Gay Marriage

Signaling from the Supreme Court: Justices Mostly Show Their Cards on Gay Marriage

Kennedy maintains reputation as the swing vote, but seems to be leaning toward yes.

|

Why didn't they submit an amicus brief like everybody else?
Credit: Elvert Barnes / photo on flickr

Predictably, early reports about today's Supreme Court arguments on same-sex recognition paint a divided court. The more liberal members of the court had tough questions for states who want to preserve same-sex marriage bans and the justifications for them. The conservatives had tough questions about whether the courts should be overruling state decisions on marriage regulations.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, long described as a swing vote on gay issues, worried about changing a definition of marriage that has been the same for "millennia," but was nevertheless very concerned about preserving the dignity of the relationships between gay couples and families.

To backtrack just slightly for some background perspective. Today, the Supreme Court is considering two questions: One, whether states are required to recognize same-sex marriages; and two, whether states are required to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states. The Supreme Court blocked off much more time to hear this case than they normally do.

The case, Obergefell v. Hodges, is actually the name given to a consolidation of several cases from four states where the federal courts have upheld gay marriage recognition bans, thus creating disagreement with all the other federal courts who have struck gay marriage bans down in many other states.

Over at Bloomberg View, Noah Feldman has some good analysis of the signaling from the Supreme Court justice comments and questions from early in the arguments today. This might be an important indication of where Kennedy may ultimately come down, despite his worries about changing the definition of marriage:

Kennedy went on to say that the amount of time between Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 decision he wrote recognizing a fundamental right to have sex with a partner of one's choice, and the current case was roughly the same as the amount of time between Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Loving v. Virginia (1967). The Loving decision is the aptly named case in which the court struck down a ban on interracial marriage.

Justice Antonin Scalia was more concerned that a minister would be obligated to perform or solemnized a same-sex marriage ceremony and wanted reassurance this would not be the case. Justice Samuel Alito broached the issue of polygamy and whether the court would be heading down that path. Lawyer Mary Bonauto, representing the gay couples in the suit, responded to the polygamy concern by mentioning all the legal disruption group marriages would raise in the courts (like who would make medical decisions, managing child custody, and how divorce would work out). Chief Justice John Roberts bluntly said the plaintiffs were seeking to change how the institution of marriage was recognized and was concerned about the potential impact of shutting down state-level debate with a ruling.

This was all the focus of the first question, and Bonauto ended her arguments with a very libertarian position: "In terms of the question 'Who decides?' it's not about the court versus the states. It's about the individual making the choice to marry and whom to marry, or the government."

John Bursch, representing the states fighting to keep their ban, was faced with skepticism from the more liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. The states' position is that recognition of gay marriage undermines traditional marriages and then bonds between straight couples would not be maintained and we wouldn't have children anymore. The justices pretty much asked him a lot of the same questions that everybody else brings up in this sort of debate: Do heterosexuals who can't or don't want to have children have the right to get married? Kennedy brought up the ability of gay couples to adopt, which seems to be the justice showing a little bit more of where he might come down.

In fact, when it came to the second question (Do states have to recognize legal gay marriages from other states?), SCOTUSBlog reported that Kennedy said little. In their liveblog of the arguments, one of them speculated that that this may well be a sign of where Kennedy is coming down. The second question is only relevant if the majority decides against requiring all states to recognize gay marriages. Kennedy's lack of engagement may indicate that he will be voting affirmatively for gay marriage recognition across the board, concerns about the historical definition of marriage notwithstanding.

By contrast, the more conservative judges were much more critical about whether the states could refuse to recognize other states' gay marriages. It was Justice Scalia who invoked the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause, which would seem to indicate that he thinks states might have to recognize other states' gay marriages. Several of the justices wondered if the state control argument meant states could refuse to acknowledge all marriages from another state.

That conservatives like Roberts and Scalia jumped on question two seemingly on the same side as the more liberal members is a pretty good explanation of why this question was even asked. If there isn't a majority to support full nationwide recognition on question one, there was the possibility of getting conservatives on board with a compromise via question two. States would still be able to ban gay marriage recognition for weddings within their state. But they would have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. In a roundabout fashion, this essentially also legalizes gay marriage, because gay couples could just go to another state for the ceremony. It would, however, preserve some sort of sense of state internal control of wedding licensing, no matter how thin and symbolic it is.

If Kennedy truly is the swing vote, though, it does appear to be more likely that the court will strike down bans entirely. We'll find out when the court gives its ruling, expected in June.

Audio for the arguments about the first question is already available here. The Wall Street Journal has a pretty thorough liveblog (particularly of the later arguments that have been ignored in favor of quick news story turnaround) here

NEXT: Now there's proof that you need me

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. Trying to predict how the Nazgul will rule is a fool’s errand.

    1. Well, like the Ring Wraiths, the SJC’s also ride in black.

      1. SJC?

        Social Justice Concubines?

    2. Hoping for a correct ruling in accordance with free association, a right to contract, and a reinstitution of the wisdom of Lochner is even more foolish.

      It will be erroneously decided on EP 14th grounds and then subsequent case law will do exactly what Scalia has warned about where churches will be seen as public accomodations and forced to give sanction to such ceremonies, because FYChristiansTW.

      1. That will never happen!

        /liberal who secretly hopes that will happen

        1. It’s happened to pizza shops, cake bakeries, and florists. Why not the church?

      2. You may be right. However, no one can reasonably argue that gays should have their individual rights infringed now because the government might infringe on Christians’ individual rights in the future.

      3. where churches will be seen as public accomodations and forced to give sanction to such ceremonies, because FYChristiansTW

        Well, maybe those churches will then finally join the rest of us and stand up for actual liberty, instead of simply demanding special privileges for themselves.

        1. “…stand up for actual liberty, instead of simply demanding special privileges for themselves”

          Agreed. SSM supporters totally need to do these things.

    3. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
      http://www?work-cash?com

    4. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
      http://www.work-cash.com

  2. God I cannot WAIT until Gay Marriage is legal and established practice throughout the land.

    1. WOW! You are enthused! Have you picked your wedding dress yet?

      1. I’m not enthused, I’m bored of it. Tired of it. It’s going to happen. So-Cons need to get over it and the whole identity politics love-in can hopefully move on.

        Then, once Gay Marriage becomes prevalent, we can get onto what I suspect will happen as a result: Divorce law will start to get a long, hard look.

        1. I hope they strike it down. The tears of the SJW’s will be delicious. And all the bitches will be out in fine form.

        2. and the whole identity politics love-in can hopefully move on.

          How in the name of all that is good and decent can you consider that a good thing?

          Moving on just means everyone gets a whole new set of demands to be met. And that to you is good?

          1. It is Libertopia bill. The SJWs can be appeased if we just send them a few more victims.

            1. I don’t see what you’re so scared of, John. There’s no reason whatsoever libertarianism can coexist with a totalitarian hive mind.

        3. I hope they take the same kind of look at things like child support too. I’m trying to imagine what the courts will do when there are 2 women fighting over custody of a child. There will be no dick to smash, so what will they do then?

          1. Make a decision based on whatever special standard they create and then go back to fucking straight men as much as possible.

          2. The more butch looking one will get screwed over. Or the one who acts more like a whiney bitchey female will get everything. One of those two things.

          3. Make the sperm-donor pay to clone the kid, obviously.

          4. Having once had mine smashed by the courts, I wholeheartedly agree – I can’t wait to see this fight.

        4. Why does it matter? You think if they approve it, that the SJWs and other assorted perpetually aggrieved groups are just going to suddenly become normal people who have nothing to be aggrieved about? Hardly, they’ll just move onto the next aggrieved topic and screech twice as loud. They’ll never, ever, in a zillion fucking years run out of shit to whine and bitch about. Everything they whine about that they get will make them twice as bad as before.

          1. Meanwhile, though, they will continue to increase the pace at which they devour their own, while becoming more and more a marginal, unheeded noise on the sidelines of actual society.

          2. As you whine like a little bitch.

          3. “Hardly, they’ll just move onto the next aggrieved topic and screech twice as loud.”

            Of course. Power and Dominance are the point, any particular cause is just the rationalization for satisfying their lust for power.

            “Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

            ? George Orwell, 1984

          4. While rabid SJWs really irritate me, this really isn’t about them, any more than the Hobby Lobby decision was about the Westboro Baptist Church.

        5. “Then, once Gay Marriage becomes prevalent, we can get onto what I suspect will happen as a result: Divorce law will start to get a long, hard look.”

          Don’t forget the free unicorn-fart-powered flying cars.

        6. But once gay marriage is enacted, will you still be able to go to a protest and see a boy in a pretty dress like this? http://insomniaclibertarian.bl…..cotus.html

        7. I’m not enthused, I’m bored of it.

          Okay! This I get.

        8. I suspect that if the Supreme Court settles the issue once and for all, then it will not longer be an issue of political debate, which means liberals won’t be able to bash conservatives over the head with it anymore. So we’d have to move on to issues where Republicans are actually better than Democrats. Not a good outcome for liberals

    2. I briefly had the same thought about a black president in the nineties. Turns out the social justice war never ends.

    3. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
      http://www.work-cash.com

    4. This issue is an example of how completely inane and stoopid social discourse has become in the US.
      It isn’t illegal ANYWHERE in the US to be married to a person of the same sex. The people of this country have become such freakin’ sheep that they actually believe that if government agencies do not “recognize” something it simply doesn’t exist.
      The core Constitutional issue is whether the State (as in Statist) is prohibited from providing legal benefits to citizens based on gender.

      1. The core constitutional issue is whether the Federal government has any delegated power to force other governments under it’s jurisdiction to privilege homosexual marriages in the same way it privileges heterosexual marriages.

        Or that would be the constitutional issue if the constitution mattered at all.

      2. Most gay couples I know have gotten married in churches long ago; they don’t care about any blessings from the government. What they care about are issues where the government has extended its grubby fingers into private life and intimate relations, such as child care, medical visitation, visas and immigration, taxes, home ownership, etc.

        The correct solution to this is to get rid of those regulations. Who gets a visa to immigrate into the US shouldn’t depend on who has sex with who.

      3. It was illegal to perform a ceremony in NC without a valid state marriage licence and those tend to be a standard part of marriage even without state involvement.

  3. Why can’t the SC just swing both ways?

    1. It’s because of the briefs, of course.

      1. In Ginsburg’s case it depends…

  4. Old Man Waterfall: I am a veteran who has fought for his planet. You see this hand of mine?
    Scalia: Yes, I do.
    Old Man Waterfall: No, you don’t’Cause I lost my real hand plantin’ the flag when we took back Halley’s Comet! Yet it was worth it, so much do I love that flag. I love it even more than I love my seven wives — that’s right, I’m a polygamist. [The court “boos”.] Yet I would gladly eat a flag myself, had I not used my intestine as a rope to hoist a flag made of my own skin, if it would protect the freedoms of the proud people who salute that flag. [The court cheers.] Freedom such as polygamy. [The court “boos”.] I rest my case. …

    Myrtle Fu: By a vote of six-to-three, we find that flag eating is not protected by the Constitution.
    [The court gasps.]
    Bender: Six-to-three? I beat the spread!
    Myrtle Fu: The court orders an immediate public apology.
    Holo-Zoidberg: Apology accepted. Just don’t let it happen again.
    Hermes: She means you, you turkey of the sea!
    Holo-Zoidberg: Me? Apologise? Never! I came to this planet to learn the meaning of freedom, but I say it’s you who should get a nice lesson! So do your worst because no punishment could be worse than denying my freedom.
    Myrtle Fu: You are hereby sentenced to death.
    Holo-Zoidberg: Wait, let me finish!

    Myrtle Fu: Also, in a rare double-whammy decision, the court finds polygamy constitutional.
    [The court “boos”.]
    Old Man Waterfall: I can’t wait to tell my husband!
    [The court “boos” louder.]

  5. From the one man’s sign:

    “Don’t like gay marriage?
    Don’t get gay married”

    Witty.

    1. Yeah, it’s long been one of our arguments that gay marriage shouldn’t concern anyone other than the gays. Of course it is not true, as a certain pizza restraint in Indiana recently learned. You guys are so gullible!

      1. Restaurant. Fucking goyim.

      2. pizza restraint

        Eat your way out of bondage?

          1. Warty likes to fatten his victims before the raping

        1. Just in case this gets out of hand, the safe word is, “RFRA”

      3. Shit, the pizza place owners were forced to get gay married?

      4. Of course it is not true, as a certain pizza restraint in Indiana recently learned

        Gay marriage has nothing to do with anti-discrimination laws. If you refuse to cater a gay wedding, you likely violate state and federal anti-discrimination laws; it doesn’t matter whether that wedding results in a state-recognized marriage or not.

        I’m all for abolishing those anti-discrimination laws, provided they are also abolished for other protected classes. There is no more justification in the Constitution for anti-discrimination laws based on religion than on sexual orientation.

    2. Don’t like gay marriage?
      Don’t sell gay wedding cake.

      Whoops.

      1. I can see a number of bakeries getting out of the wedding cake business in the near future.

        1. It will sort of be like a poetic justice when that happens. You’ll have one shop in the city that will bake wedding cakes, the gay bakery.

          They’ll be a monopoly and so will charge like 5k for the simplest of cakes. Then they’ll refuse to serve straight couples and straight couples won’t be able to sue them because they’re an oppressed minority. So then the gay bakery will go out of business because they can’t sell enough cakes. So then they’ll blame it on the straight couples not buying the cakes that they refused to serve them. They’ll sue the state and win a multi million dollar settlement that the tax payers will pay for.

          Then there will be no place left to get a wedding cake. So people will have to bake their own wedding cakes. But then the state will arrest the people for baking cakes without a license.

          Isn’t government intervention really great!

          1. They’ll be a monopoly and so will charge like 5k for the simplest of cakes

            That seems to be the going rate for spoiled princess weddings as is.

        2. It seems to me that if a bakery really wanted to push it, the could put up a big sign that says “We don’t support gay marriage but we’ll bake your cake”.

          SJWs would be enraged and happy all at the same time.

          1. “we don’t support gay marriage but we’ll bake you a cake with bible verses written on it!”

            1. Or spit in it.

      2. Refusing to sell cakes for gay weddings would be considered anti-gay discrimination regardless of whether the wedding itself is recognized by the state or not.

    3. Don’t like gay marriage?

      Don’t run a print shop.

      Or a bakery.

      Or a commercial wedding chapel.

      Or a photo studio.

      Or a tour company.

      (actual examples – and these are just the cases making it onto the media’s radar)

      1. In fairness, the gays are making it much easier to go Galt.

      2. You left our pizzaria.

        1. That was a more-or-less legal boycott (unless you count the death threats).

      3. Those examples are bogus, since all those companies have to comply with anti-discrimination laws whether or not the customers are legally married or not.

        What state recognition of gay marriages will force private businesses to do is treat gay spouses like straight spouses for purposes like health insurance.

      4. I was disappointed to hear Penn Jellete actually make that argument seriously. He said that if you don’t want to bake a cake for gay weddings, then don’t open a business that bakes wedding cakes.

  6. So does the octopus predict New England over the Sea Hawks?

    1. No but I understand he has a prominent role in Wartys new tentacle porn epic!

      1. Go on…

  7. “In terms of the question ‘Who decides?’ it’s not about the court versus the states. It’s about the individual making the choice to marry and whom to marry, or the government.”

    And here I thought the question was “Who decides what definition of “marriage” will be embedded in state licensing statutes.”

    Silly me.

    1. Whichever side wins, libertarians lose.

    2. ‘Who decides?’ it’s not about the court versus the states. It’s about the individual making the choice to marry and whom to marry, or the government.”

      After which, the individual will have the full force of government to force others to recognize their individual choice.

      Does that sound like a death threat? Because that is exactly what it is.

  8. This is not about “the individual making the choice to marry and whom to marry, or the government”. People already have the right to marry whomever they please. This is entirely about whether the government is required to recognize the marriage as legitimate.

    1. Not just recognize, but also license.

      Its the latter part that bothers me…for any marriage.

  9. Lawyer Mary Bonauto, representing the gay couples in the suit, responded to the polygamy concern by mentioning all the legal disruption group marriages would raise in the courts (like who would make medical decisions, managing child custody, and how divorce would work out).

    Your rights are only rights when it is convenient for the government to recognize them.

  10. I play the devil’s advocate here, I saw this post on American Thinker by a guy nicknamed Schumtzli then I decided to quote:
    “But the National Divorce Industry will reap billions in legal fees litigating homosexual divorces.”

    1. Been discussed here many times.

      My prediction is that with gay marriage, we’re finally going to get some reform in the divorce law arena because it was previously untouchable.

      1. And it could be interesting to see who’ll be the winners and the losers when the reforms in the divorce law will come.

        1. If it goes the way I think it’s going to go, the winners will be (generally) straight men and high-earning women.

          1. The emergence of high earning women having to suffer a bit, might change things.

            1. Great case out of California in the early days of their civil unions where a high earning woman had an equitable breakup with a lower-earning woman and got retroactively hammered years after she’d moved out of the state.

              1. There’s also already been one California custody case between the divorcing halves of a lesbian couple, where the bio mom sued to remove the parental rights of the non bio mom. I think she won (she was rich).

          2. Do you think we’re stupid or something? Trust me, we’re always be screwing over our primary enemy, the White man. One of our goals with this has been to normalize “open marriages.” From the JYT:

            “New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years ? about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.”

            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01…..metro.html

            1. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years ? about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.”

              that’s why gay males will probably remain married longer with a lower divorce rate than their lesbian counterparts.

            2. I wonder what the numbers are for Bay Area heterosexual couples. It’s San Francisco, after all.

      2. You are dreaming Paul. No one is going to give a shit when the gays start getting fucked in family court. What, do you think all of the conservatives the gays are happily stomping all over right now and will soon be forcing to participate in their marriage ceremonies are going to care? Do you think the feminist and their self loathing male toadies are going to give up the pleasure of seeing husbands and fathers screwed for the benefit of women just because a few queens are angry about how things worked out in their divorce? Fat chance.

        I don’t think I am alone in saying that watching gays get totally fucked in divorce court is going to be one of the great events of schadenfreude in my lifetime. They insisted on this so much and they are so happy to fuck anyone who won’t participate. Well, I hope they get what they want good and hard.

        1. You are dreaming Paul. No one is going to give a shit when the gays start getting fucked in family court.

          ^^^ THIS!!!!!!

          Here in MA we’ve had gay divorces for years. Other than some changes to alimony (that really were in the offing well before gay marriage was decreed to be legal) nothing has changed.

          Gay marriage doesn’t change have *any* issues that don’t also face straight marriage.

          1. “Gay marriage doesn’t change have *any* issues that don’t also face straight marriage.”

            Yes it does.

            In homosexual marriage, there is not a *singular* Evil Penis to put all the blame and burden on. That makes all the judgments in heterosexual divorce easy, just point at the Penis and say “you’re fucked”.

        2. You are dreaming Paul. No one is going to give a shit when the gays start getting fucked in family court.

          I disagree. You’ve got a very politically active group, ‘new’ to marriage– which also means new to divorce, and no man to demonize, or with the inverse, no oppressed woman to protect.

          Which lesbian gets the lifetime alimony? Which gay man automatically gets custody of the children?

          Divorce law will (hopefully) become more equitable and reflect the modern realities of two independent individuals with open-ended earning opportunity.

          I don’t think I am alone in saying that watching gays get totally fucked in divorce court is going to be one of the great events of schadenfreude in my lifetime

          Already been happening in states where civil unions were recognized.

          Honestly, I have no desire to see people (gay or straight) get raked over the coals in divorce court.

          And traditionally, no one wants to touch it, because the fuck-instant someone suggests making things more equitable, it’s WAR ON WIMMENZ!

          If divorce reform comes out of gay marriage, America wins.

          1. I disagree. You’ve got a very politically active group, ‘new’ to marriage– which also means new to divorce, and no man to demonize, or with the inverse, no oppressed woman to protect.

            Sure they are Paul. And Progressives care about them just as long as supporting them helps the cause. And feminists will always be more important that gays. No way in hell are feminists going to support reforming marriage law. And no way in hell will conservatives ever work with gays on anything after this. When gays start getting fucked and look to conservative men’s rights groups for support in changing these laws, the conservatives are going to tell them to go fuck themselves. Again, no one cares. Being gay now means “being progressive”. The gays made that bed, and they are now going to have to lie in it.

          2. “Which lesbian gets the lifetime alimony?”

            You don’t just get lifetime alimony because you are a woman getting divorced. Other things have to be shown.

            For two lesbians I imagine they’d do it the usual way, they’d look to see if one of them put themselves in a bad position to do uncompensated work for the family while the other did not and ended up making a lot more.

            1. “Other things have to be shown.”

              The Penis who will pick up the tab.

          3. What you talking about? Every gay man I ever knew was married, and most of them divorced as well, sooner or later.

        3. “… watching gays get totally fucked in divorce court is going to be one of the great…”

          Phrasing John, phrasing.

          NTTAWWT

        4. It comes down to this. The state is out to fuck you over in order to get your money and more power for them. This isn’t going to change that one bit. The gay couples will get fucked just as hard as the straight couples and nothing will change.

          This is the real progderp in progderp. The fact that the progs think after they have given the state total power that they are not going to be fucked over as much as that redneck conservative out there in fly over land. Useful idiots are useful.

        5. Most gay men don’t seem to actually get married once it is legally available. I don’t think they are going to end up getting married at the same rate that straight men do. Not sure about lesbians. So it’s going to be a specialized subset where you get to enjoy your schadenfreude. Might include a disproportionate share of gay politicos though, who will marry for appearance sake.

        6. I don’t think I am alone in saying that watching gays get totally fucked in divorce court is going to be one of the great events of schadenfreude in my lifetime.

          Sorry to disappoint you, but gay marriage, like straight marriage, is voluntary.

          They insisted on this so much

          Many of “them” don’t care. The ones who do do it for reasons that have nothing to do with you or your participation, or getting wedding cakes from bakeries run by dumb people, but for reasons like immigration, taxes, mortgages, healthcare, etc.

          and they are so happy to fuck anyone who won’t participate.

          Really, you don’t have to participate. In fact, I suspect most decent folks want to be as far away from you as possible.

      3. My prediction is that nothing will change except the addition of zeroes to divorce attorney bank accounts. Especially when a bunch of cohabitators find themselves common-law married or when people figure out how to get palimony.

        1. “My prediction is that nothing will change except the addition of zeroes to divorce attorney bank accounts.”

          Probably this, at least. Gays will get the joys of being milked dry by family law.

          Rule #1 – The Lawyers always win.

      4. My prediction is that with gay marriage, we’re finally going to get some reform in the divorce law arena because it was previously untouchable..

        I wish this was the case, but I don’t think it will happen. Instead of being subject to the same divorce and common law as straight people, gay marriage will have a separate but equal Gay family marriage court. They will demand that they be treated the same, only different. Just like they didn’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex, they don’t want to suffer the burden of marriage “law” either. Who would?

        1. You nailed it Marshall. Equal protection is just so fucking important until it means having to be treated like everyone else. Equal protection mean gays get treated better because they are special and cool. That is exactly what is going to happen.

          1. Silly, John. Equal doesn’t mean the same. Equal means sufficient to ensure proper social equity.

          2. Well, we do wear nicer shoes.

        2. I guess George Orwell was right on target when he mentionned in “Animal Farm” then some peoples are more equal then the others or something like that.

          1. True but don’t get whiny. I don’t get turned on when a big straight piece of beefcake gets whiny. So butch up.

            Sue the fascist pansies. Apply to go on a lesbian cruise or to a lesbian music festival and when they reject you, sue them!

            http://www.redstate.com/diary/…..sociation/

          2. that guy was a nut

        3. I wish this was the case, but I don’t think it will happen. Instead of being subject to the same divorce and common law as straight people, gay marriage will have a separate but equal Gay family marriage court.

          I had nearly the exact same thought except; if not for the LG, then certainly for the BTQWERTY.

      5. Even if divorce rate of gays was high (I’ve read articles claiming it’s high and low) wouldn’t they be littler more than a blip? (There just aren’t that many of them).

        Unless you mean the focus will simply shift to divorce laws.

        1. I’m talking about divorce laws. I’m saying nothing about divorce rates.

          My lesibian family member suggested divorce rates among lesbians would be higher, possibly lower among gay men.

          Anecdotally, she appears to have been right.

          1. Of course, but if the rate is low how much pressure could there be towards changing the laws?

            Eh, probably much higher than I imagine, I mean look at how much attention a tiny issue like gay marriage has gotten.

            1. Gay marriage is only a tiny issue in terms of numbers. Once it became a tool that the left could use to go after their enemies, then it became an enormous issue. No one on the left gives a shit about gays or gay marriage. They care about power and gays and gay marriage only insofar as it gives them power.

              1. Making divorce law reform a tool to bludgeon Republicans with in the wake of Gay Marriage seems much less powerful to me. For starters, it’ll make it almost impossible to claim sexism. Perhaps the argument will switch to one about class instead though.

                1. No it won’t Tak. They will just treats gays differently, Gay marriage will have a special set of rules that is better and more fair than straight marriage and that will be it.

                  Tak, gays are going to be a special and protected class after this decision. They are not going to be treated the same way straights are.

                  1. “They will just treats gays differently, Gay marriage will have a special set of rules that is better and more fair than straight marriage and that will be it.”

                    I’d actually prefer that, at least someone is getting fair treatment. I see the wealthier party becoming the de facto man in event of divorce.

                2. Making divorce law reform a tool to bludgeon Republicans with in the wake of Gay Marriage seems much less powerful to me.

                  Oh really? You don’t think any old white guys are going to take beatings for tricking young confused women into their patriarchal rape unions? You don’t think courts will be oh, so willing to hold said confused womens’ new lesbian unions in higher regard than the newly impoverished OWG’s heterosexual relationship when it comes to a custody battle?

                  I see plenty of room to rake Conservatives over the *exact same coals* they were raked over in the gay adoption debate.

                  1. “Oh really? You don’t think any old white guys are going to take beatings for tricking young confused women into their patriarchal rape unions? You don’t think courts will be oh, so willing to hold said confused womens’ new lesbian unions in higher regard than the newly impoverished OWG’s heterosexual relationship when it comes to a custody battle?”

                    Unless you can condense that torture into a witty t-shirt, no. At least, not to the extent that Gay Marriage has been.

                    I think there are other low hanging fruit for the left to pick here first.

                    1. Unless you can condense that torture into a witty t-shirt, no.

                      Does it have to be a t-shirt or can it be something more mattress-like?

                    2. I was expecting you’d have come up with the witty zinger. Ah well, there’s still time.

                3. And I see more room to rake Republicans/OWGs over the same custody/family coals that they’ve been raked over for decades already.

          2. A huge percentage of gay male marriages is going to be people doing it for property transfer or senior care or hospitalization.

            More gals will do it when they decide to become mommies.

            So I could believe a lot of older daddies marrying their final young heir won’t have time to divorce.

            (Of course there are lots of other people who don’t fit these categories, but…)

            1. That won’t matter Bruce, thanks to Palimony and common law marriage, the courts will just declare them married and screw them anyway.

        2. Trust me there is no gay folks. It’s a hoax, like a lot of bad jokes that gets carried away with themselves and runs off in the woods to breed SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS A LIE.

      6. The right-thinkers inflicted a blow on marriage with no-fault divorce, and they’re following up on this by inflicting SSM on the country.

        Do you think this new aggression will get the right-thinkers to reconsider their previous aggressions?

        1. Do you think this new aggression will get the right-thinkers to reconsider their previous aggressions?

          The correct solution from a libertarian perspective is not to haggle over which kind of intimate relationships should be rewarded by special governmental privileges, but to abolish such government interference in private lives altogether. Maybe recognition of SSM by the government will finally drive this point home to religious conservatives and bring them over to the side of liberty.

    2. More on the table, I saw this politically incorrect video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4jWXaTxW5s with a Youtube poster nicknamed Lorenzo Benito posted the following then I also quoted:
      “Gay marriage will lead to Gay Divorce, and that might help to introduce some sanity into Family Courts.
      Right now, the algorithm used by Divorce Court judges to adjudicate is something along the lines of “The spouse with the penis loses everything, and the spouse with the vagina gets everything”. That’s as far as most judges think it through.

      If a gay couple are getting divorced, this simple system does not work, so the judges will, for the first time in decades, be forced to think about what they are doing. Having to think will be a huge shock for them at first, but, who knows? Maybe they’ll develop a taste for it and they will continue to think about their rulings even when heterosexual couples are getting divorced.”

      Looks like a big Pandora’s box called unwritted law of unintended consequences coming….

      1. naw, they’ll create a pipeline from the male divorcees to the female divorcees by pairing up couples to route the money and children.

      2. At best that means they will just create a special system to ensures gays will get treated better than straights. It will not result in any relief for straight couples. You may be right that things will be different for gays. But that will only be because gays are a special class entitled to special and preferential treatment over the loathsome straights.

        1. I cannot deny this. That would be truly awful. But they’d have to have the balls to do it in the light of day.

          1. You better believe they will do it. And sure it would be awful. But hey, we have gay marriage and that is worth bearing any burden and is the most important civil rights issue since slavery.

        2. Your ‘butthurt’ is hilarious. I don’t see gays, for the most part, asking for anything that isn’t already extended to the very groups opposing them.

          1. That’s not really the question here. The question is, will they accept the things that will be forced on them when they get divorced?

            I suspect not, and hope that as a result, badly needed legal reforms will happen.

            1. You don’t understand Paul, Bo thinks them getting special treatment is a good thing.

            2. Paul, I think your view of how family law works is a bit incorrect. When a divorce happens women don’t automatically get alimony or custody of children. The court takes into account lots of things, and should just do the same if you had two women or two men involved.

              1. How much experience do you have in family court? In my experience, they find a dick to smash. What happens when they have 2 to choose from? Or none at all?

                1. Well, men are usually the one in the family who do the career and women are usually the one that forgoes certain opportunities to do unrenumerated work for the family, so yes women get things like alimony (and custody, since they can show more involvement in the children). But it’s certainly not automatic that women get alimony or custody.

              2. Bo, you’re reading me the chamber of commerce extract from family law. The actual results are often quite horrible. Especially with child custody. Any divorce lawyer will tell you custody universally favors the woman.

                No fault community property states are better on the money side. By “better” one side gets screwed over in a very straight forward procedural way.

                1. Paul, I think the ‘actual results’ are a bit mythologized. I know more than a few divorces where equal custody and support was the result.

                  And to the extent custody decisions favor women, it’s more likely due to socially conservative norms about how women are the more natural and better homemakers than anything else.

                2. Paul.|4.28.15 @ 3:26PM|#

                  Bo, you’re reading me the chamber of commerce extract from family law.The actual results are often quite horrible. . ”

                  Isn’t that normally the case when a law “stundent” explains the law vs. when a lawyer explains the way the legal system works ?

          2. Of course it is hilarious Bo. If I were you I would be laughing too. I doubt there has been a news story since Obama getting elected that made you happier than watching that bakery get sued out of business.

            The gays are going to effectively make it impossible for the evil SOCONs to own a business. You don’t have to tell me how happy that makes you. This is what you have always wanted and the entire point of your support for gay marriage.

            Go ahead gloat dude. You should be gloating. You are watching people you get get stomped in the face. I would expect nothing less from you.

            1. You’re ridiculous. There isn’t an anti-discrimination statute that doesn’t cover religion that does cover sexual orientation John. SoCons and religous people in general have been fine with that first part since their inception.

              1. I know Bo, it just kills you to have to see those evil SOCONs get run out of business. What a shame.

                Whatever dude. You post every single day about how much you hate them because you care so much and are so unhappy to see gay marriage used as a weapon to criminalize their beliefs.

                1. You just repeat the same nonsense throughout, never replying to the substance of any disagreement.

                  I have never said I hate SoCons, in fact I’ve said many times that I love quite a few SoCons in my personal life and that even the ones I disagree that’s just that: disagreement.

                  You’re projecting your rabid hatred of those you disagree with onto me. If you have any post where I say I hate a SoCon, provide it or shut your lying mouth.

                  1. I know right? John is one of the most hate-filled prejudicial assholes in this place, and that is quite an accomplishment. The nerve, really.

                2. I know Bo, it just kills you to have to see those evil SOCONs get run out of business.

                  Doesn’t kill me. What makes the SOCONs evil is not their social conservatism, but their hypocrisy: they want to be treated as a special protected class based on their religion, while discriminating against others. Hopefully, having these rules imposed on them will get them to see the light; if not, well, too bad.

              2. Religion gets a pass, every time, meanwhilst the gay Man gets it in the ass.

          3. You obviously ain’t looking at John’s gays.

  11. Civil rights, the only ones that matter. Fuck human rights.

    1. I thought they were the same.

      1. They should be. In a perfect world they would be. But it’s not hard these days to see the difference between the rights the government gives us and the rights we have as people.

        1. I see your point. But I would switch the definitions. Human rights are the natural rights and civil rights the ones the government grants/acknowledges.

          1. Yes, that’s how I meant it. I suppose it’s my turn to claim sarcasm fail.

            1. I did not catch the sarcasm. I did assume that you meant what you meant and that we agree.

        2. What about “rights”? Seems like it’s one of those terms that becomes its own opposite whenever you put a modifier to it. Like “justice”. That’s another one.

  12. Justice Anthony Kennedy, long described as a swing vote on gay issues,

    So, you’re basically saying that he goes both ways.

    1. I bet if he goes any ways it’s only the one.

  13. Justices Mostly Show Their Cards on Gay Marriage.

    You know, this conjures up a vision of Match Game in my head:

    Gene Rayburn: “Gay Martha was so gay [Audience: How gay was she?], that she got blanked.”

    Solicitor General: Gene, call me crazy, but I’m going to say “married.”

    1. Hah! He should have picked Charlie Cox! Charlie Cox would KNOW what Gay Martha would do….

    2. I love Match Game. Can Charles Nelson Riley be the Solicitor General?

      Did you know that Gene Rayburn invented the long, skinny microphone?

      1. The greatest possible game show. It’s the Platonic form of the game show. And Almanian!, you always pick Richard Dawson. Randi should’ve given him a million bucks.

  14. Seems to me that either states have to recognize marriages from other states or they don’t, regardless of the gayness of any particular marriage. And picking and choosing which marriages to recognize from another state seems like a violation of full faith and credit.

    As to the other question, I don’t think there is a right to marriage at all. States could abolish marriage licensing altogether and that would be no problem. But if they do recognize marriages legally, then equal protection of the law should mean that they recognize all marriages. Including polygamous and incestuous relationships among consenting adults.

    1. Not really. States have a right to not recognize contracts and marriages that are against their public policy. The question is whether gay marriages are within the scope of that power.

      1. Admittedly, I am far from being particularly knowledgeable on the full faith and credit clause. Is there any precedent that you know of, before gay marriage became an issue, of states refusing to recognize marriages from other states?

      2. States have a right to not recognize contracts

        What part of “states shall make no law impairing the obligation of contracts” (Article I, Section 10 gently paraphrased) is so hard for the courts to understand?

        1. I don’t write the law, I just read it. And states do not have to recognize contracts which they find against public policy.

          1. Technically speaking, you are interpreting an illegal act that the authorities allow to occur. States “don’t have to recognize” contracts because the courts have let them get away with it. The Constitution makes no exceptions for “public policy”.

      3. States have a right to not recognize contracts and marriages that are against their public policy.

        Nonsense. States can’t arbitrarily decide not to honor legal contracts because it doesn’t fit their “public policy”.

        Really, except for your obsession with religion, you argue like a progressive.

    2. Does California have to recognize my CC permit from Georgia?

      1. Yes, they can’t arrest you for carrying in Georgia. But your CC permit from Georgia doesn’t give you the legal right to carry in California.

        /devil’s advocate

        1. I think that was the point.

      2. I have my doubts as to whether requiring a permit is constitutional at all. Certainly not in the restrictive way CA does it.

        So I guess the answer is yes, that is how it should be.

        1. Constitutional’s got nothin’ to do with it.

    3. I hope they do decide that FF&C applies. And then I hope someone has the balls to challenge New York on their retarded anti-freedom gun laws because of it.

    4. I believe the constitution gives Congress the authority to limit the extent of full faith and credit recognition, which it did with the section of the fefetal DOMA which still.stands.

    5. One can argue that there’s a philosophical disjunction of sufficient harshness between someone who considers gay marriage to be a meaningful expression describing a subset of “marriage” and someone who can’t make sense of it without replacing the conventional meanings of common words that a state rejecting gay marriages may not be dishonouring another state by unrecognising its gay marriages because for the rejecting state the concept is logical nonsense, a meaningless farce. It’d be like if all the states treated 2 + 2 as legally being five and one started admitting sometimes maybe it’s four. The others could reject contracts made under that proposition since according to accepted constants it were nonsense. It’s no longer a matter of a complex legal dispute but gets elevated to a sort of simple philosophical ripture. Th’only thing for that is to start burning witches and black cats and the steak again.

  15. I like how quickly the plaintiffs abandoned the consenting adults should make the decision stance when confronted with the polygamy scenario “by mentioning all the legal disruption group marriages would raise in the courts.”

    Uhhh…maybe that’s an indicator that the government shouldn’t be in this business at all. If you an dissolve a business partnership, you can find a way to dissolve a group marriage. And both would be simpler if the state stayed the fuck out of it.

    1. You can’t force me to recognize your business partnership. The entire point of this farce is to use government to force people to accept gays. So, no we won’t be getting the government out of marriage any time soon. In fact, gay marriage, by increasing the number and kinds of relationship brought under the scope of the law, puts us further away from that goal.

      1. We should just keep government subsidizing your preferred form of unions.

        1. When that “subsidy” involves the government forcing people to recognize it, yes we should. It is hard for someone like you to understand but for most of us on here less government coercion is better.

          1. The government has been forcing people to recognize straight marriages forever John. You’re just upset because now gays are asking for the same thing bestowed on straight couples for a loooong time.

            1. Yes. And if you don’t like that the solution is to stop the government from doing that, not expand the number of relationships it can do it for,

              But you love force. This is going to be the greatest expansion of government coercion you have seen in your lifetime. We are going to see the end of free religious expression in this country. Come on Bo, don’t hide your euphoria. Don’t let us prevent you from enjoying the moment you have spent your entire life dreaming of.

              1. You’re just ridiculous.

                Look at my comment below where I said one of the upshots of this whole situation is for the first time people are questioning anti-discrimination laws.

                You’re so butthurt that gays are going to get the same government benefits as people like you have always had it’s funny.

                1. You see, there’s lots of government services that I don’t think the government should do. But once they do them I don’t think it can treat people unequally in providing them.

                  Do you think we should have kept segregated schools because desgregating them meant we had to spend more overall in schooling (since the black schools were woefully underfunded relative to the white ones)?

              2. It’s too late, John. They already have turned forcing folks to recognise the heterosexual marriage into forcing folks to recognise the heterosexual “Marriage”, which is to say, they turned marriage into a complete farce and a sad one and forces people to recognise that, thereby making “marriage” into nonsense. They already stuck that ax in the neck over fifteen times. If anything, the gay marriage is an improvement. It makes it flipping obvious. It ain’t about the government forcing somebody to recognise anything. It’s about forcing people to pretend. And Satan is the force father of pretending.

            2. The government forces gay bakers who hate breeders to cater their weddings?

              1. Pish. Of course not. This isn’t about equality any more. Its about privileges, double standards, putting your boot into people you hate.

                1. What’s the double standard RC? Can you point to any law under which it is illegal to refuse service based on sexual orientation where it would also not be illegal to refuse service to a Mormon or a Pentacostal?

                  1. In fact, it’s even better than that. Being married itself (marital status) is a protected class in most of these laws! So, these laws have for decades protected straight married couples.

                  2. What’s the double standard RC?

                    In the enforcement, of course. Even when “anti-discrimination” laws are facially neutral, they are always enforced in non-neutral ways.

                    Its generally very controversial when they are invoked to protect whites, males, or Christians against discrimination.

                  3. But what you going to do when that Mormonite Pentecostal come in some place he just don’t belong? then it turns into nonsense to say he ought to get equal treatment, because he’s a some kind of other thing in that situation.

              2. If you refused to bake a cake for a Catholic, or a Southern Baptist, you’ve run afoul of every law that also protects gays from the same.

                1. If you refused to bake a cake for a Catholic, or a Southern Baptist, you’ve run afoul of every law that also protects gays from the same.

                  Yes. Still doesn’t make those laws right. People do have the right to be intolerant assholes and thoughtcrime is a dangerous path.

                  1. The laws, like most laws, I oppose. But I’m suspicious of people who just started opposing them when they started to include icky gay people.

            3. The government has been forcing people to recognize straight marriages forever John.

              I hear that it’s been recognized for millenia.

        2. No, we should privilege unions that people *don’t* prefer!

      2. The entire point of this farce is to use government to force people to accept gays.

        That may well be the point for some people, but it is far from the entire point. Stop saying that everyone who thinks gay marriage is a good thing necessarily supports everything that any other gay marriage proponent says. It’s just ridiculous.

        Government getting out of marriage is about as likely to happen in our lifetimes as heroin being sold over the counter at the corner 7-11. If gay marriage is moving us farther from that goal, the distance is so small as to be unmeasurable.

        In a few years this will all die down and people will wonder what the big deal was. The only reason why people are hassling pizza restaurants and flower arrangers is for political stunts. After this is all settled no one is going to give a shit. The few people who still think that gayness is some kind of horrible sin will quietly do their thing and no one will care.

        1. Zeb,

          You are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of the policies you support. Just because you don’t like them, doesn’t mean you are not responsible for them. It just means that you think they are less important than whatever good you see as coming from the policy. Gay marriage comes with these negative side effects. It shouldn’t but it does. So if you support gay marriage, you are at a minimum willing to live with those side effects to get the good you see coming from gay marriage.

          1. The thing that you miss is that I don’t support any of the specific policies being implemented now. How many times do I have to explain this. I am simply saying what I think about what is happening and about what the law says. I’m not arguing the case in front of the court. I’m not an activist. I have no responsibility for any of it. Nothing that I have ever done will have any effect on the outcome of this case.
            I have no choice but to live with the side effects. Whether I am willing to accept them or not is completely irrelevant. In the sense that I am not going to kill myself over it, yes I am willing to live with the effects. And so are you.
            I have no idea if any good will come of gay marriage. That’s not the point to me. The only point is that equal protection requires that similarly situated couples should be treated similarly. If it works out badly, it wasn’t my idea to deal with it the way it is being dealt with.

            Anyway, why the fuck am I still arguing with you about this. I said I was bored and over it and I should stick with that.

            1. If you don’t zeb, good for a you. A lot of people on here do and try and pretend the foreseeable effects don’t matter. They do.

        2. Government getting out of marriage is about as likely to happen in our lifetimes as heroin being sold over the counter at the corner 7-11.

          So Oklahoma is considering passing a medical heroin law?

          /bad analogy, but best I could do.

          1. Oklahoma’s move was a good one in the right direction. But they haven’t really gotten government out of marriage, only slightly lessened the involvement of some officials. If I am remembering correctly.

            1. Yes, hence my analogy. Medical heroin is a move in the right direction but isnt the same as making it OTC.

              1. My point being, getting government out of marriage is much further down the path than OTC heroin. You called them equal, I see a big difference.

      3. The entire point of this farce is to use government to force people to accept gays.

        Nobody cares who you, or the bumfuck “Christian” church you are a member of, or some Hicksville pizza parlor, “accepts”. The gay marriage issue is primarily about the mess of regulations and laws that apply to people who happen to live together closely and need to be able to deal with issues like taxes, immigration, medical care, and inheritance.

        In fact, gay marriage, by increasing the number and kinds of relationship brought under the scope of the law, puts us further away from that goal.

        Oh, but politically, it may well put us closer to the goal of getting government out of marriage: social conservatives created a lot of these nanny state laws, and now that they are backfiring, maybe they’ll join libertarians in getting rid of them.

    2. Here I was trying to get some discussion on why group marriage should be considered illegal and John and Bo continue their aggressive swordfight from other threads. It’s like an H&R version of the fight scene between Hayden Christensen and Sammy L in Jumper.

  16. In a roundabout fashion, this essentially also legalizes gay marriage, because gay couples could just go to another state for the ceremony.

    Tell that to Alaskans.

    1. Can you get married through the mail? I suppose there is nothing to stop you if you find an officiant willing to bend the rules a bit.

      1. Legally no, technically, yes if everyone involved is willing to fib.

        1. That’s what I was suggesting. All that really needs to happen (at least in my state) is that the form gets signed by the parties to the marriage and the officiant who then files it with the county registrar. I think that technically you are supposed to all be in the same room and say some magic words, but there is no way for anyone not involved to verify that that happened after the fact.

      2. Maybe? But seems unlikely. Witnesses, notaries, etc.

        Perhaps some sympathetic state would allow it, though.

      3. Get your marriage license online in three easy steps!

  17. I think it’s working out great.

    On the one hand, the government’s unequal treatment to subsidize its preferred form of unions could be coming to an end.

    And as that’s happening, it’s causing a groundswell among SoCons who’ve long been protected by and fine with anti-associational laws to start questioning and opposing them.

    1. You’re saying there is an anti-association law that protects social conservatives? I assure you we would never have allowed that to pass.

      1. Again, there is no anti-discrimination law that covers sexual orientation but does not cover religion as well.

        1. But that’s not some necessary feature of such laws; most anti-discrimination laws, like federal “fair housing” laws, include religion, bot not sexual orientation.

          1. And that’s being changed: sexual orientation is effectively being added wherever religion already was a protected class. SJWs think this is progress. But it can’t work because there are going to be increasing conflicts between the demands of various protected groups. From a libertarian point of view, on the other hand, we can hope that these conflicts will cause the whole edifice to come crashing down.

      2. You’re saying there is an anti-association law that protects social conservatives?

        Sure, plenty of them, including the original CRA. It’s illegal in many transactions between private parties to discriminate based on religion.

    2. Bo that is likely the dumbest fucking thing you have ever posted on here. It is so stupid you can’t even call it wrong. Wrong would at least some sense.

      Just drop the mask and enjoy the fact that SOCONs all over America are about to be run out of business and public life. The next couple of years are likely to be the happiest you will ever have.

      1. John, not all religious conservatives think its their God charged duty to not do business with gay persons.

        But more importantly, do you deny that for the first time that we can remember we’ve got serious questioning of anti-discrimination laws out of this?

        1. “And as that’s happening, it’s causing a groundswell among SoCons who’ve long been protected by and fine with anti-associational laws to start questioning and opposing them.”

          Maybe we should start torturing Christians for their religious beliefs, too?

          Then we’d really see some support for the First Amendment!

          Nah, I agree with John. That’s about the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen Bo write.

          1. These anti-discrimination laws were being enforced every day before any gay person asked to be covered by them, Ken.

            1. Suggesting that injustice is good because it makes people value justice is absurd and stupid.

              1. So, for example, if a person who has advocated higher tax rates for others suddenly finds them applicable to himself and then discovers he opposes higher tax rates?

                1. “So, for example, if a person who has advocated higher tax rates for others suddenly finds them applicable to himself and then discovers he opposes higher tax rates?”

                  No, I do not advocate higher taxation so that we can lower taxation.

                  I wouldn’t advocate Jim Crow to get rid of segregation or a holocaust to get rid of antisemitism either.

                  I do not advocate injustice to get rid of injustice.

                  I never advocate injustice, and using the government to violate people’s rights is the definition of injustice.

                  I don’t even advocate injustice against people I despise. If I wouldn’t advocate injustice against the Klan, why would I advocate injustice against the Klan’s victims?

                  So that they’ll learn to value justice?

                  Calling that stupid is giving you the benefit of the doubt.

                  Otherwise, what you’re saying is evil. Advocating injustice? As a good thing over the long term? That’s morally depraved thinking. You should hope people think you’re just being stupid instead.

                  1. The injustice was there the whole time Ken.

                    So you think that enforcing drug laws in the suburbs with the same vigor they are enforced in the hood, resulting in a groundswell of opinion against said laws from groups that before supported them, would be an evil thing?

                    1. “The injustice was there the whole time Ken.”

                      So what?

                      You want to spread the injustice out to more people now so that there will be less injustice?

                      That doesn’t even make sense, and that isn’t even the worst of it.

                      You think people typically respond to injustice perpetrated against them by embracing justice?

                      More stupidity, more injustice, and more stupid injustice, that’s what you’re going to get.

                    2. You want to spread the injustice out to more people now so that there will be less injustice?

                      You talk as if the people involved were passive bystanders, but they are not. There are two primary groups here: conservative Christians and homosexuals. The conservative Christian position is that they want their status as a legally protected class to continue while denying the same status to homosexuals (backed up by all sorts of rationalizations why this is good for society as a whole). While the optimal solution would be to have no protected groups, if you insist on having some protected groups (e.g. religions), adding more doesn’t necessarily increase injustice.

                      But I think the whole issue is a tempest in a teapot anyway. The practical consequences of gay marriage and anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals are nearly non-existent (and I have no personal stake in the matter anyway). The fact that it annoys the hell out of conservative Christians may be the best thing about it because it finally gets those morons to question their assumptions about state power.

            2. When’s the last time there was a legitimate discrimination case brought by a Christian? I mean, someone being actually denied service or a benefit solely because they are Christian?

              1. The Supreme Court just heard a case regarding a Muslim woman who was not hired by Abercromie and Fitch supposedly because of her religion. Of course Christians are covered under the same law. Religious discriminations suits are not uncommon, they just don’t make much news usually because everyone has been fine with religious protections since these laws were created.

                1. For Designate
                  http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB…..2921346076

                  1. Thanks.

                    1. After reading the little bit of the article not behind a pay wall, I have to say that businesses should be able to discriminate however the hell they want so filing complaints against them, for whatever reason, is kinda asinine (also, that’s not really the same thing seeing as how it’s not the government doing the discriminating).

                      Seeing as there are millions of lawsuits filed every day, it’s probably not unreasonable that someone would be suing the gov for religious discrimination, I just think that would probably get more play.

                    2. Seeing as there are millions of lawsuits filed every day, it’s probably not unreasonable that someone would be suing the gov for religious discrimination, I just think that would probably get more play.

                      Discrimination by government is something entirely different from anti-discrimination law that infringe on freedom of association by private citizens.

        2. We weren’t reading questioning of anti-discrimination laws here at reason.com

          Because libertarians are “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.” See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

          1. What are you talking about? Anti-discrimination laws have been discussed in articles here on multiple occasions. I’d even go find links if I wasn’t such a lazy ass.

        3. Yes Bo, the ones who buck up and do what they are told will be just fine. Those that don’t, however, will be run out of public life. There is no way under current law that a church is going to be able to refuse to perform a gay marriage after this anymore than they could refuse to do a interracial marriage.

          As soon as this decision comes down, the lawsuits over tax status and gay marriage will start. And progressive judges will quickly tell any church that won’t perform a gay marriage, it loses its status as a church under the law and better start paying taxes.

          Any church group that doesn’t won’t accept gay spouses will be sued as well. Withing a couple of years it will be effectively illegal for anyone to have a group, church or organization of any kind, short of the most private and secretive one, that doesn’t allow gays and recognize their marriages.

          That has always been the end game of gay marriage. And I can’t see anything about t hat result that shouldn’t please you and make you wildly happy.

          1. Everything you’ve described there can be said of protection of religion. So where was your outcry about that John? I guess you’re just happy with people being forced to serve people even if they don’t want to based on their religion.

            1. Really? A Protestant church has been sued for refusing to marry Orthodox Jews? A Mosque has been sued for refusing to allow its premises to be used for Satanic rituals?

              I missed those cases.

          2. I will bet you that churches will not be forced to perform gay marriages. Not going to happen.

            Time will tell, of course. I could be wrong. But your absolute certainty about these things is starting to sound awfully paranoid and conspiracy-theory-ish. There are other players here besides the over the top activists.

            1. There are other players here besides the over the top activists.

              I remember Jessie Jackson’s comments off-mic; uttering about cutting Obama’s balls off.

              Sure, people will tire of the bombastic theatrics of the gay rights movements leaders(?)… and we’ll end up with the Unprecedented First Openly Gay Married Quee r (as distinct from LGBT…) President of the United States.

              It’ll be like England except ignoring the royalty will be a ticketable offense.

            2. I bet they will be. I can’t see how it could work out any other way.

              1. Well, if you and I and H&R still exist in 2 or 3 years, lets take a look back.

          3. John,
            WIH makes you think that the asshole known as Bo is going to be different this time? The slimy bastard is both stupid and mendacious; he’s not capable of presenting an honest argument.

          4. There is no way under current law that a church is going to be able to refuse to perform a gay marriage after this anymore than they could refuse to do a interracial marriage.

            Your church can refuse to marry interracial couples (a few do), just as they can refuse to marry Lutherans and homosexuals.

            Withing a couple of years it will be effectively illegal for anyone to have a group, church or organization of any kind, short of the most private and secretive one, that doesn’t allow gays and recognize their marriages.

            No more and no less than gay or atheist organizations can’t exclude you based on your religious beliefs.

            And I can’t see anything about t hat result that shouldn’t please you and make you wildly happy.

            In terms of libertarian principles, I would prefer if nobody was compelled to associate with people they don’t want to associate with, but you obviously don’t share those beliefs. In terms of religion, my church has no problem with gay couples, so I have little sympathy for your church if it does.

            So, given that you neither believe in liberty and equality under the law, nor share they moral or religious views of many others, on what grounds to you have any expectation that people would be sympathetic of your viewpoint?

        4. John, not all religious conservatives think its their God charged duty to not do business with gay persons.

          Belief in God not required; sitting in the same room as Ted Cruz is sufficient.

    3. I’m not sure what you mean by subsidize.

      1. I think he’s referring to the higher taxes extracted from married couples.

        Hey, if “marriage” can be redefined by judicial fiat, why not “subsidy”?

        1. Single income married couples and many dual income couples receive a marriage bonus. That was how the tax system was originally intended to work. Because that’s the default, it’s not talked about much. In addition, couples have the option of filing separately.

      2. There was a massive governmental complex of laws that backed straight unions under the title marriage. First, there were criminal penalties for any other types of unions (cohabitation, polygamy/bigamy) and for behavior outside these unions (adultery, sodomy). Then, there are a complex of rights and benefits granted to couples recognized as married. Interestingly the SoCons fighting gay marriage not only recognize this, it’s the cornerstone of their arguments, namely that straight unions are a social good that governments have been and continue to rightly support, and that recognizing gay unions would undercut this special treatment of straight ones.

        1. Still looking for that subsidy. Words have meanings, you know.

          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy

          1. You like “privilege” better?

  18. “Signaling from the Supreme Court: Justices Mostly Show Their Cards on Gay Marriage”

    Signaling…

    Is that like when they wear different colored bandanas so that people know what they’re into?

    1. Signaling is when Justice Thomas places a pubic hair on your coke.

      It means he likes you.

      1. What’s it called when you ask for a letter of recommendation from the person who alledgedly put said pubic hairs on your coke several years after the incident? And then only mention the incident because your career stalled and you want some left wing girl power magic to get it started again? I call the Anita Hill but maybe its signalling too.

        Of course for Bobarian blacks are always just a second away from sexual assaulting anyone they come in contact with.

  19. What’s the over/under on comments for this thread?

      1. Of course you would be the one to give me a number. Probably already did an actuarial study on it.

    1. *reads Switzy’s guess*

      Hmm. I’ll say… 320.

      /Price is Right

      1. $1 Bob.

  20. Lawyer Mary Bonauto, representing the gay couples in the suit, responded to the polygamy concern by mentioning all the legal disruption group marriages would raise in the courts (like who would make medical decisions, managing child custody, and how divorce would work out).

    I honestly don’t see what’s so fargin’ hard about this.

    A child born to a multiple marriage will be the child of all members of the marriage as of the date of the marriage. Kinda like now.

    Every person who a parent of the child for legal purposes will have an equal right to make medical decisions. Kinda like now (technically, although it is appalling how the working assumption is that the mother has the sole right to make medical decisions).

    In a divorce, property division would be done to provide the departing member their pro rata share of community property. Kinda like now, although we will be challenging our courts to divide by numbers greater than two. If there’s any complication, this is where it will show up, but I can assure you we have centuries of experience with dissolving partnerships of various sizes, so I’m sure we can manage.

    1. Correction:

      A child born to a multiple marriage will be the child of all members of the marriage as of the date of the marriage delivery.

    2. I don’t see why they wouldn’t just use the same flawed standards they use when establishing custody now.

      This will only become a problem when there’s a dispute, and when there is a dispute, a judge will figure out who the primary caregiver is, what’s in the best interests of the child, etc.–in the same flawed way they always do–and then the judge will make a ruling.

      Custody doesn’t always follow paternity; sometimes children go to the grandparents or uncles and aunts. Sometimes there’s a big group of potential guardians from which the judge can choose.

      Same as it ever was.

      1. Same as it ever was.

        Except that with polygamy, even if the judge fucks up. You’ve got n-1 caregivers waiting in the wings.

        So unless the kid is born into Jim Jones’ Rainbow Family (in which case he was screwed anyway), the odds of an “successful” rearing imrpove.

    3. Polygamy is icky. And equal protection doesn’t protect icky.

      1. Until it’s not seen as icky by those who count.

    4. Shorter version:

      Whatever your fucking contract says.

  21. “Bonauto ended her arguments with a very libertarian position”

    Wait, she doesn’t want to win?!

  22. Alright, this is fucking boring.

    Gay marriage is a thing now. Like it or not. It’s over. The best thing to do is forget it was ever an issue.

    Time to move on to whether human/ape marriages are a natural right.

  23. Members of our own Supreme Court toyed with such tired issues as the slippery-slope polygamy bullshit, the notion that priests might be forced to perform gay weddings, and the lie that marriage has been essentially unchanged for millenia. I can’t decide if they’re idiots living on another planet, or if maybe I’ve been wrong and these are serious questions worthy of consideration. After all, members of the Supreme Court uttered them.

    1. and the lie that marriage has been essentially unchanged for millenia.

      Bo tells us you’re wrong. Government has been forcing people to recognize straight marriages “forever”.

      1. Which is why I think maybe I’m the one on another planet. These guys who got the vapors over the idea that we might compare our legal precedents to those of foreign countries are suddenly talking about how the norms of Ancient Greece should be relevant to US constitutional law?

    2. This is the perfect red-blue issue. It involves literally nothing but fucking with the other side now. Whatever actual principles ever existed are long gone.

      The only authority on what constitutes a marriage are the people involved. Husband, wife, two husbands, eight wives, whatever. The idea that the courts or the legislatures get to dictate the terms of human interaction should never have been on the table. But now it is, and voila! The Marxists and the reactionaries can duke it out for who gets to put everyone under their heel.

      1. The fact that government recognizes marriage needs to be at the same place in the libertarian grievance list as it always has been (as in, very far down), don’t you think? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to suddenly move it to the top 10 now that gays want the same rights as straights. I’m sure you agree.

        I think marriage is dumb, have no intention of participating in it, and even think gay culture will be harmed by it. But the issue isn’t, of course, whether marriage should exist. That’s not the issue at all.

        1. I think marriage is dumb, have no intention of participating in it, and even think gay culture will be harmed by it. But the issue isn’t, of course, whether marriage should exist. That’s not the issue at all.

          No, the issue is you’re a disingenuous liar who wants to use the government to fuck with his opponents. I’m well aware of what the real issue is, and your words and actions have proved that case amply.

          1. I just think that the US government and the governments of the 50 states are constitutionally required to recognize gay and straight people as equal citizens, and also that it’s a good idea.

        2. If you weren’t a disingenuous asshat you’d acknowledge the fact that it hasn’t moved up the list for most anyone that regularly posts here.

    3. toyed with such tired issues as the slippery-slope polygamy bullshit,

      There is no principled argument for gay marriage that doesn’t apply equally to polygamy. I guess if you’re Toney, principled arguments are bullshit, though.

      the notion that priests might be forced to perform gay weddings

      Actually, that one I’m not worried about. The unconstitutional establishment of religion that our government engages in will prevent the unconstitutional infringement on the free exercise clause. Win?

      lie that marriage has been essentially unchanged for millennia

      Do tell us about the official recognition of gay and plural marriages throughout Western society, or. hell, any society, since, well, ever.

      1. There is no principled argument for gay marriage that doesn’t apply equally to polygamy

        Maybe, maybe not. I could come up with ways that the situations are quite different, but I don’t really feel the need as it’s entirely irrelevant to the issue. Let polygamists have their day in court. I have no problem with that. I just don’t see why gays should have to do their work for them.

        Do tell us about the official recognition of gay and plural marriages throughout Western society, or. hell, any society, since, well, ever.

        I’d suggest that, unquestionably, plural marriages have been more common in human history than a 21st century Western conception of marriage between two equal partners. This is bullshit kiddie stuff. It doesn’t matter what the institution or the right is. It would be unconstitutional to deny gay people a basic right that all straight people enjoy, whether it’s marriage or freedom of religion or a right to own property. It’s all about equality under the law, and it’s baffling why you people just can’t bring yourself to appreciate that. In what conceivable way does it fuck with your life in even the tiniest amount? Or are you just a bunch of standard-issue redneck assholes whose main motivation in life is fear of people who are different, dressed up in the pseudointellectual costume of libertarianism?

        1. Your prejudice is showing.

          Those illegitimate rednecks who you’d like to track down and put in re-education camps when they don’t want to rent you their basement apartment or cater your events.

          1. My knowledge of polls is showing. Libertarians are basically Republicans, full stop. Occasionally you will spot the unicorn in the wild, the libertarian who is not a closed-minded idiot when it comes to the rights of minorities (or who believes in science for that matter).

            1. Libertarians are basically Republicans, full stop.

              Maybe if you stopped being a communist, you would recognize how ridiculously stupid this sounds. Some of the most heated arguments I have had, and some of the longest and least productive arguments played out on this forum, have been with Republicans. Just because we don’t want to give you your pony with the rich people’s money doesn’t mean we are identical to (mainstream) Republicans.

              1. I’d say it’s a reasonable assumption that if the unicorns congregate anywhere, it might be here. But even here it doesn’t appear that the correct position on marriage equality is in the majority, and the correct position on whether science is real certainly isn’t.

                1. Let us recap: the correct position is what Tony believes, and Tony knows this is correct because his hand-picked experts say it is so. Truly, this is what wisdom looks like.

            2. Libertarians are basically Republicans, full stop.

              Careful Tony, your retard is showing.

            3. That’s hysterical. My husband is a conservative, and constantly accuses me of being a liberal on social issues like gay marriage. He doesn’t understand libertarianism either.

        2. I’d suggest that, unquestionably, plural marriages have been more common in human history

          Oh, sure. Meaning, they aren’t totally unheard of. Of course, borrowing social and legal conventions from either (a) hundreds of years ago or (b) cultures not noted for even having a conception of human rights or individual autonomy is a tricky business. But go ahead, give us what I asked for: the official recognition of plural marriage in any society, ever. Its not a null set, so lets hear it.

          But, to the extent you can point to a history of plural marriage, that just makes the slope even slipperier, doesn’t it? Wouldn’t that be a reason for recognizing plural marriage that is in addition to the reasons for recognizing gay marriage.

      2. There is no principled argument for gay marriage that doesn’t apply equally to polygamy.

        It’s a very simple argument, and in fact being made. Equal protection implies that laws should not discriminate based on gender. Government has something called “marriage” that applies to two people but discriminates based on the genders of the participants; that discrimination is abolished. Equal protection does not imply that a law dealing with groups of size two must be extended to groups of size larger than two.

  24. I believe the fix is in. Either the Supreme Court will use the Full Faith and Credit clause to impose SSM on the country, or they’ll just be shameless and use the 14th Amendment.

    1. The thing that irks me most about Roe v. Wade the more I think about isn’t the specific outcome (although it isn’t great), it’s the results-oriented process. How many times has this vaunted “right to privacy” been applied to consensual transactions? I mean, shit, if a woman and her doctor can decide to kill an embryo/fetus, then surely a man and his drug dealer can decide to exchange some illicit substances, right? A woman and her gun dealer can decide to exchange a firearm, yeah? What is it about abortion that it’s so much more “private” than any other transaction (setting aside the third, unwilling participant to same)?

      This thread isn’t about abortion (yet!) but any decision that comes down will be just as much results-oriented. The next time a contract dispute arises because of differing state laws, how strong will that “full faith and credit clause” really be?

      1. You are exactly correct Kbolino. This whole thing is totally results oriented. Gays have a right to marry but people who want to marry their children or have multiple spouses don’t because judges like gays and don’t like them. That is all there is to it.

        If the court mandated recognition of marriage was based on any real principle beyond “judges have decided gay should be able to get marriage license” it would be much less worrisome.

        1. There are real people who really object to gay relationships on principle. Whatever, I’m not going to begrudge someone his beliefs, just don’t use the government to force others to do what you want.

          But when you have people like Bo and Tony saying they’re the champions of people’s rights when it’s transparent as glass that they just like fucking with their opponents, it’s really quite difficult to believe that in the end you are going to have principles upheld and not just get the most politically expedient results instead.

          1. Gays hated the idea of gay marriage when it was first proposed. They only came around to supporting it after they realized it would allow them to screw with their enemies.

            The reality is, government marriage sucks. I would love for the government to decide tomorrow it doesn’t recognize my marriage. I can’t see a single downside to that. My wife would no longer have a claim on my retirement if we ever divorced. We would both be taxed as single people causing our tax bill to drop. All we would have to do is write up a couple of wills and medical powers of attorney for each other. That is it. Gays only wanted government recognized marriage because they figured out it would allow them to force people to accept them.

            1. The only case that makes any sense for gay marriage (as an institution in its own right) came from Andrew Sullivan. Setting aside the man’s personal foibles, it essentially boils down to ensuring there exists the “civilizing influence” of a government-backed institution. But I think libertarians have the upper hand here as it is quite evident that civilization is something people build, not something that’s forced upon them. He was hated for a long time by the gay establishment for making that case, but being hated is not proof that you are right. Nor is the “vindication” of being a useful idiot in the progressives’ side of the culture war.

              I think you made the best argument, that marriage should only matter to the government when children are involved. Otherwise, it’s just a contract issue like any other (and of course, the lack of respect for contracts is an issue until itself). But naturally that position will not be seriously evaluated because it doesn’t give anybody a political weapon to use.

              1. Thank you. And yes, that is exactly what Sullivan argued. And the gays wanted none of it. And they sure as hell don’t support gay marriage today because they think it will make them all Volvo driving soccer moms.

            2. Poor wittle Christians, why won’t anyone think about their god-given right to be assholes to minorities?

              So are you saying it was a huge mistake to get married? Fine, sorry about that. It’s irrelevant to the question of whether gays should have the exact same right as you to make that mistake.

              1. Yes Tony, you are a hate filled fanatic who revels in the oppression of anyone you don’t like. We already knew that. You don’t need to show us every single thread.

                1. I learned it from the Christians.

                  1. I learned it from the Christians.

                    Thus proving my original point that you’re an unprincipled hack who just wants to stick it to his opponents.

                    1. That sounds like a very lame excuse not to support equal rights. I just find the argument a bit amusing–that a minority group who has for centuries been utterly oppressed by Christians don’t deserve the dignity of equal rights because the overwhelmingly dominant majority religion is put-upon by the notion.

                    2. You’re not talking about rights, you’re talking about privileges, i.e. the spoils of someone else’s pocket or the boot you put on someone else’s neck.

                    3. If they’re afforded to straight people they must also be afforded to gay people. You can be against government-recognized marriage while also supporting equal rights regardless of its existence. The untenable position is to support maintenance of the unequal status quo, because you know full well that marriage is not going to be abolished any time soon.

                    4. There is no such thing as equity of injustice.

                      How many times I must repeat this, I don’t know, but maybe you’ll understand it if you stop dodging it.

                    5. There is no such thing as equity of injustice.

                      I don’t see why not. Say you think that criminalizing cannabis is unjust and unwise. And say a state government had a law that said that only black people can be arrested for possessing cannabis. Would you argue for maintaining that law while we wait for legalization? Why isn’t it possible to support removing the one government imposition while we wait on the other?

                    6. Would you argue for maintaining that law while we wait for legalization?

                      Would I argue for maintaining the law while advocating for its repeal? Did that make some kind of sense to you?

                      Was the abolitionist movement unjust because they advocated for the abolition of all forms of slavery? Should they have settled for enslaving whites, too?

                    7. In the analogy your position would be that we should not repeal laws that make it a bigger crime for black people to possess cannabis, because laws against cannabis are wrong. If that doesn’t sound like it makes sense, it’s because it doesn’t, but it’s exactly what you’re arguing here with respect to marriage.

                      Should they have settled for enslaving whites, too?

                      I can’t make this analogy work since slavery implies masters, so logically you can’t make everyone slaves. Also, marriage is something people freely enter (nowadays). As I’ve long said, you need to be petitioning all the married straights to give it up and see how far you get before you start getting bothered with gay people simply wanting the option.

                    8. You were not talking about marriage as it involves only the participants, you are talking about marriage as it involves third parties. Stop lying.

                    9. I can’t make this analogy work since slavery implies masters, so logically you can’t make everyone slaves.

                      You’re so fucking dumb. You do realize that not all blacks were slaves in 1850, right?

                    10. Gay men have always had the right to marry any female of their choosing as long as the female agreed.

                      Are you proposing that gay males should be legally allowed to marry any female whether she agrees or not ?

                      Tony how old were you when your father abandoned you ?

                      12 ?…14?…You have such a teenager”s anger against adults it shows in all your comments.

                  2. Tony|4.28.15 @ 4:40PM|#

                    I learned it from the Christians ”

                    Actually it doen’t apear tha you have learned much from anyone.

                    How old were you when your father abandoned you ?.

            3. The reality is, government marriage sucks. I would love for the government to decide tomorrow it doesn’t recognize my marriage.

              The reality is that that is not the position most real-world opponents of gay marriage take. Instead, they argue that government recognition of OSM is desirable and important for society.

              They only came around to supporting it after they realized it would allow them to screw with their enemies.

              And why not? Social conservatives are as hostile to a free society as progressives and socialists. Right now, they still delude themselves into believing they can somehow bring society over to their own point of view. If they see that the nanny state structures they support are backfiring on them, maybe they’ll come around to actually favoring smaller government.

          2. They are all for rights when it is their rights.

            As my lesbian customer told me, when she asked me about gay people in DC’s Logan Circle neighborhood (“are there any on this block?”), and I told her DC fair housing law did not allow me to discuss sexual orientation: “Oh you can tell me! That law exists to protect me!”

        2. Why is it so difficult to understand that the issue is that government doesn’t have a good reason to deny equal rights to gay people (marriage being a basic right according to US case law)? Maybe it has a good reason to deny marriage rights to incestuous couples or polygamists. Maybe it doesn’t. I don’t understand why you or Justice Alito thinks that gay people have to answer such questions before the question of their own rights is addressed.

          1. You don’t believe in rights. If you believed in rights, this wouldn’t be about what the government will or will not give people, it would be about what the government will stop interfering with.

            1. Fine, it’s about government not interfering with gay people’s right to the same thing straight people have. Why should such a principled person as yourself even care about the motivations or personalities of the participants in this debate?

              1. principles no tpricipals – unless it benefit sthem moret he other way around

              2. There is no equity of injustice. It doesn’t matter “what [privileges] straight people have”, it matters that there are even privileges to begin with. Your motivations are irrelevant to your case, but you have no intelligent or logically consistent case to begin with so all that’s left to critique are your motives.

                1. Simply arguing that the government has no basis for denying equal rights to gay people is not logically consistent? I realize it doesn’t have the intellectual breadth of the profound argument that the gay rights advocates you made up in your head are being assholes, so pththhth on them. But I do think it is fairly consistent.

                  1. I realize it doesn’t have the intellectual breadth of the profound argument that the gay rights advocates you made up in your head are being assholes

                    Mostly, it’s just you. And Bo. Did I make you up in my head? I’m not Agile Cyborg.

                    1. So I’m an asshole, therefore you can’t be for equal rights. Intellectual consistency!

                    2. So I’m an asshole, therefore you can’t be for equal rights.

                      Yep, that’s exactly what I said. Good job, here’s a cookie.

                  2. Tony gay people have always had the same right to marriage that non homos do.

                    They are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex they want as long as that person agrees to marry them.

                    Which part of this do you disagree with ?

                    1. Fucking legal definitions, how do they work?

                    2. So they are free to marry only those people they by definition have no interest in marrying. Yeah, equality!

          2. Who here is arguing that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, Tony?

            We’re unhappy with the way that is already being used to violate freedom of association and contract, and some us have more jurisprudential objections to how it is being implemented.

            But go ahead and keep whoopin’ on that strawman, Tony.

            1. aprt from everyone and their doomsdays cenarios, you mean? no true scotsmen….?

            2. But you’re not even on topic. Other minorities have had such protections for decades, though I’m sure you have been equally upset about that the whole time. The only issue here is equal rights, which I’d assume is a libertarian concern.

              1. Other minorities have had such protections for decades, though I’m sure you have been equally upset about that the whole time.

                And in fact I have.

                I have always been opposed to laws, policies, etc. that are either drafted to give one race/gender/creed a privileged position, or applied to do so. And we have a crapload of those laws, etc.

                As have most of the regulars here, I believe.

                1. But that does not in any way describe civil rights law in this country. You can no more be discriminated against for being a Christian than you can for being a Muslim. You can, however, be discriminated against for being gay.

                  1. You can no more be discriminated against for being a Christian than you can for being a Muslim.

                    On paper? Sure.

                    In reality? Not so much.

            3. That’s the 2016 playbook, if they can find a Democrat who isn’t a groper, an international arms merchant, or a former mayor of Baltimore.

      2. it’s the results-oriented process.

        How does that differ from Common Law?

        1. I’m not really sure what you’re asking.

          You can have results-oriented process in any system of law. It is entirely up to the people involved and whoever holds them accountable (or doesn’t, such as it may be) to see that principles and not outcomes rule the day.

          1. Sorry. What I meant is isn’t common law also the product of results oriented jurisprudence?

            Common law tends to be far more closely aligned with basic principles of equity and widely held cultural values than statutory law, and as a result is less tyrranical.

            I am really interested in sparking a discussion about judicial philosophy.

            1. I think equity was the wrong solution to the problem. If your process results in unjust outcomes, then you should refine or scrap it. Having people be at the mercy of judges’ whims is tyranny, although I agree it is of a lesser form than legislative tyranny.

            2. isn’t common law also the product of results oriented jurisprudence?

              Not really. Common law is the recognition of the precedential effect of prior cases. It is the application of prior case law to the case in front of the judge, rather than the application of a statute to the case in front of the judge.

              Common law tends to be far more closely aligned with basic principles of equity and widely held cultural values

              Neither of which is necessarily results-oriented. A results-oriented decision, to me, is one in which the judge knows going in how he wants it turn out, and cherry-picks or invents the legal justification for that result.

      3. “The thing that irks me most about Roe v. Wade the more I think about isn’t the specific outcome (although it isn’t great), it’s the results-oriented process.”

        Constitutional Law ended when FDR threatened to flood the Supreme Court with flying monkeys.

        “Constitutional arguments” are now just a kibuki dance to rationalize grabs for power.

    2. I think there’s a strong argument that Full Faith and Credit should apply (added bonus if someone uses that for guns or licensing in the future). If a state, let’s say Texas, is going to recognize certain types of marriages from another state, let’s say Vermont, then it should recognize any marriage performed there, regardless if they can legally be performed here.

    3. I hope they take the full faith and credit route. That seems obviously correct to me.

      If they find some vague reason for an absolute right to marriage in the 14th, that would be less good. Unless they use the equal protection clause, which they won’t.

      1. Sorry, Zeb, even the EP argument is fatally flawed until someone can articulate why judges should get to say what “marriage” really means. Maybe they should be able to override legislatures and referenda on this issue, but I haven’t seen anyone really grapple with the core issue in an EP case.

        Denying marriage to gay people isn’t an EP violation unless “marriage” really means “any two adults” rather than “man and woman”. The anti-miscegenation laws were an EP issue because nobody thought marriage really meant “man and woman unless one is black”, which made the prohibition on interracial marriages an artificially imposed restriction on marriage.

        I think the argument that “marriage” really means “any two adults” is much harder to make, myself. Not that its wrong, but bypassing the legislative process to give the courts this authority strikes me as pretty dangerous unless the case is very strong that the legislative restriction on marriage is really artificial, rather than a now outdated historic definition.

        1. It’s not about what “marriage means”. The argument is that when government creates rules that apply to “two adults”, they should apply to two adults regardless of their gender. If the resulting rule doesn’t meet some definition of “marriage”, then it should simply not be called “marriage”.

  25. Lawyer Mary Bonauto, representing the gay couples in the suit, responded to the polygamy concern by mentioning all the legal disruption group marriages would raise in the courts (like who would make medical decisions, managing child custody, and how divorce would work out).

    I’m not sure why the *legal* tangle that polygamy might cause would even be an issue, let alone why the lawyer for the pro-gay marriage side would bring up their recognition of it.

    She’s basically saying that the *gay marriage* people won’t be forcing the polygamy issue because they recognize that it may require the court to do its actual fucking job.

    1. Of course they’re not going to pursue this – their issue is *gay marriage*, not polygamy. That comes a decade from now, after equal access to domestic partnerships is an established legal right.

    2. Who cares how much it’ll disrupt the current domestic legal scene? Either you have the right to arrange your domestic affairs as you see fit or you don’t. The current domestic law regime is built on a one-size-fits-all definition of ‘family’ and gives certain privileges and protects certain rights based by default – but they aren’t the only way to do this.

    Just because its the way we’ve always done it doesn’t mean its the way we always have to do it.

    1. That is most certainly true Agammamon. It doesn’t always have to remain the same. I would however point out that the way we have been doing it worked pretty well. In contrast societies that practiced polygamy have never been anything but oppressive shitholes. Maybe that is just bad luck. Correlation doesn’t equal causation. I suspect, however, that the value of two parent families is a bit more than people think. That maybe, just maybe, society won’t work very well when people no longer have any reason to stay together and raise children or try and raise them by a communal hive.

      1. So we better hurry up and make sure all those gay parents are allowed access to this family-promoting institution.

        1. Gay parents don’t work very well either Tony. The problem is that the child never learns how to relate to the other sex. We are now seeing the first kids raised by gay parents reach adulthood and the results are not very good and a good number of them say they wish they had been raised by a regular couple.

          But none of that matters. All that matters is making sure gays are happy. If the kids they raise wind up being worse for it, well too fucking bad I guess.

          1. Citation really needed.

            The gay couples are going to have children anyway. Are you saying that allowing them the protections of marriage will do even further harm to children? Or should we just snatch the children away from gay couples and put them in orphanages?

            1. The gay couples are going to have children anyway

              Without some sort of magical vagina or penis implant, one of them is certainly not going to “have children”

              1. Fine, “raise” children. What is it about this issue that turns people into lobotomized idiots?

                1. Sure, that your preferred method of co-habitation doesn’t produce offspring is really beside any point involving offspring isn’t it

                  1. My preferred method of cohabitation explicitly involves not raising offspring, but I fail to see how that should be treated any differently by my state government than straight couples with the same preference.

                    1. Because your preferred method of cohabitation has zero chance of producing offspring which makes the states interest in your preferred method of cohabitation equal to that of members of a frat house.

                    2. Which marriage laws require that couples produce offspring?

                    3. Which marriage laws require that couples produce offspring?

                      None do, but they probably should. Or rather, the only “marriage laws” that have any justification to exist would be those covering couples (or triples, …) with children. As far as two (or more) adults go, the government’s only job is to adjudicate disputes through the courts. When children are involved, then the role of the government might justifiably be a little more active. Although given the way CPS behaves in most places, I’m not sure even that case is very strong.

                    4. But why can’t you say “whatever the regime, gay and straight people ought to be treated equally by the law”? Assume I fully appreciate your position with respect to government-recognized marriage and that thus there is no more reason to drone on about it.

                    5. I don’t believe in equality uber alles. This isn’t particularly difficult as I’m a libertarian not an egalitarian. The only equality that matters to me is that which arises when everyone’s rights are maximally respected, and that’s equality as a side effect, not an objective.

                    6. It’s not uber alles, it’s in its own sphere, separate from whether government marriage is OK. You either support government treating gays as equal or treating them as second-class. It doesn’t even have to be about marriage.

                    7. If we accept that the government is going to run concentration camps, should it really just keep them limited to the Jews? I mean, that is so unfair.

                    8. Anti-equality arguments are so sophisticated. Your hysterical comparisons don’t work because people choose whether to get married. It’s nowhere near as much of a government imposition as, say, licensing drivers for the privilege of driving, as driving is something many people have to do even if they don’t want to.

                      But yeah, marriage equals slavery and concentration camps. I take it you don’t have a spouse, or at least not one within eyeshot.

                    9. Wow so you’re just going for mendacity now?

                      We’re not talking about marriage qua marriage. We’re talking about the recognition of a marriage by third parties.

                      Even so, you paint this as a great injustice. Am I not supposed to take that seriously?

                    10. There has never been a law anywhere that I’m aware of that forbids couples or groups from calling themselves married or calling themselves poodles for that matter.

                      The injustice is the law, motivated by religious bigotry, treating gay people as having fewer rights and privileges than straight people. Why isn’t that obvious, and why can’t you separate it from your utopian fantasies?

                    11. The injustice is the law, motivated by religious bigotry, treating gay people as having fewer rights and privileges than straight people.

                      The laws that put people in jail were repealed or otherwise overturned. The rights of gays are not in question any more vis-a-vis the rest of the population. The only thing left to argue over are the privileges. Since the granting of a privilege is an injustice, what you are saying is that injustice can be remedied with more injustice. That is false.

                      Why isn’t that obvious, and why can’t you separate it from your utopian fantasies?

                      You want people to go to jail for not serving gays. You want the religious to spend some time suffering to “even things out” or some other social justice bullshit. This isn’t about reality vs utopia, it’s about your tyranny vs someone else’s tyranny. I don’t want to be a part of your vendetta.

                    12. You either support government treating gays as equal or treating them as second-class.

                      You left out the preferred option of many gay activists: giving gay people special privileges unavailable to many other people via “protected class” status.

                    13. That does not imply that the federal government has a constitutional mandate to force it’s decision on the matter on the states.

                      Of course, they’ve got the guns, so they’ll do what they damn well please.

          2. Gay parents don’t work very well either Tony. The problem is that the child never learns how to relate to the other sex. We are now seeing the first kids raised by gay parents reach adulthood and the results are not very good and a good number of them say they wish they had been raised by a regular couple.

            I do agree with Tony that you should cite this.

            Even so, I think a big problem for a lot of these children is that they were vanity projects for the people who raised them. That has nothing particularly to do with the parents being gay, except insofar as it played to the cultural context.

            Having said that, I’d be interested to see a breakdown of adopted-vs-surrogate children. My guess is that the former had a better experience than the latter.

            1. Even so, I think a big problem for a lot of these children is that they were vanity projects for the people who raised them. That has nothing particularly to do with the parents being gay

              Vanity isn’t the word that comes to mind for wanting to do what nature itself has prohibited simply to justify the feelz.

              1. Vanity isn’t the word that comes to mind for wanting to do what nature itself has prohibited simply to justify the feelz.

                If we did what nature wanted, we’d die at an average age of 25 from a predator, a disease, or starvation. Naturalistic appeals don’t mean crap to humanists.

                Adoption is a solution to the problem of absent parents that is mostly unique to humans. I agree that surrogacy for its own sake is somewhat repugnant, but don’t paint with such a broad brush.

                1. If we did what nature wanted, we’d die at an average age of 25 from a predator, a disease, or starvation.

                  Since when are humans not part of nature? We’ve evolved in order to use our mental capacity to evade predators and prolong our lives. None of those are outside of “nature”. We haven’t evolved to the point of butt sex producing a kid though

                  1. We haven’t evolved to the point of butt sex producing a kid though

                    Since this is not a point anyone is arguing, what the fuck is your point?

                    We have “evolved” to provide things for children that nature never could. Including the adoption of children by other individuals when their parents are dead or otherwise unable/unwilling to care for them.

                    Your disgust for anal sex is your own prerogative, but it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

              2. I’ll be sure to pass that message on to any woman that nature has fucked with ovarian cancer before being able to birth her own kids.

            2. http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/…..s-research

              Here is a formalized study

              And here is some testimonial evidence.

              http://thefederalist.com/2015/…..e-hurting/

              1. Even if those obviously biased sources are correct and all the other research is wrong, it doesn’t change the fact that gay couples will be raising children. You’re on a completely different subject. But let’s go there if you insist: should the government be taking away the children of gay couples and putting them in orphanages?

                1. children of gay couples

                  Of which there are none

                  1. ? I know some myself.

                    1. Not biological children, you don’t.

                    2. Yes I do. Or is the idea of a step-parent completely foreign to you?

                      You do know that gays have working reproductive systems, yes?

                      Why is any of this relevant to anything? Why are you trying to convince me that you aren’t twisting yourself in knots to defend your own bigotry?

                    3. R C Dean|4.28.15 @ 6:01PM|#

                      Not biological children, you don’t.

                      Tony|4.28.15 @ 7:04PM|#

                      Yes I do. Or is the idea of a step-parent completely foreign to you?

                      ———————————————–

                      Tony thinks being a step-parent makes him a biological father.

                2. “and all the other research is wrong, :

                  John did you not know in advance that whatever cite you posted that Tony would find fault with it’s source ?

                  Tony if you are going to ask for a cite you should cite your own statement so John can discredit your sources as well.

                  After alll Tony, .aren’t you all about equal justice ?

                  Or not ?

              2. The FRC likes to play the perfect vs good game. Not all children can be with their biological parents. There are many causes for this, a lot (but hardly all) of them due to the government. A fair comparison would be between gay parents of adopted children and straight parents of adopted children. And I think the results will be a lot less jarring there.

                Certainly, no preference should be given to gays per se when adopting, but if you have 10 kids needing adoption and 2 couples willing to adopt, you shouldn’t turn one of them away solely for being gay, either.

      2. Was ancient Israel an oppressive shithole?

        Maybe, by modern standards, but seems like for 2000 BC they were pretty good.

        1. Isn’t this case all about applying modern standards to historic institutions?

      3. In contrast societies that practiced polygamy have never been anything but oppressive shitholes. Maybe that is just bad luck. Correlation doesn’t equal causation

        The causation is known in this case, and you got it backwards. Oppressive shitholes cause polygamy, not the other way around. Legalizing polygamy in the US would change next to nothing.

        That maybe, just maybe, society won’t work very well when people no longer have any reason to stay together and raise children or try and raise them by a communal hive.

        Again, you are thinking like a progressive: “if we pass this law, people will live according to it”. But most people live the way they want to live; the law simply adds some hassles on top of that.

        If you mandated that the only recognized marriages were SSM, you wouldn’t see a lot of straight men shacking up with each other, you’d simply see a lot of unmarried straight couples, plus a few gay sham marriages for purposes like immigration and medical benefits.

    2. She’s basically saying that the *gay marriage* people won’t be forcing the polygamy issue because they recognize that it may require the court to do its actual fucking job.

      The Justices were asking for a limiting principle that would distinguish gay marriage from polygamy. Which is a perfectly legit question for them to ask.

      She didn’t give them one. Because the arguments against “one man one woman” don’t allow for any such limiting principle. But the gay marriage folks are eager to have everyone overlook this fact, as it might cause some people to tap the brakes on their support for gay marriage.

      The honest thing to do is to say “Your honorships, I’m here to represent my client in this case, which isn’t about polygamy. I have not researched polygamy, and would be doing my client a disservice if I were to argue the case for or against polygamy in this appeal. Regardless of your views on polygamy, there is no basis for denying my clients their rights because of those views.”

      1. But isnt it the lawyers job to suggest a legal principle to the justices? The lawyer doesnt need to figure out how it applies universally, but the justices do.

        From what I remember from looking at the LSAT, a major portion of it was testing logical reasoning. So a lawyer who has reached the level to argue before the SC should kick ass at that and thus be able, on the fly, to apply said principle universally.

      2. Because the arguments against “one man one woman” don’t allow for any such limiting principle.

        Sure. The universal principle is that laws need to be gender neutral. So, marriage becomes “one person one person”. There is no principle that says that laws need to be number neutral.

  26. But isnt it the lawyers job to suggest a legal principle to the justices?

    A first-rate lawyer will at least try to make a limiting principle argument. For gay marriage, I don’t know that there really is one, though, at least with respect to polygamy. Haven’t thought about it much, but it may be that the hand-waving that this lawyer did is the best there is. Or, to preserve your own credibility to the Court if you don’t have limiting principle argument you want to say out loud, you might do what I suggest above.

  27. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week………………….

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  28. Are any libertarian lawyers/groups giving an amicus curiae brief to the SC saying that the state should get out of marriage because getting into it was an establishment of religion in the first place?

    1. The reason I ask this is because since every justice is either Catholic or Jewish heritage, none of them have anything but a vaguely intellectual/philosophical basis for understanding the establishment clause. And it certainly looks like this day’s questions from them are completely irrelevant to this issue.

  29. ” It’s about the individual making the choice to marry and whom to marry, or the government.”

    No, actually it’s about whether there is any *constitutional* grounds for the *federal* government to force states to expand that privileged class to include homosexual couples.

    I don’t see how there could be. The legal privileging of heterosexual couples at all levels of government has been a fact for the entire history of the country, for every moment the constitution was contemplated, written, and amended.

    But, Shazam, a right to homosexual marriage must be in the *federal* constitution, if we want it in there.

    Well, no. It wasn’t in there. It was never in there. If you want to change the constitution, there is a constitutional method to do so.

    Of course, the US no longer operates under the constitution anyway, at least since FDR’s coup which expanded the Commerce Clause to empower the USGov to do anything it damn well pleases. So I realize that talking about what is constitutional under the “constitution that was” is an entirely moot point. But it’s an interesting intellectual enterprise to consider how an actual constitutional republic would have addressed this issue.

    Under the new regime, anything that The Robed Ones deem is in the constitution, is in the constitution. Not that it matters, because while the Robed Ones determine what is constitutional, Emperor Barack determines what is The Law.

  30. From Cato ” In other words, the 14th Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples only if they give them to everyone else“. It’s a good read, with some good points made about whom the XIVth Amendment applies to in general.

    http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ states-must-license-gay-marriages-only -they-license-straight-ones

    1. This isn’t a 14th Amendment issue. The federal government only started mandating marriage licenses on the states in the late 1920’s (at the behest of the KKK and new Catholic immigrants who couldn’t get married in Catholic church anymore cuz that church stopped doing interdenominational marriages). Before that marriages only required a license in the Jim Crow South (to prohibit churches from marrying interracial couples) and a couple of New England states (a carryover from when they established religion in their states during colonial era).

      It really annoys the hell out of me that Cato’s brief completely misses the actual origin of every marriage law on the books at both the state and federal level. Not that this court will rule on this issue – but with an amicus brief, it is possible that at least one justice might talk about that issue in their own separate opinion so that the issue can be ruled on in slightly different circumstances next time.

    2. One solution is for States to cease issuing ‘marriage’ licenses, and instead issue ‘partnership’ licenses for the purpose of taking on the responsibilities of a family type relationship. Marriage could be left to the churches and be of no relevance to government provided or recognized rights.

      1. That’s a good solution. It’s even a solution adopted by many churches: before my church started performing actual gay marriages, they had been blessing gay relationships in marriage-like ceremonies for many years.

        But social conservatives are aware of this solution and reject it. They explicitly want the state to favor some kinds of partnerships over others. Turning this into a semantic argument over who gets to define “marriage” is simply a debating strategy.

  31. The issue being argued should not require changing the dictionary definition of any words but simply assuring the recognition and application of rights being equally distributed within each State relative to a legalized partnership between two persons who agree to share responsibility for one another. The word marriage has long been defined as a contract between a man, the husband, and a woman, the wife, and should remain so. Our laws should be written using words that leave little or no room for interpretation, and for purposes of government at each and every level States could cease issuing ‘marriage’ licences and simply issue partnership licences which would provide legal recognition nation wide to the couple regardless of sex for application of laws relating to a family. An additional two words could be created for communication purposes relative to the similarity yet recognizing the difference between a couple comprised of a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, who in all ways hence are recognized as equal to each other under the laws which refer to families. A marriage ceremony would be unnecessary for government purposes.
    In recent cases of a bakery and a florist and same sex marriage, would they have refused to provide services for a gay persons birthday party? The issue of rights is all the courts should be ruling on, without need of redefining words of our language in ways that reduce our ability to communicate clearly and precisely.

  32. Personally, I don’t think the State should be in the marriage business. As a Jew, I view marriage one way, Roman Catholics I speak with talk about the sacrament of marriage, I don’t know how Muslims, Hindus, Jainists, Bahai, etc think about it.

    From my perspective, if you want to get ‘married’-ie have your relationship sacralized by a faith community, you should go to your Priest/Rabbi/Imam etc and get married. If you want rights of survivorship, parenting recognition, health insurance benefits, social security, etc, you should go to town hall and get a civil union license, which would be the same for straight and gay couples. I would also retroactively redefine all pre-existing marriage licenses as civil union certificates.

  33. Seems like the arguments being presented in this case are just embarrassing. And typical of the SCOTUS, almost completely ignoring the constitutionality (you know, the law) and looking at this whole thing from a consequentialist or otherwise slippery slope point of view. Whether or not allowing gay marriage means also allowing polygamist marriage and all that that entails is a red herring…besides the point of whether or not marriage licensing is a right of the states under the constitution (10th Amendment) or not. At least they come close in the second argument where they argue whether or not the states have the constitutional authority to deny marriage licenses granted by the other states.

  34. upto I looked at the receipt four $4773 , I didn’t believe that…my… mom in-law was realy receiving money parttime from there new laptop. . there aunts neighbour started doing this 4 only twenty one months and recently paid the dept on their villa and bourt a new Car
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  35. Roberts will rule that gay marriage is a tax and not a penalty.

  36. (Part 1) For some reason, libertarians fail to recognize the consequences of the legalization of same sex marriage. Christian churches are little more than citizens that come together as a group to practice a set of beliefs. Those beliefs are accompanied by the duty of providing services to communities. The cash flow in churches is used for performing the services mentioned above, providing wages to leaders who devote their working hours to the duties required for church operation, and expenses incurred for the functionality of the church itself. The church does not generate profit, thus, the reasons for tax exemption. A supreme court ruling that same sex marriage is a right protected under the constitution would provide a foundation to legally prosecute churches that refuse to violate tenets crucial to their existence as a group. Churches that refuse to comply could very well lose their tax-exempt status.

  37. (Part 2) Given that they don’t generate profit and cash flow is dependent on the charity of members, they could be forced to board up shop and go underground due to the inability to bear the burden of taxation normally reserved for places of business. They would no longer be able to provide services that many communities need or provide a set of guidelines and structure critical for surviving in this world. Members of the church would no longer be free to publicly practice their beliefs. Just as the supreme court has ruled that businesses are protected under the freedom of speech, churches should be able to function without their freedom of speech being violated because they are also a group. After all, wedding ceremonies are little more than a speech. To force churches to perform same-sex marriages would be the same thing as to force words into a person’s mouth. Oh, the irony of libertarians supporting policies that promise to render the first amendment impotent.

  38. my roomate’s half-sister makes $71 /hr on the computer . She has been laid off for 5 months but last month her pay was $17321 just working on the computer for a few hours
    …… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  39. my neighbor’s aunt makes $86 every hour on the internet . She has been without work for 7 months but last month her paycheck was $15501 just working on the internet for a few hours
    …… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.