Elena Kagan 2009: “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage”
That was then, this is now.
Possibly as soon as Thursday morning, but certainly by early next week, we will know how the Supreme Court rules on the issue of whether denying same-sex couples the ability to marry violates the U.S. Constitution.
Lyle Denniston at ScotusBlog summarized the case as follows:
Taking on a historic constitutional challenge with wide cultural impact, the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon [January 16, 2015] agreed to hear four new cases on same-sex marriage. The Court said it would rule on the power of the states to ban same-sex marriages and to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in another state….
The Court fashioned the specific questions it is prepared to answer, but they closely tracked the two core constitutional issues that have led to a lengthy string of lower-court rulings striking down state bans. As of now, same-sex marriages are allowed in thirty-six states, with bans remaining in the other fourteen but all are under court challenge.
Although the Court said explicitly that it was limiting review to the two basic issues, along the way the Justices may have to consider what constitutional tests they are going to apply to state bans, and what weight to give to policies that states will claim to justify one or the other of the bans….
I hate trying to predict court rulings, but the political winds have changed dramatically the past few years, so if I had to bet, I’d bet that the ruling is 5-4 for gay marriage. [Warning – my bets tend to be counter-indicators.] Don’t think for a second that politics and public opinion doesn’t influence such historic cases.
I also expect Elena Kagan to be one of the five, based on her comments during oral argument, via NY Times:
Justice Elena Kagan said allowing same-sex marriage would benefit children. “More adopted children and more marital households, whether same-sex or other-sex, seems to be a good thing,” she said.
Mr. Bursch said the bans he was defending did not discriminate based on sexual orientation, which left Justice Kagan puzzled.
“If you prevent people from wearing yarmulkes,” she said, “you know, that’s discrimination against Jews.”…
Near the conclusion of the first argument, Justice Kagan indicated that she hoped the Supreme Court would find a right to same-sex marriage. She said the court has a role in protecting minorities even when majorities made their views known at the polls.
“We don’t live in a pure democracy,” she said. “We live in a constitutional democracy.”
So, before the decision is released, it’s worth revisiting Kagan’s 2009 testimony before the Senate during confirmation hearings on her nomination to be Solicitor General.
In the course of that testimony, Kagan stated:
“There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage”
I came under some criticism in May 2010, when Kagan was nominated for the Supreme Court, for taking Kagan at her word. Claims were made that I took the sentence out of context, was naive, or shamefully deceptive. I’ll plead guilty to being naive, but I didn’t take her sentence out of context, shamefully or otherwise. Matt Vespa’s 2013 post at PJ Media summarizes the back and forth.
Here is the first part of Kagan’s testimony, with context by me:
In response to a question from Sen. John Cornyn (at page 28 of her Senate Judiciary Questionnaire), Kagan stated flat out that there was no constitutional right for same sex couples to marry (emphasis mine):
1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.
a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?
Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details.
Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.
This doesn’t mean that Kagan opposes gay marriage. But she clearly believes it is a matter for the political process, not a constitutional right.
More context was provided by a letter from Kagan to the Senate Judiciary Committee, again with context by me:
In a March 18, 2009 letter (embedded below, at pp. 11-12), which is not publicly available but which Whelan kindly provided to me, Kagan supplemented her written answers at the request of Arlen Specter. Here is the language in the letter seized upon by my critics to show that Kagan really didn’t mean what she said, and really just was opining as to the current state of the law:
Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by courts and understood by the nation’s citizenry and its elected representatives. By this measure, which is the best measure I know for determining whether a constitutional right exists, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
These sentences do make it seem as if Kagan walked away from her prior written statement that “[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
But these sentences are not the full supplemental response. Immediately preceding these sentences was the following language:
I previously answered this question briefly, but (I had hoped) clearly, saying that “[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” I meant for this statement to bear its natural meaning.
When the full supplemental statement by Kagan is read in context, there is nothing to suggest that Kagan was walking away from her written statement that there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
In further defense of my reading of her testimony, I wrote:
The question, unlike many other questions in the questionnaire, was not focused on the current state of the law. The question was what Kagan believed.
The unambiguous nature of the answer also was clear because Kagan did not decline to answer, as she did in the following question seeking her opinion as to Massachusetts law; in that latter question Kagan said “I have never studied the Massachusetts Constitution, judicial interpretations of that document, or the SJC’s decision, so I do not have an informed view.”
For Kagan to take the position that her answer left open the possibility that she merely was making a statement as to the present state of the law as to gay marriage, and not what she believed, would represent a clear deception.
A more innocent explanation could be excused if this answer was given at a live hearing, in which the specific wording of the question may not have been clear in the context of the hearing room.
But these were written answers to written questions, and Kagan was extremely careful in each and every one of her answers. Kagan could have couched her answer in terms of the current state of the law, but she did not.
If Kagan pulls an “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” in explaining her answer, that would tell us far more about whether she should be confirmed than the substance of her position on gay marriage.
I prefer to believe that Kagan understood the plain wording of the question, and that the plain wording of her answer was what it was.
I look forward to the hearings on this issue.
Unfortunately, the issue never came up during Kagan’s confirmation hearings to be a Supreme Court Justice.
I know, 2009 was then, this is now.
Then she was a nominee for Solicitor General, now she is an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Then she was bound to follow the law, now she gets to make it.
Then supporting gay marriage may have sunk her nomination, now public opinion has shifted.
As the Bob Dylan song goes, “for the times, they are evolving.”
All that being said, it is difficult to reconcile Kagan’s full testimony on the issue during her 2009 confirmation hearings for Solicitor General with what we all expect to happen in the next few days, a vote by Kagan to find a “federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
An assumption that a Supreme Court Justice will tell the truth during a congressional hearing is a nod to the emperor’s imaginary clothes. The difference between Kagan and other justices is that she was insufficiently put off by lying to concoct a slippery weasel-answer. She lied through her teeth. I assume she was under oath?
Even if she was under oath, she may just have “found” the Constitutional right after the fact.
I mean, people are allowed to change their minds, right?
Yes, she is allowed to change her mind and/or personal opinion on the matter, which I don’t believe that she did, I believe that just like Obumbles she simply lied to get to what she wanted, which would make her unworthy of being on the court.
However, as a Jurist what she is not allowed to do is to suddenly find a right where she has already admitted none existed. Here personal opinions are not supposed to over rule her objectivity.
But what is the point of oral argument and amicus briefs if Justices cannot be convinced to change their minds?
If every Justice is just supposed to “know” what rights exist, why not just have them look at lower court decisions and vote the same day?
The answer is because we acknowledge that the Justices CAN be convinced to change their minds, this is normal.
Will she flip-flop or evolve?
The Ninth Amendment recognizes that we have unenumerated rights. Among those rights is certainly the right to arrange our private affairs (including our romantic and financial affairs) in such manner that satisfies us and makes us happy (right to “pursue happiness”). So I’m at a loss here – where does the state (meaning both federal and State governments) get the authority to deny one group of citizens (gay) the right to marry whom they please, when that right is recognized with respect to another group of citizens (straight)? Marriage extends certain legal, financial, and social benefits to married couples. So long as the state is involved in marriage, “equal protection under the law” demands that these benefits can’t be extended by the state to one set of citizens to the exclusion of some other set of citizens. Get the state out of the equation and we can talk about the ramifications. But so long as the state is involved, it can’t discriminate – the principle of equal protection under the law denies the state any such authority.
(Let’s not get off on a tangent here. This will not include minor children or animals. A right is an exercise of liberty that does not intentionally harm an innocent party. As soon as you start talking about inflicting injury upon an innocent party, you’re no longer talking about a “right,” you’re talking about a crime. Specifically with children and animals, you’re talking about beings not recognized by the law as able to give consent. Because marriage requires consent of the parties, children and animals are excluded from consideration in any discussion of marriage.)
Yup. It really bugs some people when I point that out.
The same thing can be said of multiple spouses.
I was in agreement with you and then read your tangent statement. Just to play Devil’s Advocate a little, why wouldn’t the same argument with respect to gay marriage also apply to minors…not in the marriage sense, but the sense that minors are not afforded equal protections under the law in general.
My only concern with the equal protection under the law argument is that the meaning of the phrase is being interpreted so broadly, that it essentially says that zero special categories are allowable. For example, can a law provide benefits to women? By applying the same argument, it violates men’s equal protection. Would that argument make sense if the protection extended to pregnancy to which a man is incapable of doing?
“Would that argument make sense if the protection extended to pregnancy to which a man is incapable of doing?”
Weeeeellllll, I would think that the benefit would extend to anyone who was pregnant, man or woman. With the way science is going, perhaps that will be possible soon.
Also, in an evolutionary sense, the father of the child would also be benefiting, as his genetic material would be getting the benefit.
Devils advocate argument.
What standing does the Federal Government have since they do not issue marriage licenses? These are issued by the states themselves.
Your argument is flawed in a number of ways, though its conclusion is sound. Just not for the reasons you suggest.
First, and this is (I think) an important insight, marriage is a PERMISSIVE rite. Always has been, is now. NOBODY had a “right” to marry at any time in history, in any culture we know about.
Second, the very word has ALWAYS, everywhere and at any time, ONLY meant the joining of the two sexes.
Ergo, straight or “gay” people are on completely equal footing WRT marriage. MARRIAGE meaning the joining of the two sexes in a sanctioned relationship (by either religion or state). Not all people of ANY description could marry, failing to have permission. They were free, however, to associate in a relationship NOT marriage (with some important taboos in many societies, but not all). Literature is ripe with stories of longing couples who could not marry for various reasons, from a lack of permission from family, to a lack of permission from religion, to a lack of permission from officials.
Taking the matter out of the realm of the state would be wise, since we have seen that politics can pervert anything, and that a tiny minority of people can distort reality with remarkable ease.
If I read you correctly (not a lawyer), does this mean the SCOTUS should just do the right thing and “abstain”? Want to bet?
Well, Hank, shouldn’t we all do the right, rational thing?
Rags great argument from tradition. You know that never works anymore, right?
Why not try out the old argument about how the gays are going to turn their adopted kids gay, or something of that nature?
Shorter assoNY…”I got nutin!. As usual!”
At least I am not bound by what my ancestors did. Your limited way of thinking is not shared by most folks in this nation.
You mean “my limited way of thinking” where words actually mean things? Where concepts are not infinitely greasy things you can slide around at will?
Yeah. You are too bound by your ancestry. They were very likely immoral liars, too. Though you could get the way you are just on your own, I suppose.
“You mean “my limited way of thinking” where words actually mean things? Where concepts are not infinitely greasy things you can slide around at will?”
Ancient marriage was a property deal between a father and a husband. Polygamy has been present throughout history. Somehow, I bet your “definition” of marriage doesn’t include those things.
“Yeah. You are too bound by your ancestry. They were very likely immoral liars, too. Though you could get the way you are just on your own, I suppose.”
Half of ’em fought for the Confederacy, so yeah they probably did some pretty immoral things. However, there is a 99% chance that they rationalized their immoral actions with the Bible…
“Ancient marriage was a property deal between a father and a husband.”
In some places. Not everywhere. Was it, you lying POS? So was an apprenticeship a “property deal” between the family of the apprentice and the craftsman. What’s your point?
“Polygamy has been present throughout history.”
You mean somewhere on the planet? There might be an argument for that. But in ALLLLLL Western cultures, and MOST Asian cultures, that has never been the case for centuries now. Has it, you lying POS? And it was still a MARRIAGE relationship between the two sexes. Wasn’t it, you lying POS?
“Somehow, I bet your “definition” of marriage doesn’t include those things.”
You’re an idiot who can’t read, but you’d lie about stuff even if you could read and comprehend.
“In some places. Not everywhere.”
Wait wait, are you now arguing that there is no one true “definition” of marriage?
Wait, wait, you lying piece of shit…
are you pretending my positions are not clearly laid out here?
Well, OF COURSE you are. BECAUSE you ARE a lying piece of shit.
What tranlates as “marraige” means in this culture and other cultures (current and historical) varies so widely that anyone who wants to define it as something in particular can find examples supporting their position.
No. That would be a lie.
Marriage has some common traits ALLLLLL across time and space.
One is that it is UNIQUELY a joining of the two opposite sexes.
All the time.
Exactly, and it’s not like there is ONE TRUE CULTURE in the US…
“Marriage extends certain legal, financial, and social benefits to married couples. So long as the state is involved in marriage, “equal protection under the law” demands that these benefits can’t be extended by the state to one set of citizens to the exclusion of some other set of citizens.”
I’m single. I don’t believe in marriage, for me. Why does the state give others rights that I don’t get? Why do married people, gay or straight, get more dignity than I do? When do I get my equal protection when it comes to marriage?
Interesting side issue….. marriage between siblings (and first cousins in some cases) is not allowed because of the problem of genetics. If reproduction is not an issue, which it would not be in a gay marriage, would two brothers or two sisters be allowed to marry?
Good question. Why not leave it up to individuals to decide whether or not they want to take this risk?
And incidentally, what do statistics tell us? Do siblings have higher risk of genetic issues than, say, a 40-year-old woman and a 45-year-old man conceiving via ART?
I married my sister, but only to avoid having in-laws.
Good question, but I think that genetics is only one reason to outlaw incest. Another reason is that there might have been undue influence, like a father raising a daughter (or son) to be his spouse, or perhaps a brother doing that to a younger brother.
A third reason is because it’s a taboo under most circumstances. There is a reason why anthropologists study kinship.
“We don’t live in a pure democracy,” she said. “We live in a constitutional democracy.”
While I shouldn’t be surprised by this statement from the least qualified associate justice ever elevated to the court, but I would at least expect someone in her position to know what type of government we have. We are not a democracy in any sense of the word, we are a Republic and/or a Constitutional Republic. Geez.
Not any more.
Man was endowed by his creator with inalienable rights-life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Most of the focus these days is on “rights” and not on the Creator of those rights…
“[But] as Pierre Manent pointed out in his 1993 essay “Christianity and democracy,” the history of modern philosophy, from Machiavelli to Nietzsche, appears as oriented to and animated by the elaboration of the concept of the will.” In its most radical forms, the “unbridled affirmation of the human will” is joined to the “unlimited polemic against Christianity.” The philosophical architects of modernity such as Bacon and Descartes identified the task of philosophy with nothing less audacious than making human beings “the masters and possessors of nature.” In Leviathan (1651), Thomas Hobbes explicitly denied that there are any superintending principles of justice above human will: “Justice and propriety begin with the constitution of [the] commonwealth.” From “The Limits of “Anthropocentric Humanism”” in the Chapter “The Totalitarian Subversion of Modernity” in the book “The Conservative Foundations of a Liberal Order” by Daniel J. Mahoney- a must read for any SCOTUS justice before tomorrow.
To put it differently, Epicureans have been telling us all along that God is out there somewhere minding his own business and we must make our own justice as we see fit.
Anthropocentric humanism seeks to deify man. Anthropocentric humanism mates Adam and Adam in a way nature and its creator would never conceive of.
You worship a God that lets children get cancer…
Just like Barracula and MoooOOOOoochele…during election cycles.
Oh I agree, but I think that the President is actually too smart to actually believe in that crap, and just said it to get elected. Sadly, one has to say such things to get votes these days…
Showing us two things…
1. you love and approve of lying, and
2. you know your “we are the world” bullshit to be false. Barracula had to lie to be elected, and you and the “gay marriage” people have to lie to have any chance of carrying the day.
What a piece of shit.
“1. you love and approve of lying”
I have never voted for Barack Obama, and I don’t particularly like him as a President. However, I admit that he is probably better than Mitt Romney or McCain.
“2. you know your “we are the world” bullshit to be false. Barracula had to lie to be elected, and you and the “gay marriage” people have to lie to have any chance of carrying the day.”
Not sure what the lie is in the gay marriage debate. I personally know several gay couples who say they love each other, and they don’t appear to be lying about it.
“I personally know several gay couples who say they love each other, and they don’t appear to be lying about it.”
There’s one lie, right there, and it takes the form of a straw man argument.
But, of course, you know that.
The lies…and they are manifold…start with the notion that the term “marriage” means nothing, so it can mean anything.
“The lies…and they are manifold…start with the notion that the term “marriage” means nothing, so it can mean anything.”
It is not a lie to suggest a different definition of the term “marriage” than the traditional one. For instance, you do it any time you deny that polygamy is a valid form of marriage, since it has been a traditional form of the institution.
“It is not a lie to suggest a different definition of the term “marriage” than the traditional one.”
ANOTHER implicit set of lies!!!
First, you aren’t “suggesting” anything. This isn’t a debate for you.
Second, you know you aren’t relying on persuasion in this arena. You are relying on a cram-down from ONE person on an unelected body to give you a “victory”. You are militating for a “right” nowhere found at any time in the Constitution or history of the U.S. Or anywhere else until ten minutes ago.
Third, you know you are lying when you talk about a “different definition” of MARRIAGE. Your position is a complete assault on the concept, and you know it and lie about it here constantly.
“First, you aren’t “suggesting” anything. This isn’t a debate for you.”
Untrue. You’re just upset that the debate has already been won.
“Second, you know you aren’t relying on persuasion in this arena. You are relying on a cram-down from ONE person on an unelected body to give you a “victory”. You are militating for a “right” nowhere found at any time in the Constitution or history of the U.S. Or anywhere else until ten minutes ago.”
Those “unelected” Justices are appointed by elected representatives, and everyone who votes knows it. Thus, the Supreme Court as a whole is actually very accountable to the electorate, since the electorate can vote in people who will pick Justices inclined to vote the way the electorate likes.
“Third, you know you are lying when you talk about a “different definition” of MARRIAGE. Your position is a complete assault on the concept, and you know it and lie about it here constantly.”
Your straight marriage is safe, Rags, along with my own. The fact that my friends can marry too will not have any effect at all on my marriage.
Whatever else is true about your friends…that they are loving, committed, nice, good cooks, fabulous dressers…it will never be true they are “married” unless they marry in fact to a member of the opposite sex.
And you are no friend when you support a delusion.
“And you are no friend when you support a delusion.”
Most of the country begs to differ with you, Rags.
That’s another lie. Pluralities of all ethnic groups, in fact, think the Court SHOULD NOT declare a Federal right here.
But it wouldn’t matter in the least. Reality simply is, and you can’t displace it with any form of bullshit, including majority bullshit.
“That’s another lie. Pluralities of all ethnic groups, in fact, think the Court SHOULD NOT declare a Federal right here.”
You should be calling yourself out for this lie! You are conflating support for gay marriage with support for a Supreme Court decision for a “right”.
The Supreme Court decision bringing gay marriage to a state near you certainly will not be a “delusion”.
What I love is that you are too stupid to comprehend your self-contradiction in your last comment.
Actually, there were at least two…!!!
But you are okay with him worshipping himself?
Here, in the above reply, we see the atheist’s argument against God and his implied self-deification- sensual and insouciant Epicureanism in response to suffering: avoid pain, seek pleasure, be your own god, create your ‘social’ agenda because… life is hard.
“We can ignore even pleasure. But pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
Here is an intro to reconciling a good God with a world filled with suffering:
I am amused at the implication that you do not try to “avoid pain.”
Got any Advil lying around the house?
I avoid pain when I can and try to never avoid God.
BTW: in response to the “children with cancer” atheistic excuse, I currently have a sister-in-law and a niece with cancer. One has uterine cancer and the other has Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Stage Three. Both women are Christians who avoid pain, take chemotherapy and pray to the One who provides the grace to get through life’s traumas. They have both been blessed by God’s goodness. And, they have real Hope, not Obamic hope-a-dope.
I’m sure that’s very comforting to the 2 year old I saw on BBC news who was burned by the bombs that the Saudis dropped on Yemen. Or is his problem just that he is a member of the wrong religion?
Which just goes to show your complete ignorance of the Bible and the Christian religion. However, I have no time nor the inclination to try to educate someone who isn’t willing to learn right now.
Albert Alschuler 1996, University of Pennsylvania Law Review “REDISCOVERING BLACKSTONE”
In 2015 Gregorian there is no Lincoln, no Sandburg, no Blackstone, and the gods worshipped are unnatural in the extreme.
What was swallowed by my non-functioning markup:
Sandburg pictured Lincoln reading Blackstone’s declaration that no laws are valid unless they conform to the law of nature or of God while lying “on the flat of his back on the grocery-store counter, or under the shade of a tree with his feet up the side of the tree.”
She’s a hack – no surprise there.
Roberts as the Boehner of the Supreme Court: now that was a surprise.
The issue of gay marriage was never about gay marriage. Until recently it remained a fixation of a handful of gay activists. Most gays were never/still aren’t/will never be interested in matrimony. Marriage is, pure and simple, how the differences between men and women are resolved and the next generation is nurtured.
Gay pride is flamboyant deviancy. I respect that as a laboratory of creativity – I do! – but gay pride should also know its place.
One outcome of institutionalized gay marriage will be polygamy.
I don’t think that the majority of gay and straight activists pushing for gay marriage have polygamy promotion in mind. What they are after is American culture and Western civilization. They take too much for granted and are bad parasites.
Family is the foundation of society; once such elemental unit as traditional family is destroyed, anything is possible.
Gay marriage is the world upside down. It’s “sanctuary cities” and Dixie flags coming down in the South.
“Countries”that legalized gay marriage are no countries at all. The have no borders, no identity. In Europe, they’ve outsourced their defenses. In the US, we are owned by our sworn enemies. We have nothing to offer to future generations but our debt. We pass time worrying about sorting our garbage. We dare not to think of what’s important because our spine is broken.
“One outcome of institutionalized gay marriage will be polygamy.”
Ha! Because Mormons are soooooo gay!
No, but these three are.
The goal of burning marriage to the ground is widely shared among SSM advocates.
These three are doing their part by making a mockery of it. And they aren’t alone.
“The goal of burning marriage to the ground is widely shared among SSM advocates.”
Any actual evidence of this?
Anyway, the article clearly states that the state does not recognize their three-way marriage. Even before gay marriage, three people could “say” they were part of a polygamous marriage, free speech and all.
Hell, I could “say” that you and I are married…
Actually, no, stupid.
People living any kind of polyamorous relationship have to be careful NOT to hold themselves out as “married” except to one partner.
Otherwise, they run afoul of ANOTHER of those words you don’t understand; bigamy.
Uh, the crime of bigamy is when a “legally married” person tries to “legally marry” another person. Thus, if they are merely “saying” they are married, but are not “legally” married, then they are not committing a crime.
Even if two of the three lesbians are “legally married”, since they are not “legally married” to the third, there is no bigamy.
Oooops…ANOTHER stupid lie.
Ever hear of “common-law” marriage, moron?
In most states, holding oneself out as married to another can make it so, rat thar.
“Massachusetts law-enforcement sources said they wouldn’t go after any of the lovebirds unless the third “wife” sought some kind of recognized marital benefit, such as filing joint tax returns.”
Looks like it ain’t illegal after all. Or, perhaps, it is as “illegal” as all the other stupid, unenforced laws out there, like the one in MA where women are not allowed to be on top in bed.
Uh oh Rags, did I prove you wrong?
Gawd, you are ONE of the stupidest people ever to troll here, and that’s going some.
The LAW ENFORCEMENT types said, if you could READ, that, YEAH, it’s ILLEGAL.
It COULD be prosecuted. What a moron.
Well, let me know when that happens and I will admit you won!
AnoNY, there’s plenty of evidence. The advocates of SSM who view heterosexual marriage as a form of oppression (primarily radical feminists) have been writing about it for decades. Since it has managed to escape your blinkered view until now I doubt presenting any will do any good.
So it would be a complete waste of my time to combat your studied ignorance with links to references.
I echo and paraphrase H.L. Mencken when I say I won’t be disappointed if you get what you want. After all our system of government is based upon the assumption that the people know what they want. And deserve to get it, good and hard.
“AnoNY, there’s plenty of evidence. The advocates of SSM who view heterosexual marriage as a form of oppression (primarily radical feminists) have been writing about it for decades.”
Oh please, that is like saying that all conservatives are racists because most racists in this country vote Republican. Don’t tar me with what “radical feminists” say and do!
I could easily prove to you that opponents of SSM are all racist, and I could just point to Stormfront or Dylann Roof. That would be on the level of your argument…
No, because polygamy has a long history, including in this country, and gay marriage does not.
According to Rags, that would be incorrect. There has always been one definition of marriage, and polygamy ain’t it…
Only a few more days before we have our gay marriage victory! My prediction is that, on Tuesday morning, after all is said and done, you guys will have just forgotten this issue.
Unless, of course, you wish to be like Bobby Jindal and make this a campaign issue (bringing the hardcore conservatives on board while losing everyone else).
You mean, just like conservatives forgot all about abortion after Roe v. Wade?
Brilliant prediction, there.
My prediction; if you do get your gay marriage “victory” you should change your screen name to Pyrrhus.
And why is that? Is our victory going to bring on the End of Days or something?
Don’t you know the answer to that? If you don’t (and I’m sure you have no clue), you are just an idiot with a cause you don’t even understand, and a thoughtless, lying POS.
But we knew that.
Oh, right, the institution of marriage will come crashing down. My mistake.
Wrong, anoNY. You must be new at this prediction thing.
No, just the United States going the way of the Soviet Union.
Ha! I would argue that the Russians are better off under the Federation (even with Putin) than they were under the USSR…
Be careful what you wish for.
I would remind you that being the loudest doesn’t equate with being the majority.
Gay Marriage is not “widely supported” as you would say. Other wise it wouldn’t have been stomped into the dirt by voters in all but 2 states every single time it was taken to the ballot. Even Crazyfornia voted it down. It took a bias Gay judge to overrule the will of the people.
Also, if you look at the polls that say support for gay marriage has grown they are usually completely flawed because they include the “don’t care” and “no opinions” in the Support category and only put the “do not supports” in the negative category. Or they phrase the question in a way that basically does the same thing.
Also, since less than 2% of the entire population is actually homosexual the mere existence of same sex couples is closer to a statistical anomaly.
“Also, since less than 2% of the entire population is actually homosexual the mere existence of same sex couples is closer to a statistical anomaly.”
So then why, exactly, do you think their marriages will bring the whole system crashing down?
Because, you stupid, lying POS, it cannot BE a marriage.
As we’ve fully illuminated. There is not, and never was a “right to marry”.
There is not, and never was a “right” to completely gut the meaning of a fundamental cultural norm.
And marriage, everywhere, in all of time is the union of the two sexes.
anoNY, your homosexual affected friends along with the pseudo-science AGW cabal and the (ISIS) consumer advocates of Obama’s ransom rules for terrorists and for your health care can celebrate your victories at the local bath houses.
A very apropos respite don’t you think for those who want to relieve all the stress created from waiting?
Don’t forget to get tested for HIV & STDs using Obamacare. And, don’t forget to record your rainbow of diseases as medical data for future doctor’s to review. We want to know where you have been.
Let’s have a round of applause for the Christian, everybody! Extra points for implying ejaculation without coming out and saying it!
Ah, confabulation interruptus.
My father told me many years ago
“Don’t bet against anybody who can control the outcome.”
On a kind of related matter:
The woman was pregnant and the man cliamed it was his child. The ID card had been changed after sex-assignment surgery in 2013.
anoNY”: I’m sure that’s very comforting to the 2 year old I saw on BBC news who was burned by the bombs that the Saudis dropped on Yemen. Or is his problem just that he is a member of the wrong religion?”
annoNY, what is your religion? One that helps all the hurting kids that you mention or one that avoids helping kids who are hurting or do you use the kids as your excuse to not be held accountable (in your mind) to God or to any principal other than yourself?
Who needs a smug self-righteous and crass religion of annoNY atheism?
I don’t worship a Sky Fairy, sorry. Especially not one who does such things to children.
You are setting up a false choice in your comment. I am a human being, and I wish to help any child who is suffering. My lack of religion has nothing to do with it.
anoNY apparently worships the anoNY fairy – he/she/it looks in a mirror and creates a god in his/her/its own image. That is why he/she/it feels free to piss on other religions, especially those troglodyte Christians. So understanding and respectful ~
How does your lack of religion make it better for children to get cancer?
Oh, by the way, you won in the SCOTUS. Enjoy it while it lasts.
“Allowing same sex marriage would benefit children”… I don’t know about two women, although I’m sure they would be more caring than men. But as far as men are concerned, no way. The only thing a guy would have on his mind would be getting the other guys shite on his pecker, kids be damned.
Maybe she hadn’t realized she was gay back then?