answer the question of whether the two statutes are “functionally” the same.

ScotusBlog said nothing about this area of law which leads me to believe that no party has seriously made it an issue. BTW, Lawrence versus Texas did not say that engaging in homosexual acts also gave you constitutionally recognized rights. So I am wondering how someone can claim 14th Amendment “fundamental rights” without a showing that those rights have already been recognized at a federal level.

I also didn’t notice anyone discussing “husband and wife” and how it is impossible to have a wife in the marriage of two males or a husband in the marriage of two females. In order to comprise a marriage, it would seem that those two “offices” are part of the basic concept and thus cannot be ignored in favor of some spurious slogan like “who love each other.”

My view is that like most decisions in the last twenty years, the Court will again find a way to pretend it’s a legislature in black robes.

Carol Herman | April 28, 2015 at 7:05 pm

Marriage has a long history. Love has nothing to do with it. It legitimized children. And, swarms with inheritance laws.

Now? Ahead it’s be predicted that 72% of American children will be born into homes without dads. Fewer custody battles?

Ahead most females will have only one or two children. Something that could not be dreamed of before the Pill.

As to the Supreme Court whatever they decide this year; it could have impact on par with Dred Scott.

The “bench” looks pretty lackluster to me. It’s been that way for awhile. Take a fork. How many prongs did Sandra Day O’Connor identify? Ever notice how she ran circles around Rehnquist?

The state [properly] treats marriages the way it treats births and deaths. In other words, it recognizes, makes official [e.g., records], and in some cases might make regulations in regards to how we as a society react to such basic human things. But the state can’t redefine marriage, at least not with any legitimacy, any more than it can redefine life or death. It can and does try. It can declare some people to have less personhood than others, and thereby be in error. And it can say that some people are married who aren’t married and thereby be in error. I’m aware that judges have been making declarations in this regard for some time now. The judges are wrong, plain and simple, as judges sometimes are. The error is in assuming that the law creates the reality or that popular opinion creates the reality. Neither has that power. Rev Peter Speckhard

http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=5383.msg331058#msg331058

    anoNY in reply to gregjgrose. | April 29, 2015 at 7:03 am

    The state cannot redefine “religious” marriage, but it sure as hell can redefine it’s own definition. No one is saying that the Baptists will have to solemnize gay marriages, or even believe that those are actually marriages.

      Vancomycin in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 7:53 am

      Such bullshit. Yes, you lying troll, the fascists on the left will definitely be trying to get the baptists to solemnize sodomite “marriages”.

      That’s the end goal.

      Actually, the end goal is making it illegal to be Christian.

        anoNY in reply to Vancomycin. | April 29, 2015 at 9:04 am

        Considering how many folks on the left identify as “Christian”, I doubt you are correct.

          MattMusson in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 10:22 am

          AnoNY – you are not paying attention. Libs are trying to pass laws saying Christian Ministers cannot legally perform marriages if they don’t perform same sex marriages.

          anoNY in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 11:21 am

          “AnoNY – you are not paying attention. Libs are trying to pass laws saying Christian Ministers cannot legally perform marriages if they don’t perform same sex marriages.”

          Got a link so that I can see that for myself?

        Ragspierre in reply to Vancomycin. | April 29, 2015 at 9:15 am

        Totalitarians like assoNY will allow people to call themselves Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc.

        But they’ll insist that they pervert their beliefs to match their demands.

        It’s already happening. Ol’ Walleyes says Christians need to change their doctrine to accommodate abortion on demand, and assholes like assoNY are perfectly sanguine about ripping the meaning of marriage out by its roots for less than 3% of Americans, and cramming it down the throats of everyone else. While calling you a bigot for holding the exact views that Obama and BOTH Clintons did about sixty seconds ago.

        Remember when he tells you stuff, he’s a liar. He also hates people.

          anoNY in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2015 at 9:31 am

          “It’s already happening. Ol’ Walleyes says Christians need to change their doctrine to accommodate abortion on demand, and assholes like assoNY are perfectly sanguine about ripping the meaning of marriage out by its roots for less than 3% of Americans, and cramming it down the throats of everyone else”

          Not sure who Ol Walleyes is, but Christian doctrine has changed before (see any schism or church controversy ever). However, only the church itself is able to do that, the government cannot.

          As for marriage, no one is forcing you to marry your gay lover, Rags, so stop acting like we are. We are forcing the government to recognize those marriages, that is all. If government recognition is equal to “cramming it down” your throat, I suggest you see a doctor about removing the government from your throat…

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2015 at 10:49 am

          No, liar, what you’re doing is insisting that marriage, by fiat, HAS to mean something it never has and cannot.

          Just as the Justices have noted yesterday. Did that make your ass pucker a bit? Tell the truth (HA! Like THAT could happen!).

          anoNY in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2015 at 10:53 am

          “Just as the Justices have noted yesterday. Did that make your ass pucker a bit? Tell the truth (HA! Like THAT could happen!).”

          Yesterday was fine, Kennedy brought up “dignity”, which he always does just before ruling in favor of gay rights. Hell, John Roberts even brought up Ilya Somin’s argument that banning gay marriage is actually sex discrimination…

Subotai Bahadur | April 28, 2015 at 7:11 pm

Does anyone seriously believe that a majority of the Supreme Court would resist the chance to be edgy and avant garde just to uphold either the norms of human history or the consent of the governed? The very fact that gay marriage is not the norm guarantees that the Court will make it mandatory. Consent of the governed is anathema in this country when a judicial decision can overturn it.

The true question we all need to ask ourselves is “what roll does the government have in telling us who can married who?” prior to the Civil War no state has licensing requirements for marriage. The requirement for licensing came about to prevent Whites and Blacks from being married together. It would seem to me this whole issue could be resolved by the government stepping away from the issue altogether.

    anoNY in reply to OldSarg. | April 29, 2015 at 7:06 am

    While technically true, your idea would require changes to many laws that are not specifically about marriage, such as visitation rights, inheritance and probate, taxes, etc.

    Also, watch out saying that on this website, most of the folks here think that the government has some sort of “compelling interest” in married couples raising children, and they wouldn’t like it if you said otherwise…

      Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 9:17 am

      I love that you are SUCH a complete moron that you can’t understand that families existed long before governments, and that PEOPLE formed governments to foster their compelling interests.

      How funny…!!! You are too easy.

        anoNY in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2015 at 9:33 am

        OldSarg: “prior to the Civil War no state has licensing requirements for marriage.”

        Rags: “families existed long before governments, and that PEOPLE formed governments to foster their compelling interests.”

        Looks like marriage has not always been that interesting from the government perspective.

          Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 9:59 am

          True. As government has intruded itself more and more into various aspects of life, and displaced (in Western culture) the role of churches, we’ve seen some terrible consequences.

          Like laws respecting inter-racial marriages. Those were not rare in history, they sure weren’t forbidden by the churches, and only were verboten when your ideological ancestors had the power of government to make them so.

          But point to homosexuals “marrying” in history, you lying SOS.

          anoNY in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 10:31 am

          “Like laws respecting inter-racial marriages. Those were not rare in history, they sure weren’t forbidden by the churches, and only were verboten when your ideological ancestors had the power of government to make them so.”

          This is laughable. See below.

          “The trial judge who upheld Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute in the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia cited the fact that God had put the races on separate continents as proof “that he did not intend for the races to mix.””

          http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/a-unique-religious-exemption-from-antidiscrimination-laws-in-the-case-of-gays-putting-the-call-for-exemptions-for-those-who-discriminate-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/#_ftn82

          Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 10:45 am

          What’s laughable is your stuuuuuuuupid, moron.

          Note your own quote, “…the TRIAL JUDGE…”, NOT the clergyman.

          You might read “Othello” some time, you ignorant phuc.

          Gawd, you’re an idiot. But I DO love the idea of you thrashing around doing Wiki work to try to keep in the game.

          Heh…!!!

          anoNY in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 10:57 am

          Nice try Rags, but why is it only religious folks arguing against gay marriage? This is an echo of the religious arguments against interracial marriage, which were certainly not put forth by atheists like me…

          Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 11:06 am

          Every element of that set of lies is just that…more lies.

          I’m not religious.

          And people of like mind with me are arguing in favor of what IS, and has BEEN the definition of an essential cultural norm in all of history and across all cultures.

          YOU are the one who is in denial here. But you’re too stupid, deluded, and arrogant to accept that YOU are the bigot. As usual.

          anoNY in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 11:15 am

          “I’m not religious. And people of like mind with me are arguing in favor of what IS, and has BEEN the definition of an essential cultural norm in all of history and across all cultures.”

          HAHAHA! You are not religious and you still don’t back gay marriage? If you don’t think gays are sinners, what the hell is the problem with them getting married? Are you really that concerned with maintaining a “traditional definition” of marriage merely because it is tradition? What makes it different from other traditions that we have left by the wayside?

          Frankly, that makes you seem even stupider than if you argued that Jesus forbid gay marriage. I mean, if you are religious, at least you could *plausibly* be concerned with the souls of gay people going to hell and whatnot…

          Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 11:25 am

          A cultural norm is not reduced to merely “a tradition” by idiots like you, you lying SOS, merely because it is in vogue with your Collective.

          People of all stripes…including many homosexuals…oppose your Collective’s drive to pervert society at your whim.

          Two of the several things that puts you and I a loggerheads is that I like people, and I don’t lie.

          Oh, and I am not an ignorant phuc who trolls sites on the internet.

          anoNY in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 11:39 am

          Perhaps you can reveal your definition of the term “cultural norm” and explain why it is not synonymous with the term “tradition”.

          Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 11:43 am

          Or you could look up the terms and educate your ignorant, lying self a lil’ bit.

          Just a little, tiny bit? C’mon. Try. It won’t hurt for long, and you’ll be better for it.

          anoNY in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 11:53 am

          “Or you could look up the terms and educate your ignorant, lying self a lil’ bit.”

          “Social norms, the customary rules that govern behavior”

          http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-norms/

          “Full Definition of CUSTOM

          1 b: long-established practice considered as unwritten law

          Merriam Webster

          Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 12:52 pm

          Full Definition of NORM (Merrim-Webster)
          1
          : an authoritative standard : model
          2
          : a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior
          3
          : average: as
          a : a set standard of development or achievement usually derived from the average or median achievement of a large group
          b : a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group
          c : a widespread or usual practice, procedure, or custom

          Hence, a LOT more than a “tradition”, you lying sack of shit.

          When viewed from the vantage-point of ALLLLLLLL of history, and ALLLLLLLL across cultures (from tribal to modern, complex), a cultural norm that is essentially UNIVERSAL is seen by anyone of intelligence as being “essential” to humanity.

          Lying moron.

          anoNY in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 12:58 pm

          “When viewed from the vantage-point of ALLLLLLLL of history, and ALLLLLLLL across cultures (from tribal to modern, complex), a cultural norm that is essentially UNIVERSAL is seen by anyone of intelligence as being “essential” to humanity.”

          It is exactly that “historical” argument that tells me you are talking about a tradition.

          Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 1:19 pm

          That’s because you are stupid, delusional, and in denial.

          Plus you are a lying sack of shit who hates people.

          As demonstrated here again today.

          anoNY in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 1:35 pm

          “who hates people”

          One of us is trying to expand the rights of a small minority of people (and succeeding, I might add), while the other is trying to deny those rights to that minority because that minority…has never had those rights before.

          Now, who is it that hates people again?

          Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 2:20 pm

          Ah, you blunder into a fact.

          YOU are “trying to CREATE a right” that NEVER existed anywhere, at any time, and in the process DESTROYING something you DEVALUE, but is essentially important.

          The “right” you advocate is nowhere to be found in our laws or Constitution, yet you gleefully seek to impose it in the name of a TINY minority of our population, and regardless of any effect it will have on the larger whole.

          And you do it with the arrogant lie and conceit that YOU are the enlightened one and anyone who argues against this new, trendy “right” (which is NOT a right) is a benighted bigot and a “dinosaur”.

          You have no idea…and won’t get one…what this “right” will mean to people, and you don’t give a good shit. You won’t even consider the issue.

          You are an arrogant, people-hating bastard, in addition to the lying sack of shit we are plagued with here regularly.

          anoNY in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 2:36 pm

          “The “right” you advocate is nowhere to be found in our laws or Constitution, yet you gleefully seek to impose it in the name of a TINY minority of our population, and regardless of any effect it will have on the larger whole.

          You have no idea…and won’t get one…what this “right” will mean to people, and you don’t give a good shit. You won’t even consider the issue.”

          An effect that no opponent can name or quantify. How about it, do you love you wife less now that gays can marry in many places? Do you feel like you have no connection to your children anymore since gays can marry and “dilute” the brand, so to speak? The lawyer for Michigan yesterday could only warn about “consequences” without naming specifics…

          One the flip side, I do have an idea “what this right will mean to people”. My wife and I were married at the clerks office in Manhattan a few days after gay marriage became legal there. We saw with our own eyes the couples lining up for marriage certificates. They all looked pretty happy.

          Now that gay marriage is legal in Florida, I know that my wife’s uncle will not have to worry about whether his partner can be by his bedside in the hospital since he is now considered a spouse.

          Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 2:51 pm

          YOU are “trying to CREATE a right” that NEVER existed anywhere, at any time, and in the process DESTROYING something you DEVALUE, but is essentially important.

          The “right” you advocate is nowhere to be found in our laws or Constitution, yet you gleefully seek to impose it in the name of a TINY minority of our population, and regardless of any effect it will have on the larger whole.

          And you do it with the arrogant lie and conceit that YOU are the enlightened one and anyone who argues against this new, trendy “right” (which is NOT a right) is a benighted bigot and a “dinosaur”.

          You have no idea…and won’t get one…what this “right” will mean to people, and you don’t give a good shit. You won’t even consider the issue.

          You are an arrogant, people-hating bastard, in addition to the lying sack of shit we are plagued with here regularly.

          AND you know it.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2015 at 6:46 pm

        “small minority of people”

        Hey, Rags at least he got this one right, since the number of homosexuals in the population is closer to a statistical anomaly than an actual statistic.

        But for some reason he still believe that a group that composes less than 2% of the population should dictate to the other 98%, that’s the part I don’t understand.

Henry Hawkins | April 28, 2015 at 8:32 pm

Federal government one-size-fits-all mandate means one side of the argument has no second choice or redress.

Leave it to the states, or rather, to the voters in each state. Get the feds out. One can look at a map and guess with 90% accuracy which states would approve SSM and which would not. Approval/disapproval is largely regional. In terms of state majorities, most would be happy with their state’s choice, and the unhappy would at least have the option to move to a state that might make them happier.

Fed one rule = great many losers with no options.
States’ choice = few or no losers if you don’t mind moving.

States’ choice = Approval/disapproval of SSM on an individual basis in pursuit of happiness, instead of “we say for ALL, so f**k you”.

Leave it to the states.

    Why not just take that attitude with interracial marriage as well, then? Why not just let states decide whether marriages performed at Jewish temples are actual marriages in the eyes of the state?

    Answer: Because that would allow benighted places like Alabama to dick over their own citizens.

      Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 9:20 am

      Note: assoNY is a regional bigot. Another manifestation of his hatred of people. Especially those with views not accepted by his Collective.

      As we’ve all noted here many times, the real bigots are the Collective.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 6:47 pm

      Also because Race is not chosen, it is genetic. The same can not be said for sexual behavior.

What is amazing to me is that we are going to see, under some constitutional criteria, other states required to recognize gay marriages that take place in Washington State but not recognize my Washington State concealed carry permit.

I guess they should have made the thingy about right to bear arms one of the first in the list of amendments or at least listed it before the one on same sex marriage. Maybe even put it in the top two amendments.

This is not a movement that can be appeased. Realize now, that they want to punish anyone who dares criticize homosexuality as an immoral lifestyle.

How any Conservative, Republican, Christian or Libertarian can support gay marriage is mind numbing. They do not even have the full force of the law behind their thuggish ways and they are already trying to send bakers to jail if they refuse to bake them a cake. Imagine, once they have the power, what they will do next. Will it take them seizing churches for you to finally realize that you made a mistake in supporting gay marriage? In the UK “Islamophobia” will be a thought crime before too long. The Left in America wants to the same with homosexuality.

“Is gay marriage an idea whose time has come, or…”

Nine unelected lawyers in black robes wouldn’t need to impose it on us if this is an idea whose time has come.

I’m getting sick of this debate. If they keep it up, the throwing them off the building routine in the middle east is going to sound attractive… more due to their intolerance for my beliefs than the other way around.

I listened to some of the arguments today; it was hard. Although I live in a state (WA) where the electorate adopted homosexual marriage, I shall never acknowledge such an institution. This country was founded on natural law; homosexual marriage is far from natural, is unnecessary, and I am sure will harm society.

However, no-fault divorce killed marriage as a meaningful institution. Homosexual marriage is merely the final nail in the coffin.

If the Court decides that the 14th Amendment requires recognition of gay marriage, doesn’t that open the door to anything goes, that there will be no restrictions on anything. That just seems absurd. There have to be some constraints imposed by society.

    SRaher in reply to NavyMustang. | April 29, 2015 at 4:56 pm

    “…doesn’t that open the door to anything goes…” I challenge anyone to give an argument in support of gay marriage which would not also apply to polygamy. Suppose you state that, if John and Mark love each other, they should be allowed to get married. OK, what if Phillip and Martha love each other, shouldn’t they also be allowed to marry? Oh, BTW, Phillip has been married to Elizabeth for 15 years and has two children by her, and has no intention of divorcing Elizabeth. Should the state “discriminate” against the Phillip/Martha marriage because of Phillip’s current marital status?

“It’s proof that the left—especially the institutional left—doesn’t want the more conservative wing of the party to “evolve,” even on its own terms. ”

Maybe the “left” has just noticed the majority of commenters on this site and has realized that sometimes evolution just isn’t possible, and extinction is the only way some folks will change!

Anyway, I would once again like to take the time to say to all of you guys (I’m looking at you, Rags) that gay marriage will be forced upon you and you will just have to somehow survive the coming “apocalypse”.

    Vancomycin in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 7:55 am

    Ahh. good, the lefty troll is calling for the extinction of conservatives.

    Better get to building those ovens and digging those graves anoNY.

      anoNY in reply to Vancomycin. | April 29, 2015 at 8:17 am

      Ahh, good, the first violation of Godwin’s rule of the day! My analogy merely points out that dinosaurs like yourself will die off (naturally, of course) way before the younger, more pro-gay marriage types like me.

      Oh, the agony your grandchildren will suffer, living in a world that allows people who love each other to marry!

      Ragspierre in reply to Vancomycin. | April 29, 2015 at 10:05 am

      Take special note of the fatuousness of this “dinosaur” bullshit.

      You are a “dinosaur” because you hold a view that every Deemocrat officeholder ALSO held about ten minutes ago, and only “evolved” concerning because it meant currying favor with a fairly rich and tight voting block.

      They “evolved” for the crassest political reasons.

      Interestingly, MOST homosexual men were opposed to the idea of “gay marriage” very recently, including Elton John. So, they are “quick-evolving” former “dinosaurs”, apparently.

      And assoNY is an undeveloped, stinking liar. Still, and always.

nordic_prince | April 29, 2015 at 8:37 am

“Love,” “commitment,” and “monogamy” are foreign concepts to the homosexual lifestyle, particularly among male homosexuals. Only a very tiny percentage of them are “faithful” to their “partners” even for as short a period as five years. “Open relationships” are the norm, with the vast majority of male homosexuals having hundreds, if not thousands, of partners during their lifetime.

Some “love.” Some “commitment.”

Make no mistake about it – the objective of homosexual “marriage” is to mock and destroy true marriage, and criminalize religion in general, and Christianity in particular.

    ““Love,” “commitment,” and “monogamy” are foreign concepts to the homosexual lifestyle, particularly among male homosexuals. Only a very tiny percentage of them are “faithful” to their “partners” even for as short a period as five years. “Open relationships” are the norm, with the vast majority of male homosexuals having hundreds, if not thousands, of partners during their lifetime.”

    I’m sure you have a citation from your, ahem, research into the matter?

    As for me, I know several gay couples (both male and female) who have been monogamous for years. And, yes, I know some who have cheated and/or divorced. However, this is no different from the straight couples I know…

      nordic_prince in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 3:43 pm

      It doesn’t take much imagination to google “homosexual monogamy myth,” but here’s a tidbit to get you started:

      The gay-friendly American Psychological Association stated, “After the AIDS epidemic, the average number of male homosexual partners only dropped from 70 to 50 per year.” (Sally Ann Stewart, AIDS Aftermath: Fewer Sex Partners among Gay Men, USA Today, 21 November 1984.)

      In The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, psychiatrist David P. McWhirter and psychologist Andrew M. Mattison (themselves a ‘gay’ pair) authored the results of a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years. They reported:

      Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.

      That means that only 9 percent of the male partners were actually monogamous, and none of the relationships lasting more than five years were sexually exclusive. By way of comparison, heterosexual couples (75 percent of men and 85 percent of women) were predominantly faithful to their spouse, but in a similar study of homosexual men, only 4.5 percent self-reported as being faithful to their partner. McWhirter and Mattison actually characterized promiscuity as definitional to male homosexuality. (David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984: 252-253.)

      (From http://barbwire.com/2014/06/06/myth-gay-male-monogamy/, boldface added.)

      A couple of noteworthy items:

      1) The authors of that book are themselves homosexual;
      2) They defined promiscuity as definitional to male homosexuality.

      Chew on that, snookums. Male homosexuality is ANYTHING but monogamous.

      You have a better chance of sighting Elvis than a “loving and committed” male homosexual couple that is interested in monogamy. The insistence on homosexual “marriage” is a ruse and a farce.

Actually, troll, that’s not what you said at all.

What you said, literally, calls for the extinction of conservatives. Which, I, knowing your type, took to be a call for violence.

As for Godwin’s rule. It’s Godwin’s LAW. And if someone is actually calling for mass murder, it’s not being violated.

Anyhow, here’s the thing. You can claim that my ideology will die out. But I’m the one teaching my kids. And they’ll be teaching their kids. And I’m having more kids than you and your buddies. Good luck with that.

Also, my grandchildren will live in a world where people who “love each other” (by smearing each other’s feces on on each other), will be getting “married”. Note the quotes. As much as you can get the state to claim that sodomites are “married”, they still aren’t actually married. They literally cannot be.

    anoNY in reply to Vancomycin. | April 29, 2015 at 9:12 am

    “What you said, literally, calls for the extinction of conservatives. Which, I, knowing your type, took to be a call for violence.”

    Assuming you are correct, I hereby renounce my prior calls for a conservative Holocaust! There, all better.

    “Anyhow, here’s the thing. You can claim that my ideology will die out. But I’m the one teaching my kids. ”

    Actual, real world experience shows you to be wrong. Just look at the polls on gay marriage and acceptance of gays as normal human beings. My prediction is that soon, even the politicians on your side will be supporting gay marriage (at least those who want to get elected, unlike Rick Santorum).

      Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 29, 2015 at 9:42 am

      “Just look at the polls on gay marriage and acceptance of gays as normal human beings.”

      Just look at how you lie!

      You intentionally conflate two VERY different things. One is a population of people. The other is an oxymoron that cannot exist.

      Plus, you are such an idiot, you can’t comprehend that your public opinion needle…so easily made to jump…can’t be nailed down in one place. It can be moved in both directions.

      PLUS, why are all the “gay marriage” inroads made in courts, and AWAY from the voting booth, you POS? It’s because you can’t win when the matter is illuminated beyond an opinion poll question put to ordinary Americans. You only win by having single despots in black robes issue edicts, and that’s all you MIGHT get out of the Supremes.

      And that won’t change a thing, really.

      Oh, and you’ll still be the liar and Collectivist hater you’ve demonstrated, in any event. Pathetic, putrid, and sick.

        anoNY in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2015 at 10:39 am

        “The other is an oxymoron that cannot exist.”

        Ah, denial! A majority of states now have gay marriage.

        As for the rest of your rant, try not to get any spittle on the rest of us…

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2015 at 10:54 am

        There were arguments in my post, not a rant.

        Which arguments you cannot deal with, as we all see.

        You lying SOS.

          anoNY in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2015 at 11:02 am

          “You only win by having single despots in black robes issue edicts, and that’s all you MIGHT get out of the Supremes.

          And that won’t change a thing, really.”

          I agree with your second sentence, having gay marriage in all states will not change a thing. It’s your side that is arguing that the world will end /Judgment day will come / Jesus will cry.

          As to the Supremes, I will remember your characterization of them the next time a Democrat mentions banning AR15s. Those despots are all that are standing between us and the gun-controllers…

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2015 at 11:13 am

        Here we see you lying again. Some more. Another time.

        You cannot deal with anything put forward honestly, so you just knee-jerk to fallacies.

        And, really, you ARE too stupid, apparently, to appreciate how destructive of human lives has been your “progress”.

        Did you bother to look up how devastating “tolerance” of close-breeding/inbreeding has been in the lives of children born to Pakistani immigrants in England, you stupid, people-hating bastard?

        No. You LOVES you some ignorance and bigotry. You are disgusting.

          anoNY in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2015 at 11:19 am

          “Did you bother to look up how devastating “tolerance” of close-breeding/inbreeding has been in the lives of children born to Pakistani immigrants in England, you stupid, people-hating bastard?”

          Because the inbreeding of Pakistani immigrants in England has anything to do with gay marriage? I presume those immigrants are in “traditional” straight marriages…

          Anyway, I’m not sure inbreeding will be much of a concern when gay marriage becomes legal in all states here in the US.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2015 at 11:30 am

          YOU brought it up yesterday as “progress” away from the deep, dark benighted practice of not PERMITTING (because marriage has always been a PERMISSIVE rite) first-cousins to marry.

          Remember, you stupid, lying piece of shit?

          anoNY in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2015 at 11:44 am

          “YOU brought it up yesterday as “progress” away from the deep, dark benighted practice of not PERMITTING (because marriage has always been a PERMISSIVE rite) first-cousins to marry.”

          Ha, now you’re the one who is lying! I did not use first cousins being able to wed as an example of progress, I actually said that the “restrictions” on marriage between cousins was a relatively recent change to a tradition.

          -1 for reading comprehension fail

          anoNY in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2015 at 11:59 am

          I finally got to read your response from yesterday!

          “See, inter alia, women’s right to vote and own property, dowry laws…”
          Was that an essential cultural norm? Oh, and WHO supported the franchise for wimmins? Learn some history, ya moron. (Hint: which states were the pioneers?)

          – Religious marriage had women subordinate to men

          “…abolition of slavery, abolition of Jim Crow (although I admit this one is ongoing)…”

          Chalk that up for MY ideological peeeples. Capitalists were FOR treating everyone equally. YOUR BIG GOVERNMENT types were the authors of Jim Crow, you lying SOS.

          – Once again, laughable. If “capitalists” were so against Jim Crow, why did they obey it so closely? Also, plantation owners could definitely be considered “capitalists”…

          “…criminalization and subsequent decriminalization of marijuana (in some jurisdictions), contraction and subsequent expansion of the right to bear arms…”
          Both historically PROGRESSIVE issues that have been going back and forth. NOT “cultural norms”, you moron. Just trends in what society considered worth legislation.

          – The War on Drugs certainly has been a bi-partisan affair, but this was merely an example of cultural norms changing, just like marriage is today.

          “…interracial marriage…”
          Again, YOUR BIG GOVERNMENT at work.

          – Again, laws banning interracial marriage were defended with religious arguments, not something that could be considered “progressive” today. Either way, the cultural norm changed.

          “pre-marital co-habitation, smoking cigarettes, wearing hats outdoors, wearing full suits of clothes, women wearing short skirts, tolerance of left-handed writing, etc etc.”
          You’re too stupid…or dishonest…to distinguish between an “essential cultural norm” and fads, vogues, and trends.

          – You have gone and created a new category of cultural norms, the “essential” cultural norms. This goes against the cultural norm of not creating new categories, and thus you are wrong. (See how stupid that argument from cultural norms sounds? Kind of like your secular arguments against gay marriage.)

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2015 at 12:00 pm

          Rags, you are lying if you say that society’s “cultural norms” have never changed.

          See, inter alia, women’s right to vote and own property, dowry laws, restrictions on marriage of first cousins…”

          Liar.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2015 at 12:10 pm

          I’m delighted to just let your ass-showing stand on its own.

          You are so ignorant, you don’t understand how slavery is anti-capitalist.

          Which is REMARKABLY ignorant. Lying moron.

          anoNY in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2015 at 12:28 pm

          “You are so ignorant, you don’t understand how slavery is anti-capitalist.”

          Frankly, I don’t think capitalism requires slavery, we get along fine without it these days. However, it is just stupid to claim that capitalists never had a hand in enslaving people for profit. The founding fathers wrote slavery into the Constitution! Slavery was to be legal for at least a set amount of years. I find it very difficult to pin that on progressives or “big government”, considering how wary the founding fathers were of a big federal government.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 29, 2015 at 11:17 am

        “As to the Supremes, I will remember your characterization of them the next time a Democrat mentions banning AR15s. Those despots are all that are standing between us and the gun-controllers…”

        Really? You appear to be ignorant of the facts around THAT issue, too. Hardly surprising.

        The people…via their representatives in both the national and state legislatures…prevent your Collective’s drive to make us defenseless.

        Lying moron.

SCOTUS, wrongly so, and not each state will now decide whether anti-Darwinian/anti-science, anti-human and anti-God homosexual concupiscence equals marriage & is so for solely materialistic purposes.
Progressivism’s “fundamental change” or moral devolution into madness?

America used to wait and add an amendment to the Constitution when they wanted fundamental change. The country even allowed itself to kill amendments deemed a mistake. So, why is that change so impossible to be had today? With a population swelling past 350 million in the next few years, just having nine people (or a President by Executive fiat) decide issues like these – when a majority of states should decide – damages the credibility of all three branches of government. Lack of faith in institutions isn’t an accident. The arrogance of these people created this problem.

If an amendment to allow women and Native Americans to vote wasn’t created, I’m certain we’d have a situation where the Supreme Court would basically make up that “right.” The Supreme Court has become our Supra-legislative body. That’s not a good thing. We’re trending towards a country run by nine Ayatollahs and one Supreme Dear Leader.

I expect polygamy / polyandry cases as soon as they are done with same-sex marriage.

With an efficient abortion industry, and progress of womb banks and sperm depositors, as well as the popularity of the “Peter Pan” syndrome, there is no principled — other than pro-choice or selective principles — to deny marriage to anyone, in an combination, in any number, of any relation, or any any species, for that matter, since objective principles of evolution have been rejected and denied by generational liberals and progressives.

    anoNY in reply to n.n. | April 29, 2015 at 12:52 pm

    Well, at least you are aware of evolution, that’s a start!

    ” there is no principled — other than pro-choice or selective principles — to deny marriage to anyone, in an combination, in any number, of any relation, or any any species”

    1.) Polygamy is not an issue, providing the legal system can cope with the conflicting interests it creates. Furthermore, polygamy is definitely a part of the “traditional” definition of marriage.

    2.) As to relations getting married, gay marriage doesn’t impact any of the principles behind that prohibition.

    3.) As to the species issue, you are forgetting the principle of “consent” to the contract of marriage. Since a dog cannot consent, marriage to a dog would be impossible. Ironically, a purely religious marriage with no contractual obligations would be possible between a dog and a man, at least in the eyes of the law (which is to say, the law doesn’t look at it at all, besides animal cruelty issues).

      anoNY it is good that YOU recognize evolution.

      Homosexuality is completely anti-evolutionary. The re-origin of the human species only happens when male and female are made one flesh and then one flesh procreates. Not by one dog sniffing another’s ass.

      For all intents and purposes homosexuals can create a contract that allows them to live together for material purposes, like a corporation. Then they can call it “love” or whatever the LGBT collective deems worthy of their narcissism.

      This arrangement is exactly what is happening, in effect, in SCOTUS right now, though the word “marriage” is now tossed around like a spent dirty towel in a bath house.

      The use of the word “marriage” is a perversion of the word just like one man finding sexual pleasure in in his own likeness or in a sex object like male pornography.

      Regarding polygamy: One justice asked if four’ smart’ attorneys could marry? It appears the question is on their minds as well.

      Homosexual concupiscence will never become “marriage” in any historical, sensibly legal or moral sense of the word.

      Culturally, the word may be abused by those whose minds are deficient of anything beyond their own physical senses-purely Epicurean and mindless…and anti-evolutionary.

It’s not a so-called “slippery slope” per se. The slippery slope is the creation of moral hazards through selective or pro-choice exclusion. It’s ironic that civil and human rights organizations are supporting what they purportedly exist to protest. And evolutionary creationists reject principles of evolution for amoral opportunism — the secular religion.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend