Gay Marriage

Clarence Thomas Attacks the Supreme Court's 'Increasingly Cavalier Attitude Toward the States' on Gay Marriage

|

Credit: C-SPAN

Last month a federal judge invalidated Alabama's ban on gay marriage. In response, state officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court to put that ruling on temporary hold while the state pursued its appeal at the federal appellate court level. Today the Supreme Court denied the state's request and allowed the lower court's ruling to go into effect.

That decision has apparently infuriated Justice Clarence Thomas. In a rare maneuver, Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, has dissented from the Court's denial of the state's request, arguing that today's action represents an "indecorous" dereliction of judicial duty and an affront to the sovereignty of the states. "When courts declare state laws unconstitutional and enjoin state officials from enforcing them, our ordinary practice is to suspend those injunctions from taking effect pending appellate review," Thomas writes. Yet in this case, "the Court looks the other way" and offers "yet another example of this Court's increasingly cavalier attitude towards the States."

According to Thomas, "I would have shown the people of Alabama the respect they deserve and preserved the status quo while the Court resolves this important constitutional issue."

Justice Thomas' dissent in Strange v. Searcy is available here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Louisville Cop Arrested for Allegedly Assaulting Two Children; Previously Commended for His Work With Youth

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. So it’ll be 7-2, then?

    1. Because I’d figured Alito for a third vote

  2. May 3 males marry?

    May a mother marry her daughter?

    How about a father marrying his two sons?

    If not, why not?

    1. Sure, why not? As far as law goes, marriage is mostly just an agreement about shared property. Why shouldn’t any pair or group of people be allowed the same arrangement?
      Plural marriages and incest are really not very popular things. And people do it anyway, whether or not the state blesses it.

      1. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

        1. People have this odd idea that laws stop people from doing things or allow them to do things.

          1. People have this odd idea that the only way for something to be real is for it to be recognized by the government.

            1. Unfortunately that battle has already been fought and lost many, many times.

          2. it’s not surprising that the politicians believe this, what is surprising is the amount of people who actively associate and communicate with real life members of society that believe this.

            1. I was listening to something on the radio this morning about the possible repeal of the permit requirement for concealed carry of firearms in NH (not sure how likely, but it doesn’t seem completely out of the realm of possibility).
              It is amazing how many people talk about the permits as if they actually stop people from carrying who don’t have the permit.

      2. Plural marriages and incest are really not very popular things.

        And, bluntly, this will be why they won’t be permitted. I agree with you that there’s really not a valid underlying principle in play (assuming you sign off on same sex marriage) to forbid them – or not recognize them – based on. But, the courts don’t seem any less inclined than any other branch of government to sacrifice principle to the “yuck factor”.

        1. for a good while, marriage has rested on three things: two people of opposite sex who are unrelated. As the middle aspect increasingly fades away, challenges to the other two should be expected. And seems principle would require a person to support or oppose all three.

          1. As the middle aspect increasingly fades away, challenges to the other two should be expected.

            And those challenges will be respected only to the extent that the public – and by extension the courts – isn’t willing to pose a FYTW exemption. Honestly, I don’t see the same constituencies making the case for plural marriage or adult incest. They’re going to get just as “grossed out” as the religious righties.

          2. The third is faded away as well. First cousin marriage is legal in 21 of the 50 states. I didn’t bother to count second cousins.

      3. Plural marriages and incest are really not very popular things.

        Really?

        I’d bet good money on the idea that there are more men who want more than one woman than there are men who want men.

    2. Yeah I don’t give a fuck.

      1. I frankly don’t either. Other people, however do. The question is do those people have a right to say no and not recognize it or does the state have a right to force them to. And do the people of Alabama have a right to decide that issue or is it something that only Narzgul’s opinion matters?

        1. do those people have a right to say no

          At the moment no. For example, Catholic employers, hospitals, etc. are required to recognize the marriages between people who their religion says are actually serial adulterers.

        2. The question is do those people have a right to say no and not recognize it or does the state have a right to force them to.

          No the question is whether or not voters or politicians have any say-so about the terms of private relationships. Which they don’t, straight or gay is irrelevant.

          1. No the question is whether or not voters or politicians have any say-so about the terms of private relationships.

            that may be the question here, but it is not even considered in most of society. Raise the very point you’re making and people act as if you sprouted a third eye.

            1. You get used to that as a libertarian or an-cap.

          2. Politicians assert all sorts of authority in the terms of private relationships. This is always a usurpation of individual liberty, but it is a fact. If two people agree that one will pay another $100/week for housecleaning services, there’s a host of regulations and paperwork requirements. If two people agree that one will pay the other for services of a sexual nature, or agree to a dual or a bare-knuckles fight, it is forbidden. Et cetera, etc., etc.

    3. May 3 males marry?

      May a man marry 700 wives and 300 concubines, assuming he’s rich enough to support them all?

      May a mother marry her daughter?

      How about a father marrying his two sons?

      I already am legally related to my parents. Wanna read something even more shocking? I’m legally related to my whole family.

      1. “Legally related” is not the same as being a spouse.
        In many states, a spouse can inherit an estate, without taxation but a son, daughter, father, mother, cousin, etc. cannot.
        Let’s see how the extrapolation of the “same sex” thing plays out when it is used to deny the state their death tax.

    4. May 3 males marry?

      If all three consent.

      May a mother marry her daughter?

      If both are truly consenting.

      How about a father marrying his two sons?

      If all are truly consenting.

      If not, why not?

      Indeed, why not?

      1. That would pretty much render the estate tax moot. The surviving spouse could marry his/her heir, and the estate would always be exempt.

        Since the word “marriage” in a legal context has lost all connection to its original significance, old taboos would quickly disappear.

    5. May 3 males marry?

      May a mother marry her daughter?

      How about a father marrying his two sons?

      This is obligatory in West Virginia.

  3. arguing that today’s action represents an “indecorous” dereliction of judicial duty

    Har dee fucking har.

    That ship left the barn quite some time ago.

    1. If you can’t stand the heat, don’t live in a glass house.

  4. If not, why not?

    Why should I give a fuck?

      1. Because buttsecks.

    1. BECAUSE YOU’LL BE ON THE HOOK FOR A CAKE.

  5. Alabama should just repeal its marriage law.

    If marriage is legally recognized at all, I think gay marriages must be recognized because of the equal protection guarantee. But I’d love to see a state react to this by getting rid of legal marriage recognition altogether.

    1. Which will probably happen right after meth and heroin are legalized and public schools are abolished.

    2. But then what of the benefits of marriage?

      1. Lots of sex.

  6. I understand is point. However, it will be misconstrued as gay bashing.

    It makes sense.

  7. Maybe Clarence would condescend to provide us with his learned discourse on the Fourth Amendment, next.

    1. He’s good on the issue of whether “Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause….”

  8. OT: Who is Team Orange supposed to root for here?:

    http://tinyurl.com/lln8rxz

    Unexpected visitors have been dropping in on anti-oil activists in the United States ? knocking on doors, calling, texting, contacting family members.

    The visitors are federal agents.

    Opponents of Canadian oil say they’ve been contacted by FBI investigators in several states following their involvement in protests that delayed northbound shipments of equipment to Canada’s oilsands.

    A lawyer working with the protesters says he’s personally aware of a dozen people having been contacted in the northwestern U.S. and says the actual number is probably higher.

    1. Depends if we can blame it on Bush or not.

    2. maybe I am just a bad person, but I can’t muster much sympathy for protestors whose actions get in the way of a company trying to do its business.

    3. But activists say oil sands opposition appears to be the common thread among people being contacted. Police have been in touch with people from different groups, who in some cases don’t agree on much, but one thing they share is mutual participation in the so-called megaload protests.

      Those are the intermittent highway blockades set up the last few years to complicate the enormous, football-field-sized shipments of processing equipment up to the oilsands.

      That group, DGR, calls itself a radical environmental movement that believes the biggest problem with the planet is human civilization itself. It proposes a shift back from agriculture to a hunter-gatherer horticultural lifestyle.

      It also proposes a four-step program called decisive ecological warfare, a long-term plan calling for the sabotage and dismantling of planet-harming infrastructure.

      I think Ima havta side with the Feds on this one.

      1. It proposes a shift back from agriculture to a hunter-gatherer horticultural lifestyle.

        Oh God. I can see entertaining the idea as an interesting fantasy or some sort of philosophical ponderable. But how does anyone think that this is a realistic (let alone desirable) thing to agitate for.
        To start with, you have to figure out how to reduce the population by several billion. I’m having a hard time thinking of any non-evil (and non-planet-harming) way to bring that about.

        1. I see White Indian, dare I speaketh His name.

      2. It proposes a shift back from agriculture to a hunter-gatherer horticultural lifestyle.

        Why don’t they show people how wonderful that is by doing it? Lead by example. Maybe because it is a hard way to live and I would guess they would starve the first winter.

        1. Or they could really help the planet and just eliminate themselves.

          But that’s not what they really mean. They mean everyone else is hurting Mother Gaia and only they are righteous enough to inherit the earth.

        2. It is difficult to live as a hunter-gatherer when hunting out of season is illegal.
          Not that these people aren’t completely fucking insane.

          1. It is difficult to live as a hunter-gatherer when hunting out of season is illegal.
            Not that these people aren’t completely fucking insane.

            It is very difficult. Especially with closed seasons and bag limits. You have to hunt a lot of different animals to fill the freezer. It can be done, but I don’t recommend it.

            1. How are they going to fill a freezer if they neither have a freezer nor have electricity to power it?

  9. Cue all the team blue hacks deploring this stance on states rights right up until it benefits them then right back to total federal disdain of states rights.

  10. Yeah so with Thomas is this about the subject matter or is it really about deference to states?

    1. Ask him how he feels about states legalizing pot?

      1. Has he actually said anything/ruled on this? I’m curious.

        1. Not that I know of. I’m speculating.

        2. He dissented on Raich. I don’t know if that was because pot or because commerce clause, though.

          1. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

    2. Was Kennedy’s opinion on DOMA about deference to the states or the subject matter? Have any the pro-SSM legal arguments been about a coherent legal philosophy or about getting SSM recognized nation wide by any means necessary?

  11. If you don’t care about same-sex couples sharing lives and property together, that’s wonderful, nor do I. You should care about the corruption of the language, how the word “marriage” meant something quite specific for centuries, and suddenly it doesn’t. Tommorow, perhaps I’ll change the definitions of “work” and “payment” simply because the current meanings aren’t convenient for me.

      1. Confucius must be for same-sex marriage. I mean, he wasn’t a Christian, and only Christians have hangups about the matter.

        /sarc

    1. If you don’t support using government force to redefine marriage, then you’re not a true libertarian.

      Not only that, but if you say marriage means something specific, then you support banning interracial marriages.

      But when it comes down to it, your objection to using government force to redefine marriage means you hate homosexuals. The only way you can prove that you do not hate homosexuals is to demand that marriage be redefined by force of government.

      At least that’s what I have been told.

      1. You make me sad on this issue sarc.

        1. I supported SSM when I naively thought it was only about equal protection under the law. Once I saw that any compromise that gave equal protection under the law without changing the definition of marriage was absolutely unacceptable, I understood that equal protection under the law was not the point.

          1. But for pretty much everyone here it is all about equal protection under the law. I’d love to replace legal recognition of marriages with civil-unions or whatever you want to call it. But that seems very unlikely.

          2. Before I start, I want you to know that I agree with your positions 99% of the time.

            But here, you are off the rails. You are conflating two separate issues and I don’t understand why.

            1. Should government be out of the marriage business altogether? You bet.

            2. Given that it isn’t, from both a moral AND Constitutional position, the government cannot discriminate against a group of people because they don’t approve of their lifestyle choices.

            3. The fact that some radical portions of the group are going to attempt to use the gay marriage issue as a jumping off point to get their group declared a protected class is a COMPLETELY different issue than the support of gay marriage. I can be fully in favor of gay marriage and, at the same time, be against the effort to obtain protected class status (for anyone).

            Conflating the two, is like saying if you are for equal rights for blacks, you can’t be against blacks being a protected class. That’s nonsense.

            I get why Eddie does it. I don’t get why you do it.

            1. My support for SSM ended when I was driving to work one day, listening to a piece on NPR about how some civil rights lawyers were giddy at the prospect of punishing people who didn’t agree with them. I realized I just couldn’t ally myself with them.

              1. Why do you think that agreeing with some people on one small part of what they believe means you ally yourself with them?

                I’m no activist, I don’t agitate for particular laws to be passed regarding marriage. And I certainly don’t ally myself with the assholes who want to sue everyone who doesn’t celebrate gay butt-sex in their daily lives. I still have my own opinion on whether or not gay marriages should be legally recognized in the current legal context.

                1. Why do you think that agreeing with some people on one small part of what they believe means you ally yourself with them?

                  If I support them for whatever reason of my own then I’m implicitly supporting them having another weapon with which to punish people for thoughtcrime. I can’t in good conscience do that.

                  1. I just don’t see why you think that puts what other people do on you. You can partly agree with people without supporting them. Neither of our comments on the internet or personal conversations are likely to cause any major shift on the issue.

                    1. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.
                      -Ayn Rand

                    2. In any compromise between good and evil

                      You think gays having equal protection under the law is evil?

                      TWO SEPARATE ISSUES sarc.

                      1. Equal protection for gays.
                      2. Protected classes.

                      There IS NO compromise anywhere but between your ears.

                    3. You think gays having equal protection under the law is evil?

                      Um, no. And I have no idea why you would even suggest I think that based upon my comments.

                      Fuck off.

                    4. I have no idea why you would even suggest I think that

                      Because you are against gay marriage.

                      Endorsing gay marriage IS NOT endorsing protected class status for gays.

                      You’re getting defensive. Maybe you should take some quiet time and think through your position again. (Not meant as an insult)

                    5. I fully support equal protection under the law for same sex couples, and have made that clear more times than I can count. I do not support using force of government to redefine marriage because that gives civil rights lawyers another weapon with which to go after people who commit thoughtcrime. Yeah, there are two separate issues here. I see that. And I would support a solution that fixed the problem of equality under the law without creating so much animosity and conflict.

                    6. I seriously doubt that there are hoards of people out there who do not want same sex couples to be treated equally under the law. Equating the definition of marriage to equality under the law is simply dishonest. It puts those who believe marriage to be between a man and a woman in a place where they are forced to defend an unjust accusation that they oppose equality under the law for same sex couples. It’s a classic leftist tactic. Why so many libertarians fall for it is beyond me.

                    7. No one is falling for anything. Marriage law already works that way. People are forced to accept as legal fact marriages that they don’t believe are real marriages. For example, Catholics have to legally accept marriages of divorced people even though they don’t believe that those are legitimate marriages.

                      Your wife is divorced if I am remembering correctly, no? If so, by your reasoning, that means that you are forcing Catholics to accept your definition of marriage through force of law. How is that not exactly the same thing?

                    8. I’m not forcing anything onto Catholics. Now if I was to sue them for not allowing us to get married in their church, then that would be another issue.

                    9. If your employer was Catholic, he would be forced to treat you as married for purposes of health insurance, tax witholding and such.

                    10. I think most Catholics understand the difference between their church recognizing a marriage and people getting married outside the church. I’ve never met a Catholic who said my marriage was invalid because their church didn’t recognize it.

                    11. In the eyes of the Catholic church, we are not married. I accept that. To be honest I’m not sure what would happen if we decided to join a Catholic church with regards to their recognizing our marriage or not.

                    12. If that’s true, then we are definitely fucked.

                      I’m with Francisco, though. There is no compromise. I am for equal recognition of gay and straight marriages (whether that means everyone gets (legal) marriage or no one does). I am not for any of the other crap the supposed “SSM movement” wants. No contradiction and no compromise on my part.

              2. My opposition to expanded wars puts me on the same side as Code Pink. So what?

            2. “I get why Eddie does it.”

              OK, why *do* I do it?

              1. OK, why *do* I do it?

                Eddie, you do it because you are a bigot. You are a bigot because your church tells you that being a bigot is the right thing to do.

                You can’t face the fact that your church is immoral, so you conflate two completely different issues in an attempt to rationalize away your immorality.

                I don’t think that of sarc, but of you, I’m quite sure of it.

                1. “I’m quite sure of it”

                  According to Wikipedia, it’s Josh Billings who is credited with saying, “It ain’t ignorance causes so much trouble; it’s folks knowing so much that ain’t so.”

                  Your own rhetoric shows the difficulty distinguishing between the I Want Cake crowd, which you profess to disagree with, and the SSM movement in general. There are some curious commonalities:

                  (a) Comparing traditionalists to supporters of Jim Crow: check.

                  (b) Assumption that traditionalists (including, I suppose, Confucius) are receiving orders from the Pope through their teeth fillings: check.

                  (c) Giving their OMG MORALLY URGENT CRUSADE absolute priority over other considerations: check.

                  To which you add elements which are crazy even by SSM-advocate standards, such as the TOTAL LACK OF CONNECTION between “marriage equality” and the movement for protected status.

                  Riddle me this: If “anti-gay discriminaiton” is OMG THE NEW JIM CROW, then wouldn’t you be in *favor* of protected-class status for LGBTQBLTS? (subject to the reservation that if only the Christian bakers patiently wait in line behind Lester Maddox, eventually they may recover their right to free association)

                  1. wouldn’t you be in *favor* of protected-class status for LGBTQBLTS?

                    They did that in Maine. Added sexual orientation to the list of Constitutionally protected classes that is. All the while mocking anyone who said it was a ploy to redefine marriage. Sure enough, as soon as the ink was dry they were suing to redefine marriage on the grounds that the traditional definition discriminated against a protected class.

                  2. Rationalize away Eddie.

                    You are a bigot.

                    1. You didn’t even attempt to explain your position on protected classes.

                      You rely on insults instead, which is par for the course for the SSM movement.

                      Funny how, while drawing all these comparisons to Jim Crow and the civil rigths movement, you forget that Martin Luther King proclaimed the need to be loving even to segregationists.

                      So why was Martin Luther King wrong?

                    2. Fuck you Eddie. I’ve debated you in good faith for this issue for weeks. I’ve made my position perfectly clear.

                      I am for equal rights (under the law) for gays. I am against gays (OR ANYONE) having protected class status. Same goes for Blacks, Women, Muslims, Polacks, Wops, Jews, Trannys, Polygamists…hell, even the Irish ;-)… My philosophy doesn’t make exceptions based upon my feelings or my religion.

                      You admitted to me the other day that your actual position is that you WANT gays to be discriminated against (under the law) because you don’t agree with their lifestyle.

                      That makes you a bigot who wants to FORCE his morality upon others.

                    3. “That makes you a bigot who wants to FORCE his morality upon others.”

                      Perhaps you could point to statement where I wanted to punish same-sex couples for having a “marriage” ceremony, or to punish ministers for celebrating such a ceremony, or in general to fine or imprison *anyone* for consensual adult activities in private without danger of disease.

                      Ah, but you’re using “FORCE” (all caps!) in a specialized sense – “failing to give my relationship the same recognition as marriage.”

                      Like I say below, you’re a Girondin who wants to join the gay-rights revolution but who will discover that the Jacobins of the movement will treat you the way you’d like to treat me.

                    4. Perhaps you could point to statement where I wanted to punish same-sex couples for having a “marriage” ceremony, or to punish ministers for celebrating such a ceremony, or in general to fine or imprison *anyone* for consensual adult activities in private without danger of disease.

                      You haven’t.

                      What you have said is you don’t want the government to treat your marriage and a gay marriage as the exact same thing. You want the government to discriminate, simply because you don’t approve of someone else’s lifestyle choices. Even though you wouldn’t be harmed if they did.

                      Immoral.

                    5. It took you a while, but you finally managed to state the question correctly, after first claiming repeatedly that I wanted to “FORCE [my] morality upon others” use “government force,” and to “forbid marriage between consenting adults.”

                      Are you willing to retract these accusations?

                    6. Of course I’m not going to retract these accusations. I stand by them and reiterate them.

                      You want government to discriminate against gays. You say so right here:

                      What I *do* say is that a same-sex relationship should not be recognized by the government as if it were a marriage. Because it’s not.

                      Which IS using government to FORCE your beliefs upon others.

                    7. You said I wanted to “FORCE [my] morality upon others”

                      You said I wanted to use “government force.”

                      You said I wanted to “forbid marriage between consenting adults.”

                      You offer no proof beyond goalpost-shifting and angry invective, as if trying to prove your sincerity by your willingness to descend into inhoherent, vein-throbbing rage.

                    8. You offer no proof beyond goalpost-shifting and angry invective

                      What are you talking about? You say so right here.

                      Proof:

                      What I *do* say is that a same-sex relationship should not be recognized by the government as if it were a marriage. Because it’s not.

                      You want government to recognize your marriage and not theirs. That is discrimination under equal protection. It is government force. It forbids marriage between consenting adults you don’t approve of through government edict which is FORCING your morality on others. What more proof does one need. You admit it freely.

                    9. So you should have said “discrimination” instead of “force,” but admitting you were mistaken will kill your righteousness-boner?

                      So explain what you meant when you said I wanted to “forbid marriage between consenting adults.”

                    10. So you should have said “discrimination” instead of “force,”

                      No.

                      When the state discriminates, that IS force. It is making one group act/live differently than another.

                      So explain what you meant when you said I wanted to “forbid marriage between consenting adults.”

                      You say a same-sex relationship should not be recognized by the government. Legally speaking, marriage is nothing more than government recognizing a union. You therefore support law that forbids marriage between consenting adults.

                    11. Martin Luther King proclaimed the need to be loving even to segregationists.

                      I can’t speak for Francisco, but I love you, Eddie (no homo).

                      I think you will find that most libertarian types wouldn’t have made racial groups protected classes either. Just removed all of the legally enforced racial discrimination and segregation. See how it is possible to agree with people in some ways and not in others?

                    12. I don’t think I’ve seen a single libertarian, ever, make the argument that blacks deserve protected status because of Jim Crow.

                      The government discriminating and private businesses discriminating are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. Or at least they should be.

                    13. Let me consult the definition of protected class status:

                      OK, it seems to mean protected against public *and* private discrimination, depending on context:

                      http://blog.constitutioncenter…..-scrutiny/

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

                  3. If “anti-gay discriminaiton” [sic] is OMG THE NEW JIM CROW, then wouldn’t you be in *favor* of protected-class status for LGBTQBLTS?

                    Reall?

                    I am in favor of equal rights for all. Having protected classes is not equal rights for all.

                    The government NOT discriminating against a group is not the same thing as giving them more rights than everybody else.

                    TWO SEPARATE ISSUES! (for the 10th fucking time)

                    1. I thought “protected classes” meant protection from both government and private discrimination, but let that pass.

                      Attempt this experiment: Go on to a LGBLTPDQ forum and explain how you support freedom of association for private businesses. If you’re not banned, they’ll soon employ the same language against you that you employ against me.

                      This is the fact of the Girondins in revolutionary movements – no matter how zealous they profess to be in the name of the Revolution, once they start expressing any reservations, the Jacobins will pounce on them, call them counter-revolutionaries, and treat them as bad as they treated the royalists!

                    2. the *fate* of the Girondins

                    3. So, what does that have to do with the price of eggs?

                      If that’s how it will play out, then that is how it will play out. That has nothing to do with my views on this as an equal protection issue.

                      Why do you think that people should base their views on what other people who partly agree would do in other areas of the law?

                    4. Actually, I was specifically aiming at F d’A and warning that he will be able to expect the same abuse he’s giving me, and for the same reason – he won’t go far enough to support the Revolution. The fact that he’d go further than I would will cut no ice with the sex-Jacobins, who will denounce him for “supporting corporate bigotry,” or whatever the term they use for free association.

                    5. I thought “protected classes” meant protection from both government and private discrimination

                      That’s the problem with protected classes. Using government force to ensure a private individual associates with a member of a protected class is a violation of the rights of the private individual. It is giving positive rights to some at the expense of the negative rights of others.

                      It is the right of a private citizen to discriminate against anyone they choose. Government, however, has no rights. Only powers. Government does not have the power (under the constitution [or morally]) to discriminate against any group of people.

                      Attempt this experiment: Go on to a LGBLTPDQ forum and explain how you support freedom of association for private businesses. If you’re not banned, they’ll soon employ the same language against you that you employ against me.

                      Who cares? They are a private organization. They can do a they choose.

                      You, on the other hand, want the government to discriminate against a group. You want them to forbid marriage between consenting adults, because you don’t approve of their lifestyle.

                      You can be a bigot all you want, Eddie, I can’t stop you, nor would I want to. What you can’t do is use the government to FORCE your beliefs upon others.

                    6. “You want them to forbid marriage between consenting adults”

                      Really? Perhaps you could provide a link to show where I advocated that.

                      What I *do* say is that a same-sex relationship should not be recognized by the government as if it were a marriage. Because it’s not.

                      I also say that the SSM movement, that is, the people actively working for SSM, want more than mere government recognition. They want to abridge “the right of a private citizen to discriminate against anyone they choose.”

                      You don’t want to stop the steamroller, because that would be just like approving Jim Crow! Better to wait before advocating freedom of association, preferably to wait until the cause has already been lost.

                    7. “You want them to forbid marriage between consenting adults”

                      Really? Perhaps you could provide a link to show where I advocated that.

                      Oh, RIGHT HERE! In your VERY next sentence.

                      What I *do* say is that a same-sex relationship should not be recognized by the government as if it were a marriage. Because it’s not.

                      You want the state to discriminate. PERIOD! Based upon nothing more than your religious beliefs.

                      I also say that the SSM movement, that is, the people actively working for SSM, want more than mere government recognition. They want to abridge “the right of a private citizen to discriminate against anyone they choose.”

                      Yep. And I’m for state recognition of SSM because it is the Constitutional and moral thing to do. And I’m against making gays a protected class because it’s NOT the Constitutional or moral thing to do.

                      Not sure why you can’t grasp that despite me saying it 10 times?

                      You don’t want to stop the steamroller, because that would be just like approving Jim Crow! Better to wait before advocating freedom of association, preferably to wait until the cause has already been lost.

                      That’s quite simply a lie.

                    8. I suppose you’re using the words “forbid” and “force” in some specialized sense with which I am not familiar.

                      Also, I recall you saying that you wouldn’t postpone the recognition of SSM while waiting for guarantees of free association because that would be JUST LIKE postponing the legalization opposite-race marriage until free association was recognized.

                      Hence, you want to wait until it’s too late.

                    9. You see, the only time the SSM forces would even *consider* exemptions for private business would be in exchange for recognition of their relationships. Once the recognition is granted, any incentive for compromise disappears.

                      Add to that the the SSM folks don’t want any kind of compromise anyway, except in the Islamic sense of a temporary truce while rebuilding their armies for a new attack.

                    10. Also, I recall you saying that you wouldn’t postpone the recognition of SSM while waiting for guarantees of free association because that would be JUST LIKE postponing the legalization opposite-race marriage until free association was recognized.

                      Yes, that’s what I said. I’m NOT going to deny someone their equal protection under the law on one issue while waiting to fix another, completely separate, abomination of Constitution on another.

                      Hence, you want to wait until it’s too late.

                      Nonsequitur.

                      Once the recognition is granted, any incentive for compromise disappears.

                      Rights are not a compromise.

                    11. Rights are not a compromise.

                      Except when they involve the rights of people who believe marriage to be between a man and a woman. Their rights don’t matter because they engage in thoughtcrime.

                    12. Except when they involve the rights of people who believe marriage to be between a man and a woman.

                      No one is stopping you from believing whatever you want. You can “believe” that marriage is only between a male dog and male zebra if you want. You have the right to believe whatever you want.

                      What the government can’t do, is legally define marriage (and all of the entitlements that come with that designation) as a union between one man and one woman because it is unconstitutional to do so (and immoral to do so).

                    13. All right, so you *don’t* want to stop the streamroller, and you don’t think now is a good time to cut a deal with the SSM crowd to recognize their marriages in exchange for recognition of freedom of association.

                      Because this is an URGENT ISSUE which CANNOT WAIT ANOTHER DAY (I mean, after all, you’ve waited several thousand years, and you can’t wait a few extra months to make sure these new laws are properly written to protect everyone?), and if the bakers and T-shirt makers have to suffer, well, you wash your hands of it.

                    14. As I said before Eddie. You don’t cut deals with rights. Rights are not given out as a gift. They simply “are” and exist because you are a person. They are not to be bartered, which is exactly the point. A point which you either don’t have the mental facilities to grasp, or the conviction to accept without the sayso of your old book.

                      There is no steamroller Eddie. There is only right and wrong.

                    15. TWO SEPARATE ISSUES! (for the 10th fucking time)

                      Yes. Equality under the law and the definition of marriage are indeed two separate issues. Combining the two is dishonest because it accuses those who consider a marriage to be a union between a man and a woman of opposing equality under the law for same sex couples. In some cases that is a valid accusation, but in most cases it is not.

                    16. Combining the two is dishonest because it accuses those who consider a marriage to be a union between a man and a woman of opposing equality under the law for same sex couples.

                      If they believe that their definition of marriage is the only one that should be recognized by law then they do oppose equality under the law for same sex couples. Whatever those people believe, gay people are getting married (to each other).

                    17. Whatever those people believe, gay people are getting married (to each other).

                      Ah yes. The inevitable smarmily smug neener-neener comment. Can’t have this conversation without one.

                    18. Oh, and Zeb? You missed the point. Entirely.

                    19. Oh, and I could easily turn your comment around and say that supporters of SSM oppose freedom of association because you can’t redefine marriage without giving civil rights lawyers another weapon with which to attack people who don’t agree with them. I could even add a snipe about how such lawsuits are already happening.

                    20. …you can’t redefine marriage without giving civil rights lawyers another weapon with which to attack people who don’t agree with them.

                      So providing equal protection under the law enables immoral people to do immoral things, so that’s an excuse to NOT provide equal protection under the law?

                      Sarc, you’re better than that.

                      Complying with 2A enables criminals to obtain guns more easily, so we shouldn’t comply with 2A?

                    21. If there was a middle ground that gave same sex couples equal protection under the law without redefining marriage, I would support it. And I suspect a majority of people who object to redefining marriage would support it as well. Unfortunately, those who claim to only want equal protection under the law will absolutely not accept such a compromise. That tells me that the word is more important than equality under the law.

                    22. Redefining marriage…

                      Let’s explore that phrase.

                      Until recently, it was legal to take more than one wife. Now you insist the word means between one man and one woman. Who redefined marriage?

                      And what about all the other societies throughout the world where polygamy is acceptable? Are they not married?

                      If it was okay to change it when polygamy was outlawed, it’s certainly okay to change it now. (And I’m talking about the legal definition.)

                      No one “owns” a word. Many here act as though Christians are the only ones who can use that word. From a non-legal standpoint, you can believe the word means whatever you want it to mean. From a legal standpoint, the government doesn’t have the power (under 14A) to preclude gays (or trans or polygamists for that matter) from getting married.

                      No one can force you to recognize a union in the “eyes of the Lord”. They are insisting on equal protection under the law.

                      As for those who attempt to force you, as a private citizen, to accept the behavior you find offensive, that is a completely different matter, and in such a case, your rights ARE violated.

                    23. yes, i am violated whenever i see someone wearing a cross around their neck, when i see a cross on a building, when i find religious material in my mail, etc. now if i could get florida’s version of the stand your ground law, i could take care of these issues with my second amendment rights

      2. It’s entirely consistent with the libertarian position on vaccines. You must be shamed and shunned!

        Cosmotarians crack me up.

        1. If the threads on here are anything to go by, there is no clear libertarian position on vaccines.

          Fucking morons crack me up.

    2. A. You’re full of shit. The term marriage has also included polygamy all over the world. And now you’re claiming it means “one man, one woman?” Who changed the meaning?

      B. Yeah, the meaning of words have never changed before. (sarc)

      You are scrambling for an excuse to be able to continue to discriminate against that which you disapprove.

      Corruption of the language…please!

    3. Something quite specific? Like the doctrine of coverture, you mean, or perhaps traditions honored for millennia, like polygyny, concubinage, and marriage without the woman’s consent? Government has already redefined marriage repeatedly; the only way to stop it from doing so again is to get it out of the business of defining marriage at all.

      1. Listen, Doc, he’s read his Qu’ran and knows that the sharia is quite clear in that Allah (swt) clearly defined marriage as the union of one Muslim man to 1 to 4 wives over the age of nine. One is also allowed sexual relations with those his right hand possesses. It is clearly defined in Allah’s (swt) own holy unchanging language of Classical Arabic. Instead of causing fitna within the ummah, you should stop questioning the divinely ordained definition of marriage.

        1. I suppose Barnstormer has also read the Tanakh and knows that God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, claimed the credit for at least part of David’s harem.

        2. Nicely done HM.

    4. Whatever the law says, marriage has for some time included gay unions. Gay people been getting married for many years without legal recognition.

      The fact that when someone says “gay marriage” you know exactly what they mean without having it explained to you demonstrates that it really is not a radical change in the meaning of the word.

    5. Not sure why the government is involved in marriage at all. If it’s supposed to be “one man, one woman” why does the government get to stick it’s prick in? Just delete all governmental references to marriage, gay, straight, polygamous, aquatic, waterfowl, whatever.

    6. You fail to understand that there are few limits to the power of the state. Sure the state cannot repeal the laws of thermodynamics, but it can define words any way it pleases. And, if the state wants, it can acknowledge same-sex marriage just as easily as it can a round square. Words mean precisely what the state wants them to mean, nothing more and nothing less.

      On the other hand, you, Barnstormer, cannot change the definitions of “work” and “payment” because you do not represent the ruling elite that controls the state. Your opinion on any issue of significance to the ruling elite is irrelevant. Even if the majority of the electorate agree with you, your opinion is irrelevant. This is pretty much demonstrated by legal recognition of same-sex marriage despite the failure of every referendum to recognize same-sex marriage.

    7. When Same-Sex Marriage Was A Christian Rite. ThosPayne. A Kiev art museum contains a icon from St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel, showing two robed Christian saints, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. It is Christ. They angered Emperor Maximian when exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple, were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture, later beheaded. Their close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers, the most compelling evidence, the oldest text of their martyrology, the NT Greek describes them as “erastai,” or “lovers”. Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of marriage hasn’t been set in stone since Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. For the Church to ignore evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul, in heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a [Christian] god-given love and commitment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ. Source: http://www.christianity-reveal…..nrite.html

  12. It also proposes a four-step program called decisive ecological warfare, a long-term plan calling for the sabotage and dismantling of planet-harming infrastructure.

    I know (have met) a guy who reputedly was part of the “monkey wrench gang”. If somebody had killed that asshole with an axe while he was spiking trees and sabotaging equipment, I reckon it would have been justified.

    YMMV

  13. I supported SSM when I naively thought it was only about equal protection under the law.

    I see it primarily as a campaign for the “right” to use government as a means to stick your hand in somebody else’s pocket. I don’t care who does what to whom, in the privacy of their own relationships.

    1. I don’t care what people do in the public area of their own relationships, too. Go have sex with a velociraptor in Central Park. None of my business.

      1. Clever Girl!

  14. I think that all the don’t-dare-call-me-a-cosmotarian types should be relieved by this sentence in Justice Thomas’s dissent:

    “This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution of that question.”

    In short, the fix is already in. The majority of the court will find a way to impose SSM on the country, because they don’t want to be hectored at conferences by activists and professors saying “I can’t *believe* how you’re such a homophobe! I thought you were cool!”

    1. It’s all about DC cocktail parties.

    2. Hey, if Obamacare is a tax, no reason marriage can’t be too.

    3. i hope they impose ssm into every part of your lives, the way conseervative christianity has been allowed to taint, oppress and damage mine.

  15. According to Thomas, “I would have shown the people of Alabama the respect they deserve and preserved the status quo while the Court resolves this important constitutional issue.”

    By which he means Evangelical Christians. Everyone else in Alabama aren’t truly people.

    1. Mob rule = lynching….something Clarice should know a little about, along with mob rule = majority not protecting the minority which is a democracy, that is what we are told constantly when reminded we are a republic and not a democracy but conservatives. well which do they want?

  16. my buddy’s mom makes $86 an hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for 5 months but last month her check was $15207 just working on the computer for a few hours. site here…………….
    ????? http://www.netcash50.com

  17. Might he have a point? Are there cases out there where the Court overturned a state law before deciding and Thomas was cool with it? If this is the only issue where he gets his knickers in a bunch about the authority of the states then I guess it is a red flag. If not, then you can plead principle. He might genuinely worry about the mechanics of rule of law.

    I’d like to see him pull this and then vote Yes on SSM if it went back to the Court. It would make people’s heads explode.

  18. I wonder if Clarence wants to turn back the clocks on his rights as a black man, in all states, and add to that, take away his right to marry a white woman. From what I understand, the majority of the country was against freeing slaves, giving blacks the right to vote, to get an education, to own a business and to marry someone white, when the laws against those freedoms was given to them by those evil liberal legislatures of the day. He, like all others like him, are nothing but ungrateful, selfish, and self-centured. I would like the power to take away some of the rights conservatives take for granted, just to teach them a lesson.

  19. When Same-Sex Marriage Was A Christian Rite. ThosPayne. A Kiev art museum contains a icon from St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel, showing two robed Christian saints, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. It is Christ. They angered Emperor Maximian when exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple, were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture, later beheaded. Their close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers, the most compelling evidence, the oldest text of their martyrology, the NT Greek describes them as “erastai,” or “lovers”. Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of marriage hasn’t been set in stone since Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. For the Church to ignore evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul, in heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a [Christian] god-given love and commitment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ. Source: http://www.christianity-reveal…..nrite.html

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.