Supreme Court

Will Gay Marriage Become the Next Roe v. Wade?

|

Before joining the federal judiciary in 1980 and the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993, Ruth Bader Ginsburg got her start as a feminist Columbia University law professor and chief litigator for the American Civil Liberties Union's Women's Rights Project. Given that legal background, you probably wouldn't expect Ginsburg to criticize the Supreme Court's abortion-affirming 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. But as the Associated Press reports, that's precisely what she did last week:

"It's not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far too fast," Ginsburg told a symposium at Columbia Law School marking the 40th anniversary of her joining the faculty as its first tenure-track female professor….

Alluding to the persisting bitter debate over abortion, Ginsburg said the justices of that era could have delayed hearing any case like Roe while the state-by-state process evolved. Alternatively, she said, they could have struck down just the Texas law, which allowed abortions only to save a mother's life, without declaring a right to privacy that legalized the procedure nationwide.

"The court made a decision that made every abortion law in the country invalid, even the most liberal," Ginsburg said. "We'll never know whether I'm right or wrong … things might have turned out differently if the court had been more restrained."

Answering historical "what ifs" can be a fun way to pass the time, but these comments from Ginsburg actually take on real weight in light of last week's decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals striking down California's Proposition 8, which had amended the state constitution in order to forbid gay marriage. If UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh is correct that the Prop. 8 case is definitely "going up to the Supreme Court," the comparison to Roe v. Wade becomes more than just academic.

Let's say the Supreme Court hears the Prop. 8 case in the next year or so and Justice Anthony Kennedy continues his trend of voting in favor of gay rights by authoring a sweeping five-justice majority opinion recognizing a right to gay marriage in the 14th Amendment. This landmark decision would strike down all state-level bans on the practice, much like Roe did for abortion laws. Should proponents of gay marriage favor this aggressive approach or should they heed Ginsburg's warning about the political backlash from moving "too far too fast"?

NEXT: Americans Also Enjoying Trade Offs That Come With ObamaCare

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. diff is as olsen contends, that marrage is a civil right not subject to voting.

    1. I would like to hear if Olsen differentiates between two-person marriage and multiple marriages.

      1. Mary Kate or Ashley?

      2. What a fascinating, if totally irrelevant, question.

        1. I’ll actually reply to Tony today for the edification of others. If marriage is a civil right that is not subject to a vote or legislative or executive adjustments, then I fail to see how you can arbitrarily limit that contractual relationship to “two people” only. That would be a popularity-enforced limitation on a fundamental civil right.

          1. The response is always the same: Polygamy is *really* just a form of slavery or abuse and not actually marriage.

            1. According to your morality you may think poly is wrong, some people think gay marriage is morally wrong; thus marriage is something to be decided in the legislature not the judiciary.

              1. Everything following “thus” doesn’t make any sense.

                1. In case you can’t fill in the blanks. The very fact that you are drawing a moral line means moral lines can be drawn that are diff than others about this issue of who you can marry, THUS, marriage rights are not fundamental rights, they are conferred rights, by a society who should be able to determine what circumstances are legit. How the lines should be drawn. Not one judge.

                  1. I never said you have marriage rights, fundamental rights, or any rights whatsoever.

                    The fact that you conflate a “society” with the legislature is the bigger problem.

                    1. Legislature is a reflection of our collective morality. It is the execution of what we have put forth as right and wrong. We collectively decided murder is morally wrong, so we try to stop it and punish murderers. Morality isn’t a bad word. Fund rights are rights that can’t be taken away, life liberty, pursuit, without due process. Gay marriage is a conferred right, by society, thus society should be able to legislate/vote for or against it.

                    2. I don’t know where to begin.

                      Oh, well you contradict yourself, so it’ll be easier.

                      “Fund rights are rights that can’t be taken away, life liberty, pursuit, without due process.”
                      We could just vote them away with our “collective morality.”

                      Unlike individuals, society isn’t actually a thing. It has neither a beginning or an end, so saying “let it vote” is meaningless.

                      Gay marriage can be conferred simply by an agreement “society” doesn’t have to vote for or against it at all.

                    3. Society is a group of individuals, like say a state. And a group of voters in a state get to vote. You have a forrest thru the trees problem. Marriage isn’t just an agreement btw two people. It is a law binding contract recognized by the state giving the two people in a marriage certain rights that only married people get, like diff tax rates, courts see marriage much diff than any old contract. This is an elevated status, that society (a STATE) has chosen to bestow to encourage marriage. If a state (or SOCIETY) decides gay marriage is something they want to elevate, great! But the society (or the legal construct of the society….the STATE), gets to decide what unions to elevate, NOT the judiciary (who are often not voted upon, aka not influenced by SOCIETY or the law making extension of society called the legistlature)….

                    4. You’re making it too easy friend.

                      A society is not a state in any way. The state has always been considered an outsider (as it literally was in many cases) to society (whether beneficial or not isn’t the issue).

                      Once you get your ideas in-line with facts and history come on back and try again.

          2. So make your case in court. Why should gay couples have to defend polygamists before they get equal rights?

            1. exactly. moreover, the poly rate should be available from the EU where gay marrage has been legal.

              1. Rates and stats have no bearing on a fundamental question of whether something is a civil right or not.

            2. They should really stop with the lying propaganda like “Marriage Equality for All” then.

              1. I’m OK with a would-be polygamist having exactly the same right to wed a single male or female of his choice.

                1. And I’m Okay with a would-be same-sex-marriagist having exactly the same right to wed a single opposite gender of his/her choice.

                  What’s that? They can? And do already? Marraiage “equality” achieved!

                  1. Nope, that argument doesn’t get any more convincing the more time passes.

                    1. Well no shit, it is your argument after all.

                      Who would expect anything worthwhile?

                    2. But the only reason anyone is discussing polygamy is because you think a slippery slope fallacy is a strong enough case to continue treating people unequally under law.

                    3. I wish there was a slippery-slope in this case. I’d might be more helpful towards the gay marriage movement.

                      They themselves however go out of their way to scold polygamy just to look like they are closer to the norm.

                    4. The slippery slope is not to the straights, but rather to the gays. They want the rights to end with them, thus making their cause a noble end. If they are just the next group granted marriage rights (polygamists next then on to incestual relationships), then they are nothing but a dot on a timeline, and for some reason they can’t let that happen.

                      Fuck anyone who says shit like they are saying, which is basically, “Freedom for all, but stop after I get mine.”

                    5. I have an opinion on whether polygamists should be given government recognition for their arrangements, but I don’t think it’s relevant–at all–to this issue. Anyone trying to make it relevant is simply displaying their lack of a good argument.

                    6. Right, an alternate form of marriage isn’t relevant to a discussion about alternate forms of marriage.

                    7. Tony, you’re a hack. That’s akin to saying, “I don’t care if blacks aren’t being granted civil rights because I’m hispanic. And interjecting blacks into a discussion on hispanic rights is displaying a lack of a good argument.”

                      Or, shorter Tony: Only my rights matter to me. Fuck everybody else.

                    8. Equal marriage rights for gays is essentially the same issue as it was for interracial couples. Key word is “couple.”

                      What you’re trying to say is equivalent to “if gays can get married, why not fathers to daughters?” It’s not my job to defend those relationships, and it’s not relevant to any question before any court on this issue.

                    9. You’re invoking the same poor argument (by your own admission) as before.

                      “Couple” is just as much a key word as as “man and woman.”

                    10. The government regulates marriage, taxes married people differently, and treats them differently under the law. Equal protection demands a same-sex couple the same rights as an opposite sex couple. If the government taxed polygamists or gave them marriage licenses, then they would have equal rights… but they don’t. The polygamist argument, or father daughter argument does not apply, because they are not granted any recognition or rights of any kind under the law.

                    11. Isn’t that just begging the question?

                    12. The law doest see ‘couples’, it sees people as indiv, Society as a whole decided to encourage marriage and thus the tax marriage diff. Indiv have the same right to marry as gays do. poly and incest are only seen as illegit b/c society doesn’t grant them that status. gay marriage is no diff, society gets a say in what kind of relationship it encourages. Not just one judge.

                    13. “Society” as a whole hasn’t decided a thing, there was never any mass vote, nor have any votes been unanimous.

                    14. Wrong, nothing to do with ss arg, either you have a right to marry anyone you want, or there are limits. You are claiming you shouldnt be able to vote on gay marriage. But society has had a say in what kind of relationships it recog as legit, not just enlightened judges. Poly and incest are proof of concept, not slippery slope.

                2. So you draw your moral line at poly, others draw it at same sex, why not vote?

                  1. Where did I say I draw the line at poly?

            3. They don’t, they have to defend the concept that marrying whoever you want is a civil right that can’t be taken away. But if that were true, it would apply to all marriages btw consenting adults. But we limit those based on our collective morality….thus it is not a civil right; or it is and we should allow all

          3. Again, it’s a separate issue. Gay people are fighting for their own rights, as blacks did theirs, Asians, women, etc. Gays are not fighting for the rights of polygamists. Polygamists need to fight for the rights of polygamists.

            1. It might be a separate issue, depending on the grounds the court used to support the right to gay marriage. Or, if it is a civil right, it’s the same issue.

            2. First they came for the polygamists…

        2. It’s not irrelevant, it goes to your core argument; ‘people should be able to marry who they want’. If that were true poly and incest should be allowed.

      3. Here is why the slippery slope argument fails.

        Let us take the 4 common arguments: beastiality, pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. First off, all 4 of these are fetishes, and irrelevant to homosexuality, which is a sexual orientation. Let me distinguish this for you using incest as an example. If a guy into incest is straight, he’ll choose his sister, and if he’s gay, he’ll choose his brother. See the distinguishment? Now pedophilia and beastiality will never be legal, because both are non-consenting and harmful, whereas homosexuality is 2 loving consenting adults that is not wrong or harmful. Incest, also has been shown to lead to genetic defects, so that is also out of the question. Incest also is a fetish, not a sexual orientation. I have never seen a person exclusively attracted to their brothers/sisters etc. Polygamy also is a choice. No one can choose who they would or will be attracted to, but they CAN choose to be in more than one relationship with more than one person at the same time. Polygamy can be damaging, as it can cause jealousies and resentments among the participants and any children produced. Those 4 fetishes can be seen to be harmful and wrong, whereas gay marriage is neither harmful nor wrong.

        If you want to press for polygamy, or incest, those are completely separate issues irrelevant to gay marriage. Go advocate for them if that’s your concern, prove they are not wrong and prove they are not harmful. We have already proven that homosexuality/gay marriage is not wrong/harmful. But those two things are irrelevant to gay marriage. And gay marriage does not lead to polygamy nor any other type of fetish.

        Gay marriage has been legal in MA for 8 years now, and i don’t see anyone pushing for polygamy there. The slippery slope is a myth meant as a scare tactic that’s quickly becoming obsolete.

        1. “Gay marriage has been legal in MA for 8 years now, and i don’t see anyone pushing for polygamy there.”

          Mitt Romney isn’t governor any more, though.

        2. Marriage Polygamy can be damaging, as it can cause jealousies and resentments among the participants and any children produced.

          1. +1

            (don’t take this as a defense against gay marriage)

        3. Now pedophilia and beastiality will never be legal, because both are non-consenting and harmful . . .

          I don’t know, I saw a video once where a woman was being fucked by a dog. And let me tell you, that little bastard was into it.

          As to incest, as far as I’m concerned, if it’s two consenting adults, then hey, whatever. Banning it over the notion that the offspring of such a coupling might be some 7-eyed mongoloid opens up other doors: can we ban sex between people with congenital dwarfism? People with borderline retarded IQs? People with incurable hereditary diseases?

          As to polygamy . . . jealousy and resentment are part and parcel of many marriages; you don’t need extra spouses for that to be a factor. So again, as long as everyone’s consenting, then what business is it of mine (or the government’s)?

          1. Yes, that doesn’t make any sense at all. There is no valid argument against polygamy if you’re also advocating gay marriage.

            Shit gets twisted when politics get involved, doesn’t it?

            1. Shit gets twisted when politics get involved, doesn’t it?

              It really does. But when the non-agression principle is applied, it makes things a lot clearer, at least to those of us who don’t want to use the law as a weapon to force others to conduct their lives according to our personal values.

          2. Many years ago I pet sat for my parents, who had one of those little murse terriers of the sort you could carry around in an oversized pocketbook. The dog slept in bed with them, and they said if it wanted to climb up and sleep on my bed that wasn’t a problem with them.

            The first night, I was sleeping in the buff. The dog wanted to lick my privates. Needless to say, I stopped sleeping in the buff whenever I pet sat that dog.

            1. The first night, I was sleeping in the buff. The dog wanted to lick my privates. Needless to say, I stopped sleeping in the buff whenever I pet sat that dog.

              I checked with my local diocese: as long as you’d closed your eyes and pretended it was Rachel McAdams, that you were married to her, and that you didn’t enjoy it, you’d have been square with the Lord from a sin standpoint.

        4. How the fuck is incest or polygamy a fetish? By that logic, nearly all Mormons up through the 19th century, most royal families in Europe and fundamentalist Muslims (including the Saudi royals) are fetishists.

          And if they are, so what?

          Fuck you and your hatred of those who are different than you.

        5. Polygamy also is a choice. No one can choose who they would or will be attracted to, but they CAN choose to be in more than one relationship with more than one person at the same time.

          And gays can’t choose who they are attracted to, but they CAN choose to be in a relationship with someone of the same gender as them. So we need to allow gays to marry someone of their sex because they can’t control who (other dudes) they are attracted to, but we shouldn’t let polygamists marry multiple people because they can’t control who (several cute girls) they are attracted to?

        6. Throw out ped and beast, those aren’t consenting. You’re still using fixed morality arg, it’s just your fix includes gay marriage, other peoples don’t. Somewhere down the line a fixed morality might include poly and incest. Why should we adhere to your fix, and not someone else’s? The fact that there is a conflict means there must be a vote. Allowing one judge to overrule the voice of the people isn’t democracy. You can’t say it is tyranny of the majority either because nobody can marry anybody they want now, this is either a conferred right by society, or it is a miscarriage of justice; and should be allowed for all, despite your morality.

    2. Re: O3,

      diff is as olsen contends, that marrage is a civil right not subject to voting.

      Marrage is not a civil right. You don’t have a right to mar someone.

      1. you can spell marrage w/o teh rage

        1. sorry *cant*

          my ad blocker has an annoying habit of popping-up when im posting so i missed the mis-spelting

          1. so i missed the mis-spelting

            Quit while you’re behind, man. You’re never gonna catch up at this rate.

            1. Quit while you’re behind, man.

              If he’d have done that, he’d have never started.

    3. happy Valentine’s day! Do you wanna look for some bilover to hook up tonight?===Datebi*c/O’m=== is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

  2. I think Virginia Postrel has it right. If gay marriage is imposed by the judiciary it will be accepted a lot faster than abortion. Marriage is happy. Abortion is sad.

    1. Not married, are you?

      1. Are you shooting for a 2nd divorce or another tat?

      2. Working on 33 years, but it’s a good point. Should have said weddings are happy. Even if that’s not universal, it’s closer than the first statement.

    2. Marriage is happy. Abortion is sad.

      Or, abortions are forever; marriage is temporary.

    3. Also, should we have gay marriage throughout the US, it will become obvious that it was a non-event to anyone but the gay couples themselves. To their neighbors, even, it won’t make any real difference.

      Dire predictions of total chaos will sound crazy to all but the wackiest fundies, when that chaos doesn’t materialize. Then, opposition to gay marriage will likely fade away as most people find that they just don’t care about the issue.

      Abortion is different. Pro-life people see the numbers of abortions, and from a pro-life perspective, this leads to something horrible happening, every day. If someone equates abortion with murder, they don’t just forget about it because it is routine.

      I think Virginia Postrel is right on, also.

    4. Marriage is happy.

      Citation?

      1. I could take a picture of me and Banjos.

  3. What is this ban on gay marriage these articles keep referring to?

    I’m not aware of same sex couples being prosecuted for going through a marriage ceremony at the local Unitarian church, or entering into an equivalent legal contract.

    When was the last time a gay person went to jail for getting married?

    Really?

    1. God damn, you’re pathetic. Do you really hate homosexuals this much that you have to resort to being this stupid?

      1. Roland Emmerich is gay. That’s right, the man who cursed your local movie screen with 2012 is a homosexual. Defend that.

        I have absolutely no problem with same-sex marriage – in fact, I encourage it exactly as much as I encourage opposite-sex marriage – but sarc is correct. There is no ban on it. The phrasing is incorrect. The ban is on gay marriage licensing.

        1. The licensing is what everyone is talking about in the context, though. And if he wanted to say that, he should have just said “The ban is on gay marriage licensing.”

          Finally, this isn’t news to anyone here, so what is the point in pointing it out?

        2. The ban is on gay marriage licensing.

          How does leaving the word “licensing” out of the statement change the meaning to a reasonable person?

          1. Reasonable of course means people who agree with you, correct?

            1. No, it means you’re being a hypertechnical asshole in the interest of obfuscating the substance of the discussion.

              When someone says “gay marriage” they mean “licensing”. There. Now you can stop whining.

              1. in the interest of obfuscating the substance of the discussion

                The people guilty of obfuscating are the ones who, upon giving the big FU to equivalent legal protections sans the word “marriage”, claim that this is about legal rights.

                1. What exactly is obfuscated about not accepting a second class “separate but equal” classification for some marriages because of a bunch of well funded — and well connected — whack jobs claiming that “Jesus told me so”?

                  1. The fact that SSM proponents will accept no compromise that does not include the use of government force to redefine the word “marriage” tells me that the fight is over the word, not the rights that come with the contract.

                2. This is like the NJ assemblyman I heard last week on the radio explaining that civil union “doesn’t work” because even though NJ’s gov’t treated the conditions equally, insurers didn’t automatically cover those civilly united as they would a married couple, so they had to enact same sex marriage. That’s what it’s really about, changing the terms of private contracts.

          2. Conservatives are getting desperate because they are now in the minority when it comes to gay rights. The vast majority of us under 30 support gay marriage, and america nationally now supports it according to the last gallup poll, one of the most reputable polls out there. They are just fishing in desperate for an excuse to condone their bigotry.

            1. They’re trying to protect the sanctity of straight marriage!

              I still feel the the pathway to true equality would have been to ban straight marriage too. There, now we’re all equal under the law and much, much happier for it.

            2. Um, you’re really making a mistake by pointing out that “the majority approves of it.” There are plenty of restrictions on liberty the majority approve of. Doesn’t necessarily make it right.

              Seriously, use a more sound argument for your cause than “the majority says it’s ok.”

        3. So what you’re saying is that he’s technically correct. Do you feel that technically correct is the best kind of correct? If so, what does that make you, and what grade?

          1. It is dishonest to say that there is a ban on gay marriage.

            There is no ban; it’s just not recognized by the all-powerful godlike State.

            1. It’s dishonest to try to claim this as a distinction.

              1. Its a huge distinction, as all marriage licenses are a 1st amendment violation, and should be banned.

            2. I’ll say it again, because it pisses Tony off something royal:

              A marriage license is a permission slip from the government.

              Bonus irony: It costs money to get that piece of paper.

            3. Except that there are all kinds of traditional common-law rights that accompany that “recognition” that are actively denied by the state by failing to recognize an impolitic relationship.

              This is like saying that denying black people a license to run a bar doesn’t mean they can’t run a bar. Well, yes, actually, when it comes to the recognition of the rights and privileges that accompany that license, it meaningfully, not technically, is unwarranted discrimination.

              1. Except that when offered equivalent common-law rights sans the word “marriage” the gay activist community raised the middle finger.

                That tells me that this is a fight over a word, not the rights.

                If these people were honest and admitted that they want to change the legal definition of marriage so they can use the courts to bully anyone who disagrees, then they wouldn’t get support from people who they’ve duped into thinking it’s about common-law rights.

                I was a dupe, but not anymore.

                1. The government has used the word ‘marriage’ throughout the civil, tax, and criminal codes in every state and federal law. Gay activists did not do that. If you prefer, change the civil codes, tax codes, etc., to eliminate any reference to the word, and it might be a start.

              2. Hardwick’s marriage Act of 1753 is the beginning of state issued marriage licenses in the UK. English common law predates that by centuries.

                Common law doesnt need a marriage license to apply.

                1. Not really state issued even then, state recognition would be more accurate.

          2. Bureaucrat, grade 1.0.

            1. I should have known you would come here. And I did know! And that’s why I came here!

          3. My grade is A for awesome, as always. I think there is more than one solution to this inequity, and phrasing the problem more precisely might remind people the answer could be ending letting the state define our relationships. Everything becomes politicized when the state gets involved.

            1. Guards! Bring me the forms I need to fill out to have him taken away!

      2. Concur. This is weak sauce.

        I think the problem the Supreme Court is going to face, though, is that declaring homosexual marriage a right would have to direct the military to recognize same-sex spouses as well. Which, not that I care, but the Supreme Court probably does for whatever reason. Also, DOMA would have to go.

        1. I would much prefer that the Supreme Court declared that:

          1. Marriage is not a right.
          2. The government has no Constitutional power to restrict marriage.
          3. Since marriage as we know it is a religious institution, marriage licenses subject to a list of criteria constitutes a violation of the First Amendment.

          The notion that, in order for the government not to have complete power to regulate or ban anything, on a whim, it needs to be a fundamental right, is toxic in itself.

          1. Ideally, the government would treat marriage contracts the same as other contracts. Also, government would not show preference to individuals based on their marital status.

            1. Precisely so.

              There is a legitimate place for laws governing contracts. There is not a legitimate place for laws defining who can enter into an otherwise-legal contract.

              For all the laws that govern real estate, for example, it’s expressly illegal to prevent someone from entering into a lawful real estate contract because of his/her gender.

              1. “Marriage” is the name applied to a very specific contract that is defined by the gender of the people entering into it.

                1. That’s the issue. The state is not allowed, legally, to bar people from entering into contracts because of their gender.

                  1. Last I checked anyone can enter into the contract called “marriage” provided the other person is of the opposite sex and not so closely related that their children would be mutants.

                    1. And if marriage is a civil contract, licensed by the state, the “opposite sex” part would be legal for the state to enforce?

                    2. That’s the definition of marriage.
                      Want to open it to same sex couples? Call it something else.

                      That’s why I think the proper solution is to get the government out of the marriage business.

                      With no force behind the definition, there’s nothing to argue about.

                      But of course that is the point.
                      The SSM supporters want to use force, through the courts, against individuals and businesses who don’t like the word “marriage” being used to describe a same sex couple.

                      If the government got out of the marriage business, they could not do that.

                      All the talk about equal rights is a bunch of shit.

                      It’s about using force against those who think differently.

                    3. Tax single people the same as you do ‘married’ people, and eliminate every distinction between the two in law and we get closer to agreement.

          2. . Since marriage as we know it is a religious institution, marriage licenses subject to a list of criteria constitutes a violation of the First Amendment.

            Not anymore. Marriage to the state has nothing to do with religion. It’s a way of quickly and easily defining a contractual relationship so things can be handled in a boilerplate manner upon dissolution. Marriage to the state is about divorce.

            Yes, yes, I know there are some other technicalities like power of attorney and all that– but all of that can be handled and set up outside of a legaized marriage.

            Lots of people have life-partners and were able to navigate through all the legal stuff, division of property etc. It just takes effort to do. Marriage takes no effort. You say, “I do” and bam, half your stuff just became your partner’s.

            1. If marriage, to the state, is simply a contractual relationship bundling power of attorney and property ownership, then there would seem to be no way, under current law and case law, that it could be restricted to individuals based on gender.

            2. Why should a same sex couple have to pay an attorney to prepare documents, pay for additional recordings, notices, publication, etc., to have the same ‘technicalities’ as someone else obtains by paying the government for a license?

          3. Marriage is not a religious institution, it existed long before religions.

      3. Sarcasmic is right. It is more than a little bit ironic that the same people who get their back up about “how dare the government tell me if I am married” feel that gays are somehow oppressed because they can’t get government sanction for their marriage. Gays can and do get married all of the time. They just don’t get a government endorsement. And since when did that matter to libertarians?

        1. If that government endorsement were not required to give certain legal power to the contract, it wouldn’t matter.

          I advocate that said endorsement be abolished, anyone have the right to make such a contract, and we do away with the whole “issue.”

          Marriage should not be a political football, at all. Gay or not. Let’s make sure it isn’t, by removing marriage from the political realm.

          1. what? what are you, gay or something?

            1. No. But I definitely support gay marriage if both chicks are hot. For me.

  4. I doubt state-recognized gay marriage will have the ongoing emotional impact that abortion enjoys from both sides. No, like many marriages themselves, the gay marriage debate will have little staying power. The Supremes can go to town on it.

  5. Oh well, history has been made. A bigot has no power or business to tell any female what she may or may not do with her unwanted embryo. If they don’t like this reality, they can get a life. Privacy is the law of the land!

    1. You probably haven’t been reading many fundraising letters from prochoice groups. They have been alerting their supporters to Our Endangered Abortion Rights. They have also been pointing out that 2011 was one of the worst years for pro-choicers.

      And they’re quite right, of course.

      So much for established law.

    2. How is someone who legitimately disagrees on the question of abortion a “bigot”?

      The only thing that prevents me from embracing leftist political stances, sometimes, is the Stupid Identity Politics of its dumber followers.

      Go back to posting on Facebook, flex. That’s where you belong.

      1. A person is a bigot when they’re compelled to not only disagree with someone, but force another person to comply. In this situation, zealous individuals and groups not only disagree with a female seeking an abortion, but seek to stop a her from having one through legislation. This distinction makes them a bigot.

        You should know, I don’t operate on Facebook, so I can’t relate to your consumer level, lousy attitude. Go to hell, bigot.

        1. A person is a bigot when they’re compelled to not only disagree with someone, but force another person to comply. In this situation, zealous individuals and groups not only disagree with a female seeking an abortion, but seek to stop a her from having one through legislation. This distinction makes them a bigot.

          Or, they legitimately believe that abortion is a murder, and as rational people, they are “bigoted” against murders and murderers.

          I don’t follow that viewpoint, but your childish temper-tantrum means you don’t have the ability to understand a reasonable disagreement, so the conversation ends here.

          Back to Gawker or Jezebel or whatever insular hellhole you came from.

        2. So when a woman seeks an abortion, is she bigoted against fetuses? After, she is actively trying to kill her fetus.

          Legislation is a legitimate way to protect individual rights. If you see a fetus as being a person with rights, then using legislation to protect that person is not bigoted.

          The real issue is whether a fetus is a person with the same rights as the mother. Many say yes. Many say no. Most are not bigoted.

    3. A bigot has no power or business to tell any female what she may or may not do with her unwanted embryo. If they don’t like this reality, they can get a life. Privacy is the law of the land!

      Whoah… hold on a second there…

  6. Yes, throwing around words like “hatred” and “bigotry” is certainly an effective method to get support for your position. I encourage you to do it more often – it will win you lots of friends and supporters!

    1. Anyone who disagrees is guilty of “hatred” and “bigotry”, and the only possible way they can prove their innocence is by agreeing.

      Textbook ad hominem.

      1. Even more pathetic; now you’re whining. OH NOES THE HOMOS MIGHT GET MARRIED!

        Why the fuck do you care? At all?

        1. The dishonesty is strong in this one.

          1. The hate is strong in this one. So very, very libertarian of you, isn’t it.

            1. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

              1. Ironic that the whiner projects whining on others. Unsurprising, but ironic.

        2. If I were king my solution would be to get the government out of the marriage business.

          That way there would be no force behind one definition or the other, and nothing to argue about.

          1. Well, you aren’t king, and there is a contractual relationship that is recognized by the State called “marriage”. So when you’re done being hyperpedantic and you actually want to discuss the substance of the issue, please let us all know.

            1. With all due respect, that *is* the substance of the issue.

              1. Not as sarcasmic is arguing it. sarcasmic is placing a lot of value in the fact that we, the members of this community, are not distinguishing between the ceremony of marriage and the licensing thereof by the State.

                But few people on this board fail to see that distinction.

                The substance of the issue is as follows: “IF we are to have licensing of marriage, THEN to whom should it be extended?” We’re all in general agreement about the answer to the question “SHOULD the government recognize ‘special’ relationships”.

                1. The substance of the issue is as follows: “IF we are to have licensing of marriage

                  No, that isnt the substance. The substance is that licensing of marriage is fucking unconstitutional. Period. End of Story.

                  The IF never comes into play, because it fails before we get that far.

            2. As I’ve said before, I was on the side of same sex marriage advocates until I came to the realization that they care more about the word than about the legal status that goes with it.

              I will not ally myself with dishonest people.

              1. No, you just hate homos for some reason. Again, and here is the million dollar question which you will avoid like the plague:

                Why do you even care?

            3. Oh STFU with your liberal whining. This isn’t about “rights” it’s about forcing social acceptance of a deviant lifestyle through lawsuits against institutions that don’t recognize their perverted “marriage”.

              It’s about changing the meaning of words to suit a particular PC image.

              And lastly, fags can ALREADY get married, to any woman of their choice. And if you say “wah, that’s not what they want!” well guess what life doesn’t always give you what you want. I want a million bucks, but I’m not going to force the state to provide it to me. So fags need to just STFU and be happy that they aren’t actively beaten in the streets anymore.

              1. Jesus booed the golden rule in SC too. I saw it on the intertubz. He hates the gaez.

            4. Hyperpedantic is what some called my hero Andrew Napolitano.

              1. There is value to pedantry. I am actually a pretty bad offender most of the time, but there is no value in using to against people who already agree on the technical distinction.

                1. That is a damn good way of expressing the point.

                  It is a real good standard that you have articulated Rev. You know that a guy is a first class pedant when he has to brow beat the choir on a minor technical point.

                2. That is a damn good way of expressing the point.

                  It is a real good standard that you have articulated Rev. You know that a guy is a first class pedant when he has to brow beat the choir on a minor technical point.

            5. An unconstitutional recognition.

            6. well that’s it then. if libertarian Jesus hates him sum gayz, then im all in…wait…i didnt mean…

              1. The phrase “ban gay marriage” is designed to convey the impression that it’s the gays, not private business owners, who are at risk of a government agent knock on their door and punish them for their behavior.

          2. This stance makes no sense and is so obviously an excuse to be against gay marriage while trying not to seem like a bigot.

            The only thing anyone is talking about are government-granted rights and equality under the law with respect to them. You want to end centuries of legal recognition of human pair-bonding, convince the straights to go first. Otherwise, it’s really not that difficult to be on the side of equality here.

            1. Of course it’s the easy position. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, to any perceived problem there is a solution – simple, obvious, and wrong.

              The SSM movement is, among other things, attempting to abridge the discretion of private businesses to select their own customers. Allow me to re-post the following links:

              Section 7 of Washington state’s new SSM law provides that religious organizations (and presumably secular orgs too) which charge money to hold marriages on their premises must open up their premises to same-sex ceremonies:

              http://1.usa.gov/wNwphr

              ?3,600 fine to English couple who didn’t let gay guests share the same bed. Court: “the Appellants [do not] face any difficulty in manifesting their religious beliefs, they are merely prohibited from so doing in the commercial context they have chosen.”

              http://bit.ly/z4Gw2T

              1. attempting to abridge the discretion of private businesses to select their own customer

                Once I heard that the SSM was taking a Civil Rights stance, I realized it was more about the right to take people to court than anything else.

              2. There is no social benefit from endorsing people’s right to be hateful bigots. You want the privilege of engaging in commerce (and all the government benefits that entails) then you can damn well keep your desire to hate people for how they were born restricted to your private life.

                Not saying this specific issue has an easy answer–I do tend to favor antidiscrimination rules though. This is the point often missed by libertarians when discussing antisegregation laws. The ability to make money in this society is not absolute. It comes with conditions, and always has.

                1. There is no social benefit from endorsing people’s right to be hateful bigots.

                  Well done, Tony: First demonize, then strip of rights.

                  Liberal fascism at its very finest.

            2. “You want to end centuries of legal recognition of human pair-bonding, convince the straights to go first.”

              They’d have to go first; there is no one to go second. But I really like the wording of the first clause of your statement.

              1. “you can damn well keep your desire to hate people for how they were born restricted to your private life.”

                Does that mean you should be able to decide who sleeps in your bed?

                No, it doesn’t mean that, because the English couple just had to pay a fine for that private decision.

                1. The English are often nuts on privacy issues, but here it seems a simple matter of discrimination. They treated gay customers differently than they would straight customers.

                  1. “a simple matter”

                    Again with the simple-mindedness!

                    When someone says an issue is “simple” and has only One Right Answer – to be imposed by the government, of course – then my BS detector goes off loudly.

                    1. I’m not saying there’s no case to be made on the other side. But I’m not going to immediately agree with you either. It’s a long-standing area of tension in law, no doubt about it.

                    2. At least you’ve stopped claiming that it’s “a simple matter” and that there’s “no social benefit” to allowing private businesses make their own decisions in this matter.

  7. Answering historical “what ifs” can be a fun way to pass the time . . .

    Speaking of which, what if some political group with the ability to travel back in time wanted to influence past events in their favor . . . say, for instance, some racist group wanted to help the Confederacy win the Civil War by arming them with modern-day weaponry. AK-47s, for example.

    I should write a book!

    1. Do a better job of protecting the time machine you steal. Otherwise, you might get stranded.

      1. Do a better job of protecting the time machine you steal. Otherwise, you might get stranded.

        Great idea, I’ll be sure to work that into the plot somehow . . .

    2. What do you mean there’s no peanut butter?

  8. which had amended the state constitution in order to forbid gay marriage.

    I thought the amendment didn’t change any of the legal rights/responsibilities that come with a state-issued license, but only forbade the use of the word “marriage” in connection with that license when it is issued to a same-sex couple.*

    If so, saying the amendment banned gay marriage is a gross overstatement. It did no such thing. The can still get just as married as any other couple; the state just won’t use the magic word, is all.

    *Note: going from memory on last week’s story here at H&R. I could be wrong – if so, I blame Bush.

    1. You are obviously motivated by hatred and bigotry, and the only way you can prove that you are not is by retracting that statement and joining in the personal attacks against anyone who doesn’t actively support redefining marriage to include same sex couples.

      1. Since there is no secular rationale for discriminating in this matter, despite very well-paid lawyers’ attempts to make one, you explain what’s motivating you. Because it seems like you’re exerting a lot of effort to be on the wrong side of the issue.

    2. If one can game the same exact bundle of rights from a domestic partnership contract that one can gain from a marriage contract, I see the whole exercise as nothing more than pedantic masturbation as there is no equal protection claim of worth.

      That said, the right to contract claim, arising from Lochner (I don’t give a shit if subsequent precedent overturned Lochner, if the left wants their gay marriage, they’ll have to deal with Lochner), would essentially state that a same sex pair (or larger gathering of people) has the right to enter into any contract they want providing informed consent is present, and the govt is forced to enforce that contract the same it would business arrangement.

      1. It is about the ability to take people to court for not using the word “married” to describe two individuals of the same sex.

      2. “…the govt is forced to enforce that contract the same it would business arrangement.”

        Oh, if only this was true. Marriage is the only contract that can be unilaterally broken and the “breakee” not only faces no penalties for their contract, but may actually be rewarded for their failure to honor their contract.

        I am sure that there is a better word than “breakee,” but I am too lazy yo Google.

        1. Try “ex-wife”.

  9. “It’s not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far too fast,” Ginsburg told a symposium at Columbia Law School marking the 40th anniversary of her joining the faculty as its first tenure-track female professor….

    Alluding to the persisting bitter debate over abortion, Ginsburg said the justices of that era could have delayed hearing any case like Roe while the state-by-state process evolved. Alternatively, she said, they could have struck down just the Texas law, which allowed abortions only to save a mother’s life, without declaring a right to privacy that legalized the procedure nationwide.

    Usually I think Ginsburg is wrong, but she couldn’t have been more right on this issue. If the abortion question had played out on a state-by-state basis the abortion issue would be very different today – much less contentious since there would be a patchwork of laws and every woman would be able to find a nearby state to get an abortion if they wanted it. And the SCOTUS would have been acting within its bounds rather than creating new law.

    1. I think this is the brass ring that the anti-abortion side fails to grasp. Abortion isn’t a federal issue.

    2. Although I agree with Ginsberg’s federalist take on Roe, I don’t think the same rationale applies as well to the same sex marriage debate.

      With Roe, you have the appearance of competing rights claims, the right of the expectant mother, but also the right of the unborn child. It becomes a bit clouded by the entire notion of where life begins, and if life begins at some stage in utero, then you have to determine where that is (and Roe’s determination seemed as arbitrary as any) and ultimately one claimant’s right petition is rejected due to the more fundamental right’s petition of the other.

      The thing with same sex marriage is that there is no other person’s rights claim being infringed upon by the two parties to the marriage. Therefore, the idea that two people can be denied a right without there being a valid claim from a third party that their own rights are somehow sacrificed for it seems like a trademark area for the court to make a ruling.

    3. SCOTUS’ first and most important job is being an impenetrable bulwark against each and every attempt by any legislature, city, county, state, regional, federal, international, global, inter-galactic, to interfer with the exercise of an individual’s liberty.

      No exceptions for abortion legislation.

      1. However, unlike same sex marriage, there is the possibility of competing rights: the mother’s right to terminate a pregnancy, and the right to life that the fetus may/can evoke at whatever stage it gains the designation of humanity. Due to such complications, it is far less black and white as allowing a couple of dudes to sign a contract saying they’ll totally shop together until death do them part.

        1. That there may be competing rights in no way justifies the invocation of the totalitarian ethic.

          X’s rights are competing with Y’s rights, therefore Caesar gets to decide?

          No, thank you. I’ll pass.

          1. Who would you prefer do the deciding? The fetus doesn’t exactly have the upper hand physically…

  10. Well unlike abortion, the constitution actually applies to gay marriage. The equal protection clause demands that gay marriage be given the same treatment under the law as ungay marriage.

    However, even if we find a right to privacy in the constitution (Oh here it is! It was wedged under a drawer in the forth amendment) you don’t have the right to commit murder just because you do it in private. Not that I think abortion is murder. If it were up to me, every woman would have the right to abort her child for any reason up until the moment of birth. After that, both parents would have the right.

    1. Well unlike abortion, the constitution actually applies to gay marriage.

      The equal protection argument seems to rely critically on the fact that, due to changes in social/cultural attitudes and mores, gay marriage has ceased to be an oxymoron and the social/cultural definition of marriage has changed to encompass gay marriage as well as non-gay marriage. For states to deny marriage rights to partnerships that would otherwise fall within the new expanded social/cultural definition of marriage ias a denial of equal protection.

      I’m not saying that’s wrong, but it gets perilously close to a “Living Constitution” to say that the meaning of the Constitution changes even when none of its words change, and that’s pretty much what the equal protection argument for gay marriage comes down to.

      1. Hence my assertion that the proper claim is right to contract and free association implied within the 1st and 9th amendments an initially established within Lochner.

        There is also the argument that there is no equal protection issue because all people are equally forbidden from marrying within the same sex: no heterosexual man can marry another man (I know this seems trite, but from a literalist perspective is holds truth).

      2. Exactly. It is a “Living Constitution” argument. And props to Ginsburg for her remarks. It’s a little-known fact that abortion was (to some degree) legal in states comprising about 30% of the popular at the time of Roe. Given some time, it would have been legal in much of the country, and without a lot of the rancor which followed Roe.

      3. Yeah no. It has always been wrong for the state to grant legal status to one kind of couple and withhold it from a similarly situated couple. The only thing that has changed is the prevalence of bigotry that allowed that naked oppression to persist.

        1. I believe that whether a gay couple is “similarly situated” is exactly the point of contention.

    2. wouldn’t equal protection demand equal treatment under the law for singles as well as marrieds?

      1. The legal recognition of marriage is a package of rights, privileges, and responsibilities. Things like child custody, power of attorney, etc.

        They don’t apply to single people. Its a special kind of contract that people may enter into. The right, privileges, and responsibilities that go with it, are long established and honored under the law.

        1. This I agree with. There is a whole package of legal rights and responsibilities that goes along with State recognition of marriage.

  11. The center of the abortion debate is about where life begins. That will always draw more heat then whether gays can have their unions recognized.

    The bigger problem with Prop 8 is how the Supreme Court can explain to voters how they can amend their state constitution any way they like, except for a way that 5 of 9 lawyers don’t like.

    1. All they have to do is point to the fear of the founders and the ratifiers of democracy.

      Liberty need not comfort democracy.

  12. This thing had jolly well better result in getting the government out of the “marriage” business by relegitimizing(?) contract law and by “fixing the tax code”.

  13. “It’s not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far too fast,”

    What better evidence could possibly be proffered that the Left has precisely zero respect for the Constitution? Look, it either violates the document or it doesn’t. If it does, strike it down. If it doesn’t, don’t. But don’t pretend you’re doing anything but wedging your own political preferences into judicial ukases if today something doesn’t violate the Constitution and tomorrow it does.

    1. ukases

      Sweet.

    2. Here’s a shock: both sides do it. The Scalia right is no more deferential to the constitution than the Ginsburg left. One side may piously lie about that more often, though. Court decisions will have policy implications and are thus political. Rarely does the supreme court take on an issue that can be resolved by a cursory reading the text of the constitution. That’s the whole reason there’s a dispute that reaches them.

      1. So tedious. Tu quoque is all you got? Because we can do that without you.

        1. The accusation was made that the left has zero respect for the constitution. I made the argument that, based on the criteria used, neither does the right. But my larger point is that the obsession with constitutional deference is a distraction. Claiming to be “originalist” is simply a way for a jurist to say “and the Founders agree with me” with no further explanation needed. If a dispute reaches the supreme court then usually it means the constitutional issue at hand has not, in fact, already been decided for centuries.

          1. The point is that the Left doesn’t even try, Tony. They just make it up as they go along, making the Constitution a dead letter.

            1. They do try–it’s their job in fact. They just don’t make the claim that their opinion is the only one sanctioned by founder zombies. I don’t see why they should be criticized for not living up to a lie on the right.

              1. They just don’t make the claim that their opinion is the only one sanctioned by founder zombies.

                Precisely, their decisions and stances are based on whatever bee happens to be in their bonnets on a given day. In other words, having a Constitution is just like not having a Constitution to the port side.

                1. If the question were easily answered by a cursory consultation of the constitution, it wouldn’t be before the Court in the first place.

      2. Scalia is orders of magnitude better than the port side of the SCOTUS, but not nearly as good as Thomas (who is hated more than any other member of the Court by the Left).

        Pathetic and mendacious, Tony.

        1. They are both right-wing cranks and are on the court for precisely that reason. They are not the cream of the crop, which is not surprising given how little respect the Right has for being educated.

          1. Originalist == Right-wing crank.

            Need I say it? I rest my case.

            1. I just explained that “originalism” is a fraud.

              1. You “explained” zip. Making a sincere attempt to understand what words meant to the people who wrote the Constitution is not fraudulent. Give us one single example of “fraudulent” originalism.

              2. You asserted it, true. It didn’t get past that.

                If originalism is a fraud, then upon what basis does one apply the Constitution?

                1. If originalism is a fraud, then upon what basis does one apply the Constitution?

                  The jurisprudence of heart’s desire. If I am really in favor of something, the Constitution requires it; if I am really against something, the Constitution prohbits it.

  14. Here is why the slippery slope argument fails.

    Let us take the 4 common arguments: beastiality, pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. First off, all 4 of these are fetishes, and irrelevant to homosexuality, which is a sexual orientation. Let me distinguish this for you using incest as an example. If a guy into incest is straight, he’ll choose his sister, and if he’s gay, he’ll choose his brother. See the distinguishment? Now pedophilia and beastiality will never be legal, because both are non-consenting and harmful, whereas homosexuality is 2 loving consenting adults that is not wrong or harmful. Incest, also has been shown to lead to genetic defects, so that is also out of the question. Incest also is a fetish, not a sexual orientation. I have never seen a person exclusively attracted to their brothers/sisters etc. Polygamy also is a choice. No one can choose who they would or will be attracted to, but they CAN choose to be in more than one relationship with more than one person at the same time. Polygamy can be damaging, as it can cause jealousies and resentments among the participants and any children produced. Those 4 fetishes can be seen to be harmful and wrong, whereas gay marriage is neither harmful nor wrong.

    If you want to press for polygamy, or incest, those are completely separate issues irrelevant to gay marriage. Go advocate for them if that’s your concern, prove they are not wrong and prove they are not harmful. We have already proven that homosexuality/gay marriage is not wrong/harmful. But those two things are irrelevant to gay marriage. And gay marriage does not lead to polygamy nor any other type of fetish.

    Gay marriage has been legal in MA for 8 years now, and i don’t see anyone pushing for polygamy there. The slippery slope is a myth meant as a scare tactic that’s quickly becoming obsolete.

    1. If you want to press for polygamy, or incest, those are completely separate issues irrelevant to gay marriage.

      No, they’re not. The principles advanced to support gay marriage as a Constitutional right apply equally to polygamy, and maybe incest marriage as well, unless and until you distinguish them (or, say you don’t care).

      And you don’t. Not in any way relevant to the legal principles advanced, anyway. Nattering on about sexual practices that may or may not happen within the marriage is irrelevant to the range of partners that may be legally recognized for a legal marriage.

      1. But surely it’s possible for it to be unconstitutional to discriminate against gays, but not polygamists. What are you arguing, that gays should have to answer for all other types of relationships before their complaint is legitimate? Polygamists can have their day in court if they want.

        It’s not like the institution of marriage has remained static. No doubt similar slippery slope fallacies were deployed when miscegenation was in the process of being legalized.

      2. Again, they are different issues. Like i said above:

        Gay people are fighting for their own rights, as blacks did theirs, Asians, women, etc. Gays are not fighting for the rights of polygamists. Polygamists need to fight for the rights of polygamists.

        If you want to fight for polygamy, go for it. Prove it’s not wrong or harmful, like we’ve proven that homosexuality/gay marriage is not wrong/harmful and make your case. But gay marriage does not lead to polygamy, nor is there any evidence that it does.

        1. Re: shadow_man,

          Gay people are fighting for their own rights, as blacks did theirs, Asians, women, etc.

          Marriage is not a right. You have a right to enter into a contract with someone else and call it whatever you want.

          Gays are not fighting for the rights of polygamists. Polygamists need to fight for the rights of polygamists.

          Actually, there’s a greater case for the defense of polygamy than for the defense of gay marriage, since nobody is really stopping homosexuals from having a marriage contract; however, there are clear laws against polygamy and polygamy contracts and arrangements which unequivocally violate the principle of the sanctity of contracts and the right to freely assemble.

          If you want to fight for polygamy, go for it. Prove it’s not wrong or harmful

          The onus is not on one to prove a negative.

          1. -Loving v virginia would like to have words with you regarding marriage as a civil right.

            -Nobody is stopping homosexuals from having a civil contract? Last time i checked there are bans in over 30 states. And once again, if you want to marry multiple people, then go fight for it. But that is not our fight as gays, or blacks, or woman, or any other group

            1. Re: shadow_man,

              Loving v virginia would like to have words with you regarding marriage as a civil right.

              Is that waht you’re presenting now? An appeal to authority? Legal decisions concern themselves to legal matters, not philosophical or moral. Marriage in itself is NOT a civil right by any means, because a) You cannot make someone else become married to YOU and b) You cannot make someone else perform a ceremony for you. You simply do not understand the nature of rights, so here’s a quick tip: You cannot have a right to something you don’t have already.

              -Nobody is stopping homosexuals from having a civil contract? Last time i checked there are bans in over 30 states.

              Look at what they’re banning. They’re NOT banning civil unions, only issuing marriage “licenses”.

              By the same token, pretty much ALL the states prohibit polygamy. So there’s a bigger civil rights issue at hand with polygamy than with homosexual unions.

              And once again, if you want to marry multiple people, then go fight for it.

              I am not and I won’t. What I am fighting for is human liberty, which encompasses everything from homosexual unions to polygamy.

              1. -Homosexuality is not a moral issue. It’s a basic fact of life. Homosexuals exists and are normal, biological aspects of human life. There you go again with more irrelevant things. Who’s talking about forcing someone to marry you? Lol, do you even read what you post?

                -Which in essence is marriage. Notice how you have no argument against gay marriage that you try to derail the issue at hand. It won’t work with me. This isn’t the sarah palin debates. I don’t let my subjects steer off topic.

                -That’s good for you. But if you want to fight for polygamy as a human liberty, then by all means go do it.

          2. It’s even worse than that. Two gay people can have a ceremony, call themselves married, etc. and the state will leave them alone. The dude on that show sister wives never petitioned for a marriage license from the govt and but just recognizes his multiple wives as wives in the confines of his own home and within his own personal life, and yet he was chased out of Utah for being a polygamist.

            1. And in other nations you can be killed for being gay. What’s your point?

              1. I’m sorry, I didn’t realize we were talking about marital arrangements in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

                My point is that the laws against polygamy in this country are unjust, at least as unjust as the lack of contract rights for same sex pairs.

                1. If you think they are unjust, then go change them. Us gays have our own battles to fight.

                  1. I got mine, everyone else can just fuck off! (Good thing a lot of heterosexuals didn’t take that attitude to gay marriage, though.)

                    1. Fail troll is fail πŸ™‚

                    2. Although that does seem to be your attitude toward the rights of others. You even made a point of trying to justify the denial of the rights you seek to others, such as polygamists.

                    3. Using different names now are we. Lol, come on bro, that’s the oldest trick in the book.

                    4. No, shadow, I’ll stick with a name and say that yes, you did, in fact, try to provide justification for discrimination against polygamists. Otherwise, why distinguish as to its “fetish” status? because you’re trying to set apart your “natural” proclivities from the “icky” polygamists.

                    5. LOL, so you’re basically admitting that you used another name rev blue? That post was not directed at you and you replied to it. I think you forgot to log off and switch names πŸ˜€

                    6. No, dumbass, I am not Rev. Blue. He was just pointing out he sees no need to switch handles.

                    7. I am willing to give this shallow 18-year-old a pass. It’s clear that he just came out, is a freshman or sophomore in college, and really is buying into hardcore Identity Politics right now.

                    8. Really: Make it more obvious please πŸ™‚

                      rev blue: Ahhhh, like most anti-gay people, they resort to insults because they have no argument against gay marriage. That’s why your side is losing this battle =)

                    9. Again, not against gay marriage. In favor. Copy and paste this comment if you cannot get it through your head.

      3. We need more incest, not less.

        Ah, some of you may be thinking that I am just stirring up shit. Perhaps, but there is a practical angle to consider:

        Would you prefer Joe from Lowell to marry your sister or his?

        1. You have a point!

    2. It was proven long ago that Polygamy isn’t harmful.

      It a fetish though, apparently.

      1. Lol, where is this scientific proof? And yes, i proved how it is a fetish and distinguished from sexual orientation.

        1. No, my friend, you did not. You called it one of four fetishes, explained the first three and then said that polygamy was “also a choice.”

          http://www.newscientist.com/ar…..-life.html

          Scientific!

          Or you could just take a look at history.

          1. You brought up an article that shows one positive thing about polygamy. That would do nothing to disprove the many arguments that would come up if you tried to legalize polygamy. We’ve disproved all the arguments against gay marriage/homosexuality already. If you want to do the same with polygamy, then by all means, go do so =)

            1. You asked for it, I gave it. There are plenty more out there (plus, you know, history).

              http://scienceblogs.com/gregla…..mans_t.php

              And the idea that all of the argument against gay marriage (or any marriage) have been disproven is a flat out lie. As not all arguments can be proven or disproven. Just for starters.

              1. If there are plenty more out there, where are they? Lol, if there was all that scientific “support” as you claim, then surely the scientific, psychological, and medical communities would support it through evidence right? But the fact that they don’t, and the fact that you can’t come up with many scientific articles, pretty much shows why you are proven wrong.

                1. What difference would it make?

                  How much “scientifc support” is enough for you to determine who can enter voluntary arrangements with whom?

                  1. I sure know that one article that doesn’t really prove your point is not sufficient support.

                    1. Luckily I provided two.

                    2. I heard that two arguments is all you need to support a huge claim. Now it’s time to push for polygamy with those two points. I’ll be sure to see how far you get with them πŸ™‚

                    3. The claim isn’t huge at all though, it’s extremely simple.

                    4. Then i’m sure you will have to problem getting polygamy legalized then, hmm? =)

                    5. I wish.
                      As it turns out people are incredibly stupid so truth has no bearing on them.

                    6. I guess that we can agree on one thing, there are some people out there that are incredibly stupid.

                    7. Two actually. You agreed that choice/orientation was irrelevant as well.

                      You’re coming along! You’ll be a polygamist soon enough.

    3. Re: shadow_man,

      Polygamy also is a choice.

      So is marriage. One chooses to marry.

      Polygamy can be damaging, as it can cause jealousies and resentments among the participants and any children produced.

      So does marrying one partner and have lovers. So is not marrying and have many partners that have children. Same thing.

      What exactly are you advocating for, anyway?

      1. Marriage is a choice, but sexual orientation is not a choice. Your second statement is about infidelity. It appears since you have no argument against gay marriage, you try to resort to irrelevant topics. Which is why your side is losing πŸ™‚

        1. Re: shadow_man,

          Marriage is a choice, but sexual orientation is not a choice.

          What does one have to do with the “right” to marry?

          Your second statement is about infidelity.

          You can call it what you want. YOU are theone arguing that polygamy “harms” people. If that’s the case, so would infidelity. Would you then propose the outlawing of infidelity?

          It appears since you have no argument against gay marriage,

          That’s because I haven’t presented one. I am not against homosexuals entering into a contract and call it “marriage.”

          you try to resort to irrelevant topics.

          Pot calling kettle black. YOU brought in polygamy and other sorts of variations on human relationships as if they mattered, not me.

          1. -Because you are denying that right based on the claim that “homosexuality is a choice” when it clearly is not.

            -Again, if you want to fight for polygamy, go out and prove me wrong and prove it’s not wrong/harmful as we did with homosexuality. However, you are bringing up an irrelevant argument because you have no case against gay marriage.

            -That’s good you aren’t against gay marriage.

            -I didn’t bring up polygamy first. I was refuting argument because it is brought up as a common argument, and i’m showing why it’s simply laughable. Look at the first few posts above and you will see what i mean.

            1. Re: shadow_man,

              Because you are denying that right based on the claim that “homosexuality is a choice” when it clearly is not.

              You go back to my posts and show me where I said that, you goddamned liar. YOU say that “polygamy” is a choice. I say: So is marriage, so what?

              Again, if you want to fight for polygamy, go out and prove me wrong and prove it’s not wrong/harmful as we did with homosexuality.

              The onus is not on ME to show a negative. YOU were the one asserting that polygamy is “harmful”. I posited that by such standards, so would infidelity, and so subject to outlawing. Is that what you’re proposing? I am asking you again.

              However, you are bringing up an irrelevant argument because you have no case against gay marriage.

              I haven’t presented one! What the hell is wrong with you?

              -I didn’t bring up polygamy first. I was refuting argument because it is brought up as a common argument,

              Nobody presented that argument here, or if they did, it was to point out the negative consequences of leaving such things as “marriage” to the state. YOU on the other hand are presenting polygamy agaisnt which to contrast homosexual marriage in order to kake a value judgment. THAT, my friend, is an IRRELEVANT ARGUMENT.

              1. -Calling it a lifestyle is like calling it a choice

                -I’m not fighting for polygamy, so whether or not it is “harmful” or not does not concern me. I have no interest in marrying multiple partners.

                -Nobody presented that argument here? Lol, scroll up your comments sections and you will see people equating the polygamy argument. I’m here to debunk that.

                1. Re: shadow_man,

                  -Calling it a lifestyle is like calling it a choice

                  And who’s saying that, you moron? Are you on drugs? I told you, I haven’t made such a case!

                  I’m not fighting for polygamy, so whether or not it is “harmful” or not does not concern me.

                  It concerned you enough to make a case against it to contrast it with the validity of homosexual unions. Or don’t you remember your own posts?

                  “Polygamy can be damaging, as it can cause jealousies and resentments among the participants and any children produced.”

                  -Nobody presented that argument here? Lol, scroll up your comments sections and you will see people equating the polygamy argument. I’m here to debunk that.

                  “And if they did, it was to point out the negative consequences of leaving such things as ‘marriage’ to the state.”

                  Learn to read, s.

                  1. -Moron? More name-calling i see!

                    -It did not concern me. I was merely debunking the argument that gay marriage leads to polygamy, and showing how they were irrelevant because i saw the “polygamy argument” brought in the earlier section of the comments. Also, that can be damaging right? Of course there could be numerous other arguments, but polygamy is not my interest, nor is it relevant to same-sex marriage.

                    “I would like to hear if Olsen differentiates between two-person marriage and multiple marriages.”

                    Lol, it looks like you are and i are reading from different parts of the forum.

        2. Also, what difference does it make whether one is a choice and the other isn’t?

          I don’t choose to like multiple women simultaneously. I was just born this way.

          1. Choice is irrelevant, but a lot of anti-gay people use that argument to deny gay marriage.

            1. Well, you shouldn’t have brought it up then.

              And anti-poly people make the exact same irrelevant choice argument.

              1. I brought it up as education because a lot of anti-gay people use this as an argument.

                1. “Marriage is a choice, but sexual orientation is not a choice. Your second statement is about infidelity. It appears since you have no argument against gay marriage, you try to resort to irrelevant topics. Which is why your side is losing :)”

                  Yup, looks like education, all right. Not even mentioning the history or relevance.

                  1. Picking and choosing my statements out of context does nothing to help your arguments =)

                    1. That’s the first time you brought it up. Explain how I’ve taken it out of context. As far as I can tell, it was a non-sequitur.

                    2. Taking something out of context means you quote a statement and ignore how it’s used in relation to other statements =)

                    3. Like what you’re doing now?

                      I’ve explicitly asked you to explain how IT was taken out of context.

                    4. I explicitly explained to you how it was taken out of context. It’s pretty obvious you’re trying to troll now and failing so miserably πŸ™‚ Let me copy/pasta why trolling fails on this subject.

                      For those of you that don’t know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything). Other troll behavior includes twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

                      The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can’t incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise. They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It’s a win/win situation for us.

                      Remember, trolls can’t win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

                      =)

                    5. Point out your explicit explanation.

                    6. It was already pointed out πŸ™‚

                    7. Nope, that was a non-sequitur. You’re good at those at least. Not so much anything else.

                    8. Insults! That’s what happens when you lose arguments πŸ˜€

                    9. But it was a compliment! Non-sequiturs make up an increasingly high amount of comedy. And what’s harder than making someone laugh?

                      When one loses an argument they typically just avoid having it. I clearly don’t have to tell you this though.

                    10. Lol, telling someone they are only good at one thing and nothing else is not a compliment. Unless i’m smoking weed.

                    11. Most people aren’t good at anything.

    4. This pisses me off to no end.

      Those 4 fetishes can be seen to be harmful and wrong, whereas gay marriage is neither harmful nor wrong.

      If you want to press for polygamy, or incest, those are completely separate issues irrelevant to gay marriage. Go advocate for them if that’s your concern, prove they are not wrong and prove they are not harmful. We have already proven that homosexuality/gay marriage is not wrong/harmful.

      It accepts the entire rationale that an activity can be deemed illegal if it bothers or offends some asshat’s sensibilities and then transforms into “the liberty for me but not for thee” crap. You do yourself no service with libertarians on these grounds. Liberty is about dealing with the idea that other people may choose to live a life you find repugnant and you need to stop being a bitch and deal with that.

      1. Whether i support something or not is simply my view. However, when you go out of your way and want us gay people to fight for polygamist rights, that’s where we draw the line. Stop being lazy if you want to legalize polygamy. Go advocate for it and prove it’s not wrong/harmful. But don’t expect gays, or blacks, or woman as a group to do it for you.

        You’re just pissed that i clearly proved gay marriage does not lead to polygamy, nor is it a similar thing.

        1. However, when you go out of your way and want us gay people to fight for polygamist rights, that’s where we draw the line

          If that’s your premise, than fuck you. ~10% of the country is gay. Being that small a minority, you NEED people who aren’t like you to fight for RIGHTS no matter whose they are. If you recognize that you need allies who may not share your lifestyle, maybe you should consider allying yourself with others who have a similar minority status to overcome.

          Right now, you just sound like a whiny self-interested prick, exactly the kind of thing that turns off people who might otherwise be supportive of your cause.

          Don’t worry, my support is still for gay marriage to be allowed on the basis of contract rights. My distaste for other advocates of rights, beneficiaries of those rights, or the practices that those rights protect, does not factor into my decision of whether those are indeed rights. That’s called being fucking consistent, rational, and dedicated to genuine equality of the law (not this whiny BS that MY equality is more important than someone else’s).

          1. So where are all these polygamists that are fighting for the rights of gay people? Last time i checked, the mormon church was against us. =) Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, it is a sexual orientation. It has nothing to do with how you live, act, etc.

            Proving the irrelevance of polygamy to sexual orientation is now “coming off as a whiny prick?” Like i said earlier, blacks fight for the rights of blacks, gays fight for the rights of gays, woman fight for the rights of woman, and polygamists fight for the rights of polygamist. We’re not going to fight your battle when we have our own to fight. Why not go rant on black people not support polygamy, or christians, or woman?

            1. Last I checked the Mormon church was against Polygamy too.

              And why should we fight for you if there isn’t a slippery slope?

              1. I’m not asking you to fight for me. I’m just disproving your other point =)

                1. You asked where they were.

                  I’ve yet to see you prove a thing. You’ve made some irrelevant distinctions (orientation/choice) but you’ve even agreed to that fact. So I’m not sure what role you play at this point.

                  1. I asked where they were to prove my point in refuting your other argument. Lol, and if you haven’t seen me prove a thing, it would seem you don’t like the evidence and links i posted in my other threads. =)

                    1. So your question proved somethng? That kind of doesn’t make sense.

                      I liked them just fine, didn’t prove anything though. Once you get to proving fetishes and context, then you’ll be getting somewhere.

                    2. My other posts in the forum proved something. I already proved my point that polygamy doesn’t lead to same-sex marriage, nor is it relevant. You’re trying to steer off-topic because as usual, the anti-gay side has no argument against gay marriage =)

                    3. You’re fighting shadows(fittingly) there isn’t actually an anti-gay side.
                      And I don’t think a single person has contended that polygamy leads to same-sex marriage as irrelevent that is to a discussion about legal arguments is.

                    4. Ahhhhhh…more name-calling πŸ˜€ You’re simply digging yourself into your own grave ^_^

                    5. What name were you called?

                    6. And now the lid is being shut πŸ™‚

                    7. Well its been fun. I gotta move on to other ventures now!

                    8. Back to the Kos-cave!

                    9. He’s a professional troll on this subject.

                    10. Damn, while I knew you wouldn’t actually answer. I was hoping for another stellar non-sequitur. I guess I over-estimated you.

      2. There is another, categoric difference between same sex marriage and polygamy. Polygamy is not a matter of who may be married to whom, but of how many marriages one may have at the same tiime. The issues are very different.

        Each marriage a polygamist has can be recognized under the ordinary understanding of a marriage. But same sex marriage is a different kind or understanding of relationship.

  15. I don’t really give a Shit. The states have no business getting involved in personal relationships in the first place. Why not just go ahead and find all state marriage licensing schemes unconstitutional. It’s not the states business.

    1. You could also get out of this entire business by no longer calling the legal union “marriage.” Change the legal definition for all arrangements and licensing to civil union (or whatever else you may prefer, I don’t care for details) and let the private institutions of churches maintain whatever hokey mores they’re trying to maintain.

      The Catholics already have their special little divorce, let them have their special little civil union as well. Likewise, all gay people really want is equal distinction with straight people. Two birds, one stone.

      1. The problem is marriage is not a religious institution. It existed before even christianity was conceived.

        marriage was originally an economical device. The church didn’t get involved until approximately the mid-13th Century. If you would like to read the history of marriage in Western civilization *alone,* here is a link. (Note that same-sex relationships were extraordinarily common and even encouraged in civilizations such as Sparta.)

        http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexol…..stern.html
        http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/…..cfm?AID=58

        Marriage existed long before the Bible was written.

        Other points to consider is, if it really was a religious institution , why are atheists allowed to get married? Why are other “Sinners” according to your belief allowed to get married? Some religions and sects support same-sex marriage, what about their religious rights? Which religion would hold those marriage rights, as there are hundreds of religions around the world? This would cause more problems than solve anything.

        1. Re: shadow_man,

          The problem is marriage is not a religious institution. It existed before even christianity was conceived.

          You are not understanding the argument: Marriage should not be the purview of the State precisely because it leads to these violations of contract principles and freedom of association.

        2. Sigh. Should have just stayed away since I really, really don’t care about the outcome here.

          The problem is marriage is not a religious institution. It existed before even christianity was conceived. The church didn’t get involved until approximately the mid-13th Century.

          Assuming you’re right (again, because I don’t care all that much), it’s a religious institution because the church has been involved for so long that it has become a religious matter.

          Other points to consider is, if it really was a religious institution , why are atheists allowed to get married? Why are other “Sinners” according to your belief allowed to get married? Some religions and sects support same-sex marriage, what about their religious rights? Which religion would hold those marriage rights, as there are hundreds of religions around the world? This would cause more problems than solve anything.

          Not my belief, guy; theirs. A church has every right to decide the restrictions for who gets their sacraments. I’m trying to get the religious aspect out of this discussion since that’s clearly the motivating factor behind much of the anti-gay marriage set. Changing the legal term does not restrict how the individual churches apply their sacraments and doesn’t affect how you describe your personal arrangement. Likewise, the state still has an obligation to recognize the unions that an individual church may disapprove of.

          Aside from no longer forcing a definition change onto a group that has had its definition for thousands of years but disagrees with you, where’s the downside?

          1. But the problem is, you don’t need to be religious to get married. If it was solely a religious institution, then atheists would be forbidden to get married.

            I also agree that a church has the right to marry based on their restrictions and beliefs. But civil marriage is not the same as religious marriage. We aren’t going into a church and trying to get married there. And many of the gay marriage laws exempt churches.

            The definition of marriage also hasn’t been the same for thousands of years. That is fallacy used by religious groups.

            We redefined marriage when we abolished polygamy. We redefined marriage when we allowed divorce. We redefined marriage when we stopped giving dowries. We redefined marriage when we stopped viewing wives as the physical property of husbands. We redefined marriage when we allowed interracial couples to get married. At one time, the traditional view of marriage was a white man and white woman, black man and black woman, etc.

            We constantly redefine and tweak our laws to better fit an ever-changing society. If we didn’t need to redefine, the first congress would have been the last. They would have set the laws forever and that would have been good enough.

            1. It’s all going in circles with you. Seriously, why are you so wedded to that one term? It plays right into the fundies’ otherwise weak hand. If someone were to to do a Find/Replace of “marriage” and its derivatives with “civil union” and its derivatives in the current law while proceeding to extend those rights to same sex couples, why would you not accept that?

              1. The same can be said of those religious people. Why are they so wedded on that one term? For us, it’s because civil unions do not grant the same rights as regular marriages, and there is no logical reason to separate out gays from straights. Gays are no different from straights other than whom they are sexually attracted to.

                1. The same can be said of those religious people. Why are they so wedded on that one term?

                  It’s not only religious people and that’s why it’s been effective. But, who cares? They have their advantage: the law already exists how they prefer it. Let the baby have his bottle on this minor concern and you’ll likely get what you’re really after. Once teh gehyz can get hitched and it doesn’t cause the downfall of western civ then you’ll get marriage anyway.

                  For us, it’s because civil unions do not grant the same rights as regular marriages, and there is no logical reason to separate out gays from straights.

                  I, uh, already solved that problem. Again, circles.

            2. Re: shadow_man,

              But the problem is, you don’t need to be religious to get married. If it was solely a religious institution, then atheists would be forbidden to get married.

              You’re not understanding the point. Marriage is just a contract like any other. What you’re talking about is the ceremony, which churches are free (so far) to offer at their discretion, which could mean not offering it to atheists. But atheists can enter into a contract and call it marriage. So can homosexuals.

              The point of the discussion which seems to escape you is that when you leave such matters to the state, the state can then use that power to oppress people in one group or another.
              \

              And many of the gay marriage laws exempt churches.

              The problems will start when the State calls it a “right”, because then couples will feel encouraged to sue churches for a ceremony to which they will feel entitled.

              1. The state is not oppressing anyone. It’s the religious people who always bring this issue up. That’s the problem, not the state.

                Also, the suing argument also is another scare tactic. The church can be sued for a lot of things. That is no reason to deny gay marriage, especially when churches are exempt already and can’t be sued.

                1. Re: shadow_man,

                  The state is not oppressing anyone. It’s the religious people who always bring this issue up. That’s the problem, not the state.

                  You’re dense, besides naive. It is the STATE that imposes the limits on freedom. Religious people can chant and scream all they want, but the State is the one that imposes the laws. Sans the State, homosexuals could perfectly enter into marriage agreements and have willing churches perform the ceremonies. It is the State, the bureaucracy, that denies this voluntary and mutually-agreed arrangement by co-opting marriage.

                  Also, the suing argument also is another scare tactic. The church can be sued for a lot of things.

                  Now you’re being a self-contradicting idiot. First you say “it is a scare tactic” and then “they can be sued anyway” in the same sentence.

                  That is no reason to deny gay marriage, especially when churches are exempt already and can’t be sued.

                  There is ONE good reason churches can deny a homosexual couple from a ceremony: Because it is THEIR venues, not the couple, and because they’re NOT SLAVES.

                  1. -Ahhhh, more ad hominem attacks. Like i said before, that not only happens when you lose arguments, but that also starts making people suspect you are attempting to troll, and failing so miserably. The state didn’t limit anything, it granted the rights. It was the religious people who took them away.

                    -It’s not contradictory. You are saying it will happen it a lot. Where’s the proof of that? That’s a blatant scare tactic and lie. I’m proving you wrong by saying that the church could be sued for anything, and it’s no different if they were sued for denying a gay couple marriage (which they can’t because they are exempt) or if they were sued for say denying a black person to marry a white person. By your logic, the church could be sued for anything, and we should hence ban everything. Doesn’t make sense now does it?

                    1. Re: shadow_man,

                      Ahhhh, more ad hominem attacks. Like i said before, that not only happens when you lose arguments, but that also starts making people suspect you are attempting to troll, and failing so miserably.

                      You’re deliverately shifting the focus, s. Who’s being the troll here?

                      The state didn’t limit anything, it granted the rights.

                      The State does not grant rights, asshole. Who granted the State the right to grant rights And don’t tell me “the people” because then you would be simply endulging in very sloppy circular thinking.

                      It was the religious people who took them away.

                      Took WHAT away? How? By wishing it? Are you on drugs, s?

                      You are saying it will happen it a lot. Where’s the proof of that?

                      More often than you think, wiseass.

                      I’m proving you wrong by saying that the church could be sued for anything,

                      No, you’re basically undermining your own retort, like a fool. Churches are not just sued for anything – that’s your cop-out.

                      and it’s no different if they were sued for denying a gay couple marriage (which they can’t because they are exempt)

                      Laws making gay marriage a right would take away that exemption, s.

                      By your logic, the church could be sued for anything, and we should hence ban everything.

                      Not “ban everything”, nitwit. Simply not make it a right.

                      By the way, churches have been marrying blacks and whites for ever, as long as the marrying parties follow doctrine. This has been true with the Catholic church as well as te Protestant churches, with few exceptions.

                  2. -I’m talking about the state, not the church in your third statement.

            3. The definition of marriage also hasn’t been the same for thousands of years. That is fallacy used by religious groups.

              You’re wrong. Marriage has been understood to be a male-female thing around the world, and since before there were words for it — or any words, period. It is conserved in some hominid species that never developed speech.

  16. We need to get the word out to religious communities that anti-gay people are twisting God’s words to condone their anti-gay agenda.

    Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

    (Change *** to www)
    ***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
    ***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
    ***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
    ***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
    ***.gaychristian101.com/
    ***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template;=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
    ***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
    ***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
    ***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

    1. One Orthodox Jewish Rabbi’s perspective on the issue:

      As an orthodox Rabbi, I do not deny the biblical prohibition on male same-sex relationships. I simply place it in context. There are 613 commandments in the Torah. One is to refrain from gay sex. Another is for men and women to marry and have children. So when Jewish gay couples tell me they have never been attracted to members of the opposite sex and are desperately alone, I tell them, “You have 611 commandments left. That should keep you busy. Now, go create a kosher home. Turn off the TV on the Sabbath and share your meals with many guests. Pray to God three times a day for you are his beloved children. He desires you and seeks you out.”

      1. There is not one biblical passage in the bible that condemns homosexuality. Also, the passages about men and woman having children have nothing to do with homosexuality.

        It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

        Now I’m pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

        1. I’m decidedly irreligious and don’t have a dog in this fight. But considering that the Jews have spent 5,500 years debating every last detail of the Torah and seem to have come to a consensus on this matter, I’ll take their word for it. Orthodox Jews consider homosexuality to be sinful and if you disagree with their rationale then take it up with them. Do they not have a right to decide the rules of their special club?

          1. There are numerous sects of religion other than the orthodox jews. And i’ll surely take it up with them if they come up to me and make that claim, citing the works of numerous biblical scholars and historians.

            1. Jesus H. Christ you’re pedantic.

              1. Because i’m telling it like how it is?

                1. That’s not pedantry. But now I’m being pedantic!

    2. In addition, Jesus never spoke ill of homosexuals or homosexual activity.

      1. Exactly. Jesus also healed a gay centurion in the bible.

        http://www.wouldjesusdiscrimin…..ouple.html
        http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Centurion.html

    3. I studied the Torah quite a lot in college and came at it from an Orthodox Jewish perspective and having read many scholarly sources on it as well. The Leviticus passage that condemns male homosexual sex is quite clear. There is nothing barring female homosexual sex in the Bible. That restriction comes later in the Talmud.

      Leviticus 18:
      20 You shall not lie carnally with your neighbor’s wife, to become defiled by her.
      22 You shall not lie down with a male, as with a woman: this is an abomination.
      23 And with no animal shall you cohabit, to become defiled by it. And a woman shall not stand in front of an animal to cohabit with it; this is depravity.

      Nearly the entire chapter is about whom you may or may not have sex with. It is disingenous to say that verse 22 is only about ritual sex in a Temple.

      While nothing in the Jewish Bible specifically condemns female homosexuality, it is still forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, but the penalties have always been less severe.

      If we took the chapter to only refer to ritualistic sex, then incest, beastiality, and adultery would be perfectly acceptable in Judaism.

      Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt.

      I’m not defending anti-homosexuality. But trying to say “The Bible doesn’t say that homosexuality is wrong” is patently false.

  17. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don’t choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

    (Change *** to www)
    ***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
    ***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
    Gay, Straight Men’s Brain Responses Differ
    ***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
    ***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
    ***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

    There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. “Nurture” may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

    1. Well, duh, can you tell me any preference that is not a choice? All preferences are involuntary.

  18. The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

    From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

    America’s premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

    1. Seriously, STFU. No one here gives a shit about TEH GHEY!1!1!!!, we care about rights.

      Make you claims on constitutional grounds and you’ll have an ally. Defending your own lifestyle choices on the basis of how wholesome they are is fucking pointless here. We don’t care if your sexual habits are pure and jebus approved or if they are among the most vile practices we could ever think of, if you harm no other person, we don’t give a fuck. Claiming that your bag should be state approved because its all good is just vapid dumbfuckery that merits no attention from me and only yields to the central and most disturbing premise that the moral verdicts of 50% +1 trump the individual’s rights to abhorrent but non-harmful behavior as codified in our founding document.

      1. Is the 14th Amendment not part of that document?

      2. Ahhh, name-calling. That tends to happen when you lose arguments πŸ™‚

        We have already made our claims on constitutional grounds. I merely educating people on this subject, because that is key to getting more support of gay marriage, to eliminate the ignorance.

        Also, you claim that homosexuality is a lifestyle. Lol, so you’re basically saying it’s a choice. So, are you admitting you are sexually attracted to both sexes then if you really think its a choice?

        Set aside your hate for a second and look at facts, then look at the fact that most of us young people under 30 support same-sex marriage and have no problem with homosexuality.

        1. You are so dense that you don’t even realize that I am actually a supporter of gay marriage, but just so unbelievably pissed off with you and your self-interested singular focus on that issue without regard to the broader issue of RIGHTS in general.

          I’m a libertarian, I approach such issues from the perspective of safeguarding the rights and liberties of the individual. It matters not to me what the practice or who the practitioner. You seem to be approaching this issue not as a claimant of rights as much as a petitioner for benefits. Not that the thing you are seeking isn’t a right, but that they way you are making your case is ceding the central premise of state regulation of “taboos” and that your interest in it seems to be personal as opposed to philosophical. That is what I find distasteful.

          1. I have said nothing about my views of other “Taboos” Marriage is regulated by the states, so that’s why gays are fighting for it at that level. It has nothing to do with polygamy, incest, or whatever else.

            1. I have said nothing about my views of other “Taboos”

              shadow_man|2.14.12 @ 11:57AM|#
              Here is why the slippery slope argument fails.

              Let us take the 4 common arguments: beastiality, pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. First off, all 4 of these are fetishes…

              You disingenuous fuck.

              1. Lmao, how is that disingenuous? There’s a reason why i put “taboo” in quotations, because i was referring to what the poster said above me. Don’t be mad because i proved the anti-gay arguments hold no water at all =)

      3. ^^ This.

        They just won’t take yes for a fucking answer, one has to proclaim his undying love of teh ghey and promise to rain unholy shit down on anyone that strays from their smelly little orthodoxy, like someone that prefers not to rent out his/her property for a SSM. Even Jesus Christ Himself is transformed into a light-in-the-sandals blesser of wild-eyed bungholery. Unbelievable.

    2. America’s premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

      Do they support polygamy? If not, then no, they don’t. The support an interest group.

      1. Lol, notice when you have no argument against gay marriage, you bring out irrelevant subjects. There’s a distinguishment between sexual orientation and a fetish. Learn it from my post above πŸ™‚

        1. I’m not arguing against gay marriage.

          And I’m still waiting for you to actually point out how polygamy is a fetish. Your post above skipped it.

          1. Actually my other post did not skip it πŸ™‚

            Here is why the slippery slope argument fails.

            Let us take the 4 common arguments: beastiality, pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. First off, all 4 of these are fetishes, and irrelevant to homosexuality, which is a sexual orientation. Let me distinguish this for you using incest as an example. If a guy into incest is straight, he’ll choose his sister, and if he’s gay, he’ll choose his brother. See the distinguishment? Now pedophilia and beastiality will never be legal, because both are non-consenting and harmful, whereas homosexuality is 2 loving consenting adults that is not wrong or harmful. Incest, also has been shown to lead to genetic defects, so that is also out of the question. Incest also is a fetish, not a sexual orientation. I have never seen a person exclusively attracted to their brothers/sisters etc. Polygamy also is a choice. No one can choose who they would or will be attracted to, but they CAN choose to be in more than one relationship with more than one person at the same time. Polygamy can be damaging, as it can cause jealousies and resentments among the participants and any children produced. Those 4 fetishes can be seen to be harmful and wrong, whereas gay marriage is neither harmful nor wrong.

            If you want to press for polygamy, or incest, those are completely separate issues irrelevant to gay marriage. Go advocate for them if that’s your concern, prove they are not wrong and prove they are not harmful. We have already proven that homosexuality/gay marriage is not wrong/harmful. But those two things are irrelevant to gay marriage. And gay marriage does not lead to polygamy nor any other type of fetish.

            Gay marriage has been legal in MA for 8 years now, and i don’t see anyone pushing for polygamy there. The slippery slope is a myth meant as a scare tactic that’s quickly becoming obsolete.

            1. Yeah, yeah. Not once does it explain how it constitutes a fetish. It just says choice then talks about potential problems with it.

              Again, how is it a fetish?

              1. First off, all 4 of these are fetishes, and irrelevant to homosexuality, which is a sexual orientation. Let me distinguish this for you using incest as an example. If a guy into incest is straight, he’ll choose his sister, and if he’s gay, he’ll choose his brother. See the distinguishment?

                Lol, you can pretend it’s not there. I have yet to see someone who’s only attracted to multiple partners =)

                1. Now how exactly does the difference between straight and gay incestuous relations explain how polygamy is a fetish?

                  1. You’re trying too hard to troll now =D

                    1. So trolls ask people to explain their claims?
                      Not according to your handy refresher. Perhaps you should update it.

                2. You have still completely failed to demonstrate how a) polygamy is a fetish AND b) how that is relevant. Should polygamists be relegated to a lesser class because some think it’s a fetish?

                  1. LOL! Why would i prove polygamy is relevant to same-sex marriage when i clearly am proving that it is irrelevant?

                    1. Except it is not irrelevant. The same legal arguments apply to both, with the exception of the arbitrary distinction of the number of the parties to the contract. So why did you spend all this time distinguishing when there are no legal distinctions to be made?

                    2. It is irrelevant because gays are fighting for the rights of gays, not polygamists, nor does gay marriage lead to polygamy. Like i said, if you are so interested in polygamy, then go fight for it in the courts. You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?

                    3. The point is only the legal argument being used. Not what they are necessarily for or against or the effects that result.

                    4. That argument is irrelevant. It’s like trying to tie in murder, or racing to the subject.

                    5. Right alternate forms of marriage are akin to murder or racing when the topic is legal arguments for an alternate form of marriage.

                    6. Now you’re getting it my friend. Irrelevant topics are irrelevant.

                    7. And fun is fun.

                    8. Oh trust me. Arguing with the rev blue is highly entertaining.

                    9. I know. I still can’t stop laughing at your “arguments.”

  19. This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don’t feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren’t human.

    “I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if “Gays” have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate “(Legal Document)” of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. “

    1. We need to legalize same sex marriage because some people are suicidal, crippled, and/or have nasty relatives?

  20. The big difference between gay marriage and abortion: Gay marriage does not end a human life.

    The reason the abortion debate will not go away, and why libertarians still get into fistfights with each other when the issue comes up, is because there is a human life involved. Maybe it’s not legally a person, maybe it is. Maybe the fetus is engaged in criminal trespass deserving of death, maybe it isn’t. Maybe life starts at conception, maybe it’s delayed until after the kid leaves home for college. Whatever, you cannot deny that ending a life is involved.

    Not so with gay marriage. Maybe the neighbors get all grossed out imagining what Adam and Steve are doing in the privacy of their own bedroom, but it causes no violence against anyone.

    1. Abortion is a difficult issue that will probably have many stance changes in the future because of the nature of it, and mostly because there is no scientific way of proving when conception occurs. Some people feel it’s right when the baby’s born, some people feel a few months before it’s born, some feel when it develops organs, some feel 3 months after pregnancy, some feel the minute the sperm and egg meet. It’s a label that we can’t really prove, hence the debate will be never-ending. With same-sex marriage, there is no argument against it or homosexuality that can’t be easily obliterated, which is why that will become a good norm in the near future.

      1. Actually, scientists do know when conception occurs. It happens at conception. Duh.

        Perhaps you meant when does the result of the conception become a distinct biological organism. And again, that happens at conception. Dependent yes, but objectively distinct.

        Or perhaps you meant when it’s legally a human being entitled to the right not to be aggressed against. Unfortunately, science cannot provide that answer because it’s a legal question.

        1. Yup. And this is why the issue of abortion is difficult and will have different views at different times. So many questions that are difficult to answer and impossible to prove.

    2. Admittedly abortion is a difficult issue, but only because the claims of the Christians are so dire. In reality, being opposed to abortion is a religious stance, and thus not to be instituted as law in this country, while favoring the right to abortion (also framed as the right not to be forced by the state to give birth against your will) is the small-L liberal position. Outcomes are bad when you make abortion illegal for many of the same reason they’re bad when you make drugs prohibited. They still occur, only less safely and on a more unequal basis.

      Where personhood begins is entirely a legal question (not a scientific one), so it would seem to pay to make the definition based on practical concerns. Because “God says so” isn’t sufficient in this country.

      1. Re: Tiny,

        Outcomes are bad when you make abortion illegal for many of the same reason they’re bad when you make drugs prohibited.

        Drug usage harms no one but the person that takes the drugs. Abortion means the destruction of a human life. You’re arguing using the wrong analogy.

        1. You’re begging the question.

          1. Re: Tiny,

            You’re begging the question.

            You’re an idiot. Abortion MEANS the destruction of a human life, whether you like it or not – that’s the CONCEPT, not an argument.

            Take some logic lessons, Tiny. You’re making a real ass of yourself.

            1. If we apply that logic, then we can say every time you masturbate you are committing genocide.

              1. Re: sahdow_man,

                If we apply that logic, then we can say every time you masturbate you are committing genocide.

                What logic would that be, s? Because sperm are not human beings.

                1. And unborn babies are not human beings either to many people.

                  1. Re: shadow_man,

                    And unborn babies are not human beings either to many people.

                    So was the case that homosexual marriage was (and is) not valid for many people. What was it you said? Ah, yes: It should not be left to voting.

                    Weren’t YOU the one that argued for that sensible policy? And I am being deadly serious, not facetious: MANY things should not be left to voting, including human life.

                    Perhaps next time you should leave the ad popullum arguments at home, sweetheart.

                    1. Roe v wade was not left up to voting, it was decided by the courts. This is not talking about voting, it is talking about how many people have different views, and that this particular view of when life begins can never be resolved, because there is no scientific way of proving that.

                    2. Re: shadow_man,

                      Roe v wade was not left up to voting, it was decided by the courts.

                      So? That is not what you argued: “And unborn babies are not human beings either to many people.”

                      Roe v Wade only made abortions legal. That doesn’t make them valid or moral, in the same way that Dred Scott decision diod not male slavery any more valid.

                      This is not talking about voting, it is talking about how many people have different views, and that this particular view of when life begins can never be resolved, because there is no scientific way of proving that.

                      It can be resolved and there can be a scientific way to prove it. You just prefer not to have it resolved nor scientifically proven.

              2. You ejaculate fetuses, do you?

                1. To many people, fetuses are not humans.

                  1. Then many people are idiots. Fetuses are alive, and they have human DNA. Biologically, it is indusputiblr that they are human life. What is in disoute is whther they constitute persons, entitled to the rights and protections a person would be entitled to.

                    1. Sperm are also alive. So i guess sperm are then entitled to the rights and protections a person would be entitled to?

                    2. Sperm are not genetically unique with a complete set of chromosomes, idiot. Take a few biology classes before you opine stupidly.

                    3. Sperm carries the information and half of the chromosomes for life and are genetically unique. Are you saying that the sperm of a black man will not produce a black child? You don’t need biology classes for simple logic my friend.

                    4. Are you saying that the sperm of a black man will not produce a black child?

                      Do you know what a Punnett Square is? Do you know what a “complete set” of chromosomes means? Seriously, are you in high school or something?

                    5. By your logic rev blue, we can say the fetus is not a “complete” human, and therefore are not entitled to the rights and protections of a person. Of course, scrolling down, you’re the same guy who claimed that AIDS is highest among gays, which i easily proved you wrong on =)

                    6. By your logic rev blue, we can say the fetus is not a “complete” human, and therefore are not entitled to the rights and protections of a person. Of course, scrolling down, you’re the same guy who claimed that AIDS is highest among gays, which i easily proved you wrong on =)

                    7. Stop adding that stupid “=)” face to your posts. It just makes you look passive-aggressive. I stated very clearly that the AIDS/gay context I meant was in America, where we live and where the relevant gay marriage discussion is happening.

                      Hey, congrats, you “won” something today. If you aren’t interested in having an honest conversation, you can go away now.

                    8. Lol, i’ve proven you wrong so much on your view points that now you are resorting to attacking my smile faces. You did not originally say “america” until i called you out on it and proved you wrong with facts and links. Then without admitting you’re wrong, you try to cover up by stating you said in “america”, which anyone can see is false in your original statement. Lie more please πŸ™‚

                    9. A skin cell contains a full set of DNA. Is everyone committing regular genocide every time they shed skin?

                    10. The white cells in my mucus are alive and have human DNA too, full set of chromosomes. And because of the amount of recombination that white cell chromosomes undergo, there’ll be genetically unique ones among them too.

          2. Re: shadow_man,

            If we apply that logic, then we can say every time you masturbate you are committing genocide.

            What logic would that be, s? Because sperm are not complete human beings.

      2. Re: Tiny,

        Where personhood begins is entirely a legal question (not a scientific one), so it would seem to pay to make the definition based on practical concerns.

        Yes, just like the Nazis did.

      3. There are plenty of non-Christians and, indeed, atheists who are pro-life. Don’t try to draw it up as some “Christian” issue. It’s not.

        1. But it’s so much fun to attack men of straw!

          1. you know who else liked to attack strawmen?

            1. The Wicked Witch of the West’s flying monkeys?

        2. And there are a lot of christians who support abortion.

          1. And there are a lot of Christians who support gay marriage.

            There are a lot of Catholics who support contraception.

            More Jews eat pork than those who do not.

            There are a lot of Muslims who drink alcohol.

            Religious tradition/doctrine says one thing, but practioners do another. They have been since the beginning of religion.

        3. Show me a pro-life rally that doesn’t begin with a prayer.

          1. hurrduh hurrr

      4. Look up Libertarians for Life. Founded by an atheist. No religion involved.

        1. I’m sure someone, somewhere in their ranks prays to God for an end to abortion, therefore, the entire group is nothing but a Christian organization, and their views on abortion are, thereby, invalidated.

    3. “The big difference between gay marriage and abortion: Gay marriage does not end a human life.”

      Absolutely, and that’s why Ginsburg is whistling in the dark if she thinks abortion would be more acceptable today if only the Supreme Court had played its cards better.

      Incrementally legalizing abortion may be a nice salami tactic, but when you’re through, you’ve still sliced up the salami (or baby).

      Even before Roe v. Wade, a prolife movement was mobilizing – mainly Catholic at this juncture, but I don’t see the evangelicals sitting this one out, even if Roe had been narrower. Eventually, legal abortion would have gotten so widespread as to provoke a backlash from evangelicals and others.

      Simply because abortion is smuggled into the polity gradually doesn’t make it any less wrong, nor would the public have been so stupid as not to be able to see what’s happening, simply because it was happening gradually.

      Ginsburg’s hand-wringing is simply part of the whole “if only Roe v. Wade were decided differently it would have been more persuasive” argument that pro-choicers have been having. It acknowledges that Roe was a horrible decision but pretends that some tweaking could fix the problem and disarm public opposition.

      It ain’t happening.

  21. Roe v Wade wasn’t bad only because it was too fast, too soon, it was just an overall bad decision just judging by the law.

    So would a ruling that found a right to same-sex marriage in the constitution.

  22. Sounds like ap lan to me dude. Wow.

    http://www.Dot-Privacy.tk

  23. Sarcasmic is exactly correct.

    To those that equate anti-legalized gay marriage with bigotry, god damn I sure hope you like that big Lefty dick in your mouth.

    Might as well let ’em blow a big load down your throat, too. I mean, you’ve come so far and all. It’s never easy swallowing “the govt. must be involved for it to mean something, man” bullshit. But you’re almost there….

    You nitwits have been Pwned by the Left on this issue. How’s it feel? Go ahead, mumble something about TEAM RED/TEAM BLUE. Or racism. Or hating gays. Whatever.

    1. Gay marriage is not a right/left issue. It’s a human rights issue.

      1. I won’t cry for the right making themselves increasingly irrelevant and ridiculous by framing it that way.

  24. “Will Gay Marriage Become the Next Roe v. Wade?”

    Oui.

  25. gay marriage is an oxymoron.

    Gay people who get married will no longer be gay. They will be just as miserable as straight people who are married. But, gays should have equal access to that misery that straight people have.

  26. A man wanting to contract for sexual relations with multiple women simultaneously is a fetish. A man wanting to cornhole another man’s hairy ass is not. QED!

    1. I would postulate that any man who wants multiple wives is also gay. Dealing with that many females is usually the purview of gay males, and any straight married man usually can’t fathom having another ball of crazy to deal with on a daily basis.

      1. Il est le fer dans vos mots de la mort.

    2. Lol, you need to learn how to troll bro. That’s a weak attempt =)

      1. Actually, despite the crudeness, it pretty much does sum up your weak objections to polygamy.

        1. Lol wut? I haven’t made any stance on whether or not i’d support the legalization of polygamy. I’m merely proving how it is irrelevant to same-sex marriage and that same-sex marriage does not lead to polygamy. I’m taking away that anti-gay argument, and you folks do not like it =) Not that it was already a weak argument to begin with that most people no longer fall for.

          1. How is the fact that the legal arguments are the same “anti-gay”?

            1. Because using the “polygamy” slippery slope argument which i easily debunked is used by many anti-gay people =)

          2. Furthermore, I have plenty of GLBTQ friends who say that “yes, who you have sex with is a choice, and so fucking what?” One of the appeals of queer lifestyle is that adherents don’t have to comply with heteronormative institutions and biases. I find it interesting that your flagrant bias against alternative sexual practices comes through the second you become amongst the “favored”. Why are you letting the cisgendered and straights define acceptable sexual practices? At one time, homosexuality was considered a “fetish” as well.

            1. LOL, you said “queer” Nice follower of God “reverend” (btw we all know that you’re most likely not a reverend and another fail troll ^_^)

              And suuurrreeee. I’m the president of the united states. See i can lie too! If a person tells you they are sexually attracted to both sexes, they are bi-sexual. The problem is you mistake sex for sexual orientation. They are two different things. Homosexuality is a normal, biological aspect of human sexuality.

              1. Reverend Blue Moon is a play on my favorite beers and that there was once a Rev. Moon.

                And, unless my Progressive Program changed, “Queer” is a term entirely embraced by GLBTQ advocates. Sometimes the Q is Queer and sometimes it is Questioning. See also “Queer as Folk” and “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”. Many “movement” sexual advocates embrace the term “queer”.

                If a person tells you they are sexually attracted to both sexes, they are bi-sexual.

                Sure, but that is an almost irrelevant statement. If I am a bisexual who only has sex with men (or women), to whom I am attracted is totally irrelevant to my lifestyle.

                1. “negro” is also a term used by black people, but it depends on how you use it πŸ™‚ You literally called us queers, and now there is no way you can back track on that. This shows your anti-gay stance and true feels on this subject, not to mention the weak arguments you got against gay marriage =)

                  If you’re a bi-sexual who only has sex with men (or women) that doesn’t make you any less bi-sexual, since you are still attracted to both sexes. Sex and sexual orientation are two different things.

                  1. You literally called us queers

                    Actually, no I didn’t. I said “queer lifestyle”, a kind of lifestyle lived and embraced by, generally, gay, lesbian, and genderplay urban youth.

                    This shows your anti-gay stance

                    Because I used the word “queer” properly? Whatever you say, little man.

                    not to mention the weak arguments you got against gay marriage

                    I support gay marriage.

                    Are you going to bother reading what I write from now on?

              2. I realized where I was unclear – I have gay friends who have said “sexual orientation is a choice, and who cares if it is?”

                I personally think sexual orientation is an arbitrary attempt to pigeonhole people based on labels when sexuality is closer to the Nolan Chart (with pansexuality and asexuality on the northern and southern poles, and traditional gender role attraction on the east and west).

                1. Well, if you’re attracted to only the same-sex, you’re homosexual. Both sexes, bi-sexual. Opposite sex, heterosexual. That’s as simple as it gets.

                  1. Wrong. Let’s say I am a 2 on the Kinsey Scale. What does that make me? Does that fact that a person has had incidental and enjoyable sexual contact with a member of the same (or opposite sex) means he gets a label for life?

                    Are prisoners properly called gay? Straight but in a sexual desert?

                    you haven’t thought about any of these issues at all.

                    1. If you’re a 2 on the kinsey scale, then you’re obviously bi-sexual. It’s not a label, it’s a fact. As for your prisoner argument, if they can get it up with the same-sex, then yes, they are obviously bi-sexual.

                    2. How about a 1 on the Kinsey scale? Is “one drop” of sexual attraction to the same sex enough to earn someone a label?

                      you remind me of the white bigots of the south. your rush to label people when sexuality is a complex personal issue shows your total lack of tolerance and knowledge on this subject.

                    3. Lol, stating a fact is being a “bigot” Or in your case, the lack thereof facts, since you obviously had no clue that AIDS has the highest cases among heterosexuals in the world.

  27. Yes, yes, yes!

    Having the government endorse or sanction homosexual behavior is a human rights issue!

    And what better way to further interpersonal love and acceptance than via government fiat!

  28. You folks might want to read up on Loving vs. Virginia, which the court found ” Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

    Go read the findings of fact in Perry vs. Brown, rather interesting reading, like “Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.”
    or “Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.”

    “Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.”

    “The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.”

    In summation, There is no valid reason to deny the right for same sex marriage.

    1. Yes, without a doubt, same-sex marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival.

    2. Re: anon,

      In summation, There is no valid reason to deny the right for same sex marriage.

      Nobody is denying the right of people to enter into voluntary contracts and calling it a marriage. But “Marriage” itself is not a right, because a) You cannot make someone be married to you and b) You cannot make someone perform the ceremony for you. Both of those things have to come as a matter of voluntary agreement, which ipso facto precludes the concept of marriage from being a “right.”

      1. You do not have the right to a given marriage, but you absolutely have the right to be party to such a contract.

        1. Re: rst,

          but you absolutely have the right to be party to such a contract.

          My point, exactly.

      2. “You cannot make someone perform the ceremony for you.”
        Umm, dear genius, I can go to the county clerks office and get a marriage license without having to get a church involved. Marriage is a CIVIL action and while a religious entity doesn’t have to perform it, it has no say in regard to whether or not a state recognizes a marriage.

        “You cannot make someone be married to you.”
        And you can’t make someone vote, attend church, etc yet those are civil rights. Furthermore, Loving vs. Virginia disagrees with you.

        1. Re: Anon,

          “You cannot make someone perform the ceremony for you.”
          Umm, dear genius, I can go to the county clerks office and get a marriage license without having to get a church involved.

          Uh, genius, that is not what I’m arguing. Getting a license does not give you license to a) MAKE someone marry you and b) MAKE someone perform the ceremony for you.

          Marriage is a CIVIL action

          That’s a different story from being a civil right, genius.

          And you can’t make someone vote, attend church, etc yet those are civil rights.

          No, they’re not. You have NO idea, NO clue what a right entails. You cannot have a right to attend church if the church is closed – did your “right” suddenly disappear? As to not being able to make soemone vote, you just made my point for me: the action of voting is the consequence of a person’s freedom to act. However, that does not mean a person has a right to have the vote count for anything.

          Furthermore, Loving vs. Virginia disagrees with you.

          Dred Scott disagreed with me with the idea that people are not property. So what? Are you seriously using an argument from authority?

    3. We know the law better than most around here, sir. The main point here is that there is absolutely no argument that advances gay marriage that does not equally advance polygamous marriage, but gay advocates are uncomfortable with that. Why?

      You say that limiting marriage to two people of the opposite gender is arbitrary. I saw “two” is arbitrary. If marriage is a civil right, I fail to see how you can limit it to “only two” without arbitrary argumentation.

      1. That’s just one of the may divides between liberalism and the American left. For the left, the authority of the state over marriage as a civil matter is a priori. The very idea of “maybe this isn’t a job for government” is antithesis. For them, this is a matter of identity politics. Homosexuality has a positive connotation for progressives, so they’re keen on fighting for their rights. Polygamists do not, so principles be damned, the left couldn’t care less.

        1. The left has principles?

          1. Yes, like giving people their civil rights, not just rich, white, land owners.

      2. Here is why the slippery slope argument fails.

        Let us take the 4 common arguments: beastiality, pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. First off, all 4 of these are fetishes, and irrelevant to homosexuality, which is a sexual orientation. Let me distinguish this for you using incest as an example. If a guy into incest is straight, he’ll choose his sister, and if he’s gay, he’ll choose his brother. See the distinguishment? Now pedophilia and beastiality will never be legal, because both are non-consenting and harmful, whereas homosexuality is 2 loving consenting adults that is not wrong or harmful. Incest, also has been shown to lead to genetic defects, so that is also out of the question. Incest also is a fetish, not a sexual orientation. I have never seen a person exclusively attracted to their brothers/sisters etc. Polygamy also is a choice. No one can choose who they would or will be attracted to, but they CAN choose to be in more than one relationship with more than one person at the same time. Polygamy can be damaging, as it can cause jealousies and resentments among the participants and any children produced. Those 4 fetishes can be seen to be harmful and wrong, whereas gay marriage is neither harmful nor wrong.

        If you want to press for polygamy, or incest, those are completely separate issues irrelevant to gay marriage. Go advocate for them if that’s your concern, prove they are not wrong and prove they are not harmful. We have already proven that homosexuality/gay marriage is not wrong/harmful. But those two things are irrelevant to gay marriage. And gay marriage does not lead to polygamy nor any other type of fetish.

        Gay marriage has been legal in MA for 8 years now, and i don’t see anyone pushing for polygamy there. The slippery slope is a myth meant as a scare tactic that’s quickly becoming obsolete.

        1. Polygamy can be damaging, as it can cause jealousies and resentments among the participants

          Yes, because gays, lesbians, and straights never have jealousies or resentments in their ordinary relationships.

          you’re ridiculous. gay men are the cattiest people I know (and I love them for it).

          1. That’s just an example. By your logic, we should then also dissolve all marriages, straight as well =) But i couldn’t expect any less from someone that refers to us as “queers”

            1. By your logic, we should then also dissolve all marriages, straight as well

              Very good. Now you’re getting it.

              And I didn’t call anyone “queers”. Who is “us” exactly, shadow? Do you live the queer lifestyle, or are you just gay? There’s a difference.

              *sigh* I need to realize that just because someone is gay doesn’t mean he appreciates the complicated sociological phenomenon of sex, sexual orientation, and sex practices.

              1. “One of the appeals of queer lifestyle”

                You didn’t call us queers? Lol! So i guess i can say the “nigger” lifestyle and it will be ok.

                1. Here is some more information in an attempt to alleviate your woeful ignorance on this subject.

                  1. It’s dependent on how you use it, which it was obvious you meant it as an insult, showing your true nature =)

                    1. I didn’t mean it as an insult. The fact that you don’t get that, despite my explicit statement thereof, means you just want me to be insulting gays, because that makes it easier for you to dismiss me.

                    2. Suuurre, now you try to backtrack when you already messed up. That’s like me shooting a guy on purpose, then saying, i didn’t mean to hurt him. See how absurd that sounds?

                    3. Prove I meant it as an insult. I can’t prove a negative to you.

                    4. You already proved it for me by writing it πŸ™‚

                    5. You’re going in the filter. Sorry that you have no interest in having an honest conversation.

                    6. Rev blue moon wrote: “”studies have shown” that gay men have AIDS at a greater right than any other sector. That isn’t an argument to outlaw homosexuality, either.”

                      Rev blue moon then wrote after i proved him wrong: “I was talking about America”

                      You were talking about honest conversations? =)

                    7. Rev. Blue Moon, don’t use “queer.” There, fixed that. The propriety of use of such words is contextual and touchy–best left to the experts.

                    8. Who says I am not an expert?

                      you know nothing about me, my personal experiences, my sexuality…nothing. I used the term properly, and I said “I know people (good friends) who call themselves queer and live the queer lifestyle”

                    9. Are your friends English professors? Use “gay.” And what’s a gay lifestyle?

                    10. Are your friends English professors?

                      Some of them!

                      Use “gay.” And what’s a gay lifestyle?

                      Gay and queer are not necessarily interchangeable.

                      Like I said, I have to stop assuming that someone who is gay is sexually enlightened or understands the terms.

                    11. Well, as a gay man, I will let you in on the super secret gay agenda!
                      1. Cement a long term relationship by getting married.
                      2. Provide a stable, two parent home to raise children.
                      3. Pick up milk at store.

      3. Actually, there is. In a two person marriage, certain rights default, like the death of one half of the couple, the rights of child custody default to the surviving member. As with power of attorney and what not. If three people are married to each other, it becomes infinitely more complex, like filing taxes and what not.

        Furthermore, studies have actually found that polygamous societies have higher rates of violent crimes.
        (See UC Davis Study http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/se…..o?id=10142 )
        Simply look up the “Lost Boys”. In the FLDS (A polygamous society), young boys are abandoned so they are competing for wives.
        Not too mention taking multiple wives negatively impacts the family due to the problem of trying to support multiple wives and kids. Take Hildale, a polygamous enclave, 50% of the populace is on welfare.
        If one simply watches the show “sister wives” You can see how dysfunctional a polygamous household is.

        In short, Polygamy has evidence to show it is harmful.

        1. “studies have shown” that gay men have AIDS at a greater right than any other sector. That isn’t an argument to outlaw homosexuality, either.

          See, gay advocates who trot out the “but…but…this is why WE’RE different” are full of shit.

          If one simply watches the show “sister wives” You can see how dysfunctional a polygamous household is.

          In short, Polygamy has evidence to show it is harmful.

          Evidence that something may be harmful is not a reason to a priori restrain individuals from contracting as they please. S&M can be harmful too…some people LIKE being harmed.

          1. Actually, the vast majority of cases of AIDS are among African heterosexuals. Lol, once again you don’t know the facts =)

            1. Actually, no, again you are wrong. The major vector for AIDS is among black men who used to be called “on the down low”, that is, black men who have sex with men, who then have sex with women and spread it to the black community.

              your ignorance is totally astounding. You know nothing about your own allies or the reality that AIDS is still very much a gay problem.

              1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa
                “Many deaths are people who are their family’s primary wage earners.”
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H…..uth_Africa

                1. Oh lord, I was talking about American, shadow_man. Please don’t be deliberately obtuse.

              2. “By 1999 the HIV prevalence rate among pregnant women was 22.4%.”
                “hiv among pregnant women”
                http://www.avert.org/safricastats.htm
                http://209.85.173.104/search?q…..cd=2&gl=us

              3. Around 2 million children in sub-Saharan Africa were living with HIV at the end of 2007. They represent more than 85% of all children living with HIW worldwide. AIDS among children is transferred by mothers.

                Helping women and girls in many parts of Africa, as elsewhere in the world, the AIDS epidemic is aggravated by social and economic inequalitities between men and women.

                heterosexual contact
                http://aids.about.com/cs/aidsf…..africa.htm

                70% aids comes from heterosexuals
                http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm

              4. You were saying rev blue? Looks like i caught you in another lie.

                1. I was talking about America, where the conversation is relevant. I think gay marriage is at the bottom of the continent of Africa’s concerns.

                  1. “”studies have shown” that gay men have AIDS at a greater right than any other sector. That isn’t an argument to outlaw homosexuality, either.”

                    LOL, i don’t see america in there. Lying even more i see to cover up =)

          2. Here is the big difference though, It is two different arguments. Under current law, if a man marries two women, the second marriage is considered invalid. As opposed to gay marriage, two guys can’t even get married, much less to more then one person. Polygamy is about to marry more then one person, same sex marriage is the right to get married, period. It is like arguing about speed limits vs having the right to drive in the first place. Gay marriage is asking for the right to drive a car, polygamy is like saying you have to should be able to drive 200 mph, the fact you can drive in the first place is a given.

            1. Anon, that is nothing more than saying that limiting the contract two parties is OK. Why? Why is it OK to limit the contract to two parties? And if that’s OK, why not limit it to opposite sex partners?

            2. Polygamy is about to marry more then one person, same sex marriage is the right to get married, period.

              No, both are about the right to get married to who you want.

              1. Legally, it is. It is the same as arguing for lowering the drinking age vs DUI cutoff. The polygamy argument is raising the amount, I.E The right to drink more. Gay marriage is the right for a person to drink I.E 18 as the drinking age.

                Sounds like splitting hairs but the law is all about splitting hairs. If you raised the issue of polygamy in a gay marriage debate, the question would be dismissed as irrelevant, for it does not pertain to the question at hand.

                1. Which, again, makes it relevant, not irrelevant. you are determining who can enter the contract based on arbitrary criteria.

                  1. Actually, it is irrelevant. It is a question of who can enter a contract vs contractual content. As I said, it is the difference between the right to do something vs how much you can do it.

                    The right to get a fishing license vs how many fish you can catch.

                    1. Like I said, that’s just “defining” the contractual content arbitrarily. you say that entering into another marriage contract must mean breach of the first contract, but only if you define it that way.

            3. What is the difference, after all, between telling a woman “You can’t marry that person because she is a woman” and “You can’t marry that person because he is already married.”?

              1. Because marrying someone who is already married impinges on a previous contract and could be construed as breach of contract.

                1. Only if you define the contract that way, which is begging the question.

                  1. It is how the court defines it. Rules are different when a third party enters into the contract.

                    1. It is how the court defines it. Rules are different when a third party enters into the contract.

                      Oh come now. The court can then interpret that the marriage contract is invalidated when same-sex members enter into it, if it can say that the marriage contract is void when a third party enters into it.

                      Note that if polygamy were a breach of contract, that would invalidate the first contract, not the polygamous one…so how is polygamy breach of contract when the first marriage stands?

                    2. Go read up on plig marriages, you will find what happens is, the marriages are successive. The second marriage impinges on the contract with the first, to make the second marriage valid, you have to exit the contract (AKA divorce.)

                2. Because marrying someone who is already married impinges on a previous contract and could be construed as breach of contract.

                  Wouldn’t that be up to the other spouse to say? Maybe she is up for polygamy as well. Why do you want to deny her right to be in a polygamous marriage?

                  1. Rules are different when a third party enters into the contract.

                    There is no difference in partnership law between a partnership with two partners and a partnership with three. None. The rules don’t change.

        2. If three people are married to each other, it becomes infinitely more complex, like filing taxes and what not.

          Umm, no, no it doesn’t.

          On all matters economic, a marriage is pretty much a general partnership, and we have centuries of experience with sorting those out.

          On child care and custody, I don’t see any complications at all. Why wouldn’t it be handled just like it is now?

          1. Two folks get married, one dies. The surviving member by default gains custody of the children, marital assets, etc. If three people are married, the guy dies, which wife gets the assets, child custody? OR survivor benefits of a pension, which wife gets it and how do you make it fair? Guy is married to 7 women, which one gets the survivor benefits?

        3. Your problem is in thinking of it as a 3- or more-person marriage. Hardly any polygamists conceive of their relationship as a group marriage. Rather, A marries B, and then A marries C without divorcing B. So it’s 2 (or more) marriages. B is not married to C, and each marriage is an opposite-sex marriage. There should be no tangling of the rights involved in each marriage of a polygamy than there is in determining the rights involved in a second mortgage on a property.

    4. to be fair, race and sex are not the same thing.

      Race is a cultural construct.
      Sex is a biological distinction.

      Gender, on the other hand, is also a cultural construct.

  29. I thought the prop 8 decision was not about the Constitutionality of gay marriage, but rather whether California could grant and then effectively revoke marriages it had already recognized, a la the contract clause?

    1. Prop 8 was federal government taking on state government. For example, California could pass an amendment taxing yarmulkes, which would be legal in the state due to the amendment BUT would be removed due to violation of Federal law. Constitution is clear on this, Federal always supersedes state law.

  30. Whatever happens with the court system, I don’t think it will become a permanent wedge issue like abortion. People will get used to it, old folks will die, the world will move on.

  31. Shorter shadow-man (and other gay marriage activists):

    I’ve got mine. If you don’t have yours, its not my problem, and I certainly won’t help you get it.

    You might try to understand why libertarians don’t find this attitude particularly attractive, even when we support the right/freedom at issue.

  32. Has anyone actually read the Roe vs Wade decision? The courts totally sidestepped the issue. They found that since scientists nor religious groups have consensus on when life begins, the courts would be foolish to try and make an arbitrary decision, and decided until a consensus emerges, abortion will be legal until then.

    1. Wrong again! Roe made law. Specifically, it mandated the trimester framework.

      1. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. Supreme court can’t make law, that is a different branch of government. You can legally get a third trimester abortion. The majority opinion “Suggested” a trimester timeframe but the suggestion was arbitrary.

        1. Not quite. It said that first trimester abortions must be absolutely be left to the pregnant woman. It further defined what States may or may not do in each trimester. That is “making” law in my book.

        2. Anon, before asserting that courts can’t make law, you might want to google up the notion of “common law.”

          1. Common law refers to the interpretation of law, not actual law. Common law marriage means that if you live with someone for ten years, you aren’t automatically married but the courts can consider it as such.

            1. The court specifically said that the state may only interfere with a first-trimester decision under severely limited circumstances. That’s making law.

              1. that is law interpretation.

                1. Which is the same thing. That’s why RC said to familiarize yourself with the term “common law”. If the Court “finds” that first-trimester abortions are protected, that makes those things which were previously illegal, legal. I call that “making law”. A distinction without a difference.

            2. Common law refers to the interpretation of law, not actual law.

              No, common law refers to that body of law that has never been enacted by a legislature, but is nonetheless the law of the land because it has been declared by the courts. Google up “what is common law” and learn something.

              Originally (and uniquely) a product of England, there used to be a lot more of it here than there is now. Much of what used to be common law has been displaced by legislation.

  33. Re: Anon,

    “You cannot make someone perform the ceremony for you.”
    Umm, dear genius, I can go to the county clerks office and get a marriage license without having to get a church involved.

    Uh, genius, that is not what I’m arguing. Getting a license does not give you license to a) MAKE someone marry you and b) MAKE someone perform the ceremony for you.

    Marriage is a CIVIL action

    That’s a different story from being a civil right, genius.

    And you can’t make someone vote, attend church, etc yet those are civil rights.

    No, they’re not. You have NO idea, NO clue what a right entails. You cannot have a right to attend church if the church is closed – did your “right” suddenly disappear? As to not being able to make soemone vote, you just made my point for me: the action of voting is the consequence of a person’s freedom to act. However, that does not mean a person has a right to have the vote count for anything.

    Furthermore, Loving vs. Virginia disagrees with you.

    Dred Scott disagreed with me with the idea that people are not property. So what? Are you seriously using an argument from authority?

  34. Should proponents of homosexual so-called “marriage” favor this aggressive approach or should they heed Ginsburg’s warning about the political backlash from moving “too far too fast”?

    Do they want We the People voting on a federal marriage amendment?

    I thought they preferred to pay legislators — and sue to get judges to redefine marriage for them, without the consent of the governed.

    Reverse voter-approved laws in over three-fifths of the country, and see if there’s not a backlash.

    1. Re: Adam Eve Steve,

      Should proponents of homosexual so-called “marriage” favor this aggressive approach or should they heed Ginsburg’s warning about the political backlash from moving “too far too fast”?

      The problem resides in the fact that the courts are not there to grant or deny rights, the political backlash notwithstanding.

  35. Re: shadow_man,

    Ahhhh, more ad hominem attacks. Like i said before, that not only happens when you lose arguments, but that also starts making people suspect you are attempting to troll, and failing so miserably.

    You’re deliverately shifting the focus, s. Who’s being the troll here?

    The state didn’t limit anything, it granted the rights.

    The State does not grant rights, asshole. Who granted the State the right to grant rights And don’t tell me “the people” because then you would be simply endulging in very sloppy circular thinking.

    It was the religious people who took them away.

    Took WHAT away? How? By wishing it? Are you on drugs, s?

    You are saying it will happen it a lot. Where’s the proof of that?

    More often than you think, wiseass.

    I’m proving you wrong by saying that the church could be sued for anything,

    No, you’re basically undermining your own retort, like a fool. Churches are not just sued for anything – that’s your cop-out.

    and it’s no different if they were sued for denying a gay couple marriage (which they can’t because they are exempt)

    Laws making gay marriage a right would take away that exemption, s.

    By your logic, the church could be sued for anything, and we should hence ban everything.

    Not “ban everything”, nitwit. Simply not make it a right.

    By the way, churches have been marrying blacks and whites for ever, as long as the marrying parties follow doctrine. This has been true with the Catholic church as well as te Protestant churches, with few exceptions.

  36. Hi friends,

    This is a great blog. Thanks for all your hard work and the info you give.

  37. Below is a link to an interesting read, called the Libertarian Case for Man/Woman Marriage. Some quotes:

    “Marriage between a man and a woman is the last truly private sector.”

    “Redefining marriage to include couples of the same sex is an expansion of the state’s power… We fear that many Libertarians are hiding behind the ‘privatizing marriage’ argument in an attempt to avoid taking a stand on this issue. But privatizing marriage is not the answer; furthermore, it is na?ve to think that government will remove itself from marriage.”

    “…genderless marriage is entirely the construction of the state. Genderless marriage requires continual support and even coddling by the state. Unlike traditional marriage, it cannot survive without the state. How would it?”

    It’s an 8 part read. Part 1 located here:

    http://www.marriage-ecosystem……riage.html

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.