Supreme Court Takes Up The Defense Of Marriage Act

The U.S. Supreme Court
gay-pride-flagThe U.S. Supreme Court

Today, the Supreme Court will take up the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), the law signed by Bill Clinton that denied benefits and equal treatment to same-sex couples. This follows yesterday’s interesting, and at times heated, debate over Proposition 8 in the Hollingsworth case. I will be on MSNBC today discussing the case with NPR’s Here and Now at 12 and then Martin Bashir at 4 p.m.

While some of us have been cautioning people for weeks that this Court was more likely to look for a way to avoid a major decision and could avoid a decision entirely through standing, many were disappointed with the tenor of the questions yesterday. Members like Chief Justice John Roberts seemed openly peeved by people pushing him toward a decision on equality for homosexuals. As expected, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was the most provocative with questions like “We decide what the law is. I’m curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?”

However, even Justice Anthony Kennedy, viewed as the key swing voter, expressed uncertainly about whether the trend toward equality would result in a magnificent end or go over “the cliff.” It was clear that the justices viewed this as a “new” question and had reservations about deciding it for the nation. Indeed, they looked like so many elderly drivers in Florida driving slowly on the highway with their turn signal on, looking desperately for an off-ramp.

That off-ramp could be standing since this case has significant problems on whether the proponents of the law have sufficient injury to demand relief before the Court. If dismissed on standing, that would also mean that the Ninth Circuit also lacked standing. That would leave the district court decision and same sex marriage would be restored in California. However, there would be no sweeping new protection secured in the case.

Another off-ramp was hinted at by Kennedy who openly wondering if the case was wrongly accepted. The Court can simply dismiss a case as premature and mistakingly granted. Many leaders on the Court like Earl Warren wanted to speak with a strong or a single voice on major issues. Absent such a consensus, some might prefer to toss the case rather than produce a fractured decision. It is clear that some justices remain undecided on the fundamental question, though most of us would not view this as a “new” question. The right to marry is not a new question. Nor is equality. Indeed, the gay rights movement is hardly new. Yet, this is an incrementalist Court that historically tries to avoid getting in front of the nation on divisive questions.

That brings us to DOMA and today’s argument. After the indecision expressed yesterday, it seems hard to believe that the justices would express certainty on the fundamental right today in the DOMA context. Many had hoped that the Court would simply find the law unconstitutional as a violation of equal protection and extend heightened scrutiny to sexual orientation. When Clinton signed this law, many condemned it as open discrimination. Indeed, it is frustrating for civil libertarians to see Clinton and Senators like Claire McCaskill come out expressing their rather belated conclusion that same-sex couples deserve equal treatment in marriage. When such decision requires more courage, they were no where to be found and, in Clinton’s case, openly worked against gay rights.

With even Kennedy expressing uncertainly yesterday, a ruling recognizing equality seems a bit more difficult today. Yet, a ruling upholding DOMA would be equally sweeping. This case also has a number of off-ramps. Standing in this case for the members of Congress is highly questionable. I represented Democratic and Republican members challenging the Libyan war and we were dismissed on standing grounds. That could be the result here, though it would be a bitter end if both landmark cases end in procedural dismissals.

Another intermediate resolution would be for the Court to strike down DOMA not only equality grounds but federalism grounds — avoiding the creation of a new fundamental protection for gays and lesbians. The Court could hold that Congress was interfering with a state question (the definition of marriage) by denying benefits to all same-sex couples (including those from states recognizing same-sex marriage). In so holding, the Court would not be holding that there is an equal protection for homosexuals but rather that this is a matter left to the states. That would still be a victory for gay rights but not the one most deserved from this case.

768 thoughts on “Supreme Court Takes Up The Defense Of Marriage Act

  1. BTW – I assume that it is Roberts that is the swing vote here. His legal training in conflict with his religious training.

    He seems to be opening concerned about his place in court history but if he votes the correct side people will point out he has a gay relative. Not that every one of them doesn’t its just that some of them are no out & for others the justice simply refuses to acknowledge the fact.

  2. “The wariness that Justice Kennedy showed on Tuesday about reaching the foundation question of an equal right to marry will not be necessary in the DOMA case, since that is not at issue. Kennedy, who at several points on Tuesday showed his usual concern about interfering with the sovereign choices that state governments make, might well make some of the same points on Wednesday as the Court weighs the impact of a move by Congress to give marriage a federal definition, even though regulation of marriage has long been a special prerogative of the states.

    Wednesday’s argument will be watched closely to see whether Kennedy, and perhaps others, are more inclined to decide the fate of DOMA based upon a states’ rights rationale than on a right of equal protection for married same-sex couples seeking federal benefits. DOMA might fall on either rationale, of course. Of course, the House GOP leaders, in their capacity as the majority members of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House defending DOMA, will be arguing that Congress clearly has the authority to define marriage for federal purposes, without intruding on states’ rights.” Lyle Denniston Argument recap: On marriage, Kennedy in control, Scotus Blog

  3. “It was clear that the justices viewed this as a “new” question and had reservations about deciding it for the nation.”

    *************************

    To quote our very favorite Republican Presidential candidate (Barry Goldwater for all you young’ns) : “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice… and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

  4. The good thing about all of these same sex marriages is that it will force the lazy lawyers of the world out of the divorce business and into areas of law more interesting. One or two out of ten thousand might just learn about civil rights work and take up a federal civil rights act case and make some real money. Can you imagine sitting in the waiting room outside the courtroom and having to listen to all those gay people itchingBay about their cheating spouses? “If Harold would quit walking about in drag we would not have all these problems in our marriage.”
    Dogs dont have gay marriages. Dogs dont have marriage and divorce. You are either a good dog or a bad dog, a loyal dog or a RepubliCon dog, a smart dog or a dumb dog (oxymoron here). Dogs can flirt and hump around without sanctimony. A male dog living under the humanoid roof does not have to bring home the bacon or work 9 to 5 and provide for wifey-poo and eight pups. A female dog with pups does not have to clean the house and get the pups off to school on time with their lunch buckets. A dog that humps is as good or bad as one that doesn’t. It is not cheating, or flirting. But if some male dog in our pac ever got the notion of doing something earQuay, then we would be up in paws and yakking like itchinBayDog. [gotta use piglatin here to satisfy WordPress]

  5. I listened to part of the oral argument on C-SPAN. I can not believe how many of the Supreme Court Justices speak like they are subway pushers in New York. Turdy turd dis and turdy turd and a turd dat. The case is about divesity. Why cant we have some geographical diversity on the Supreme Court? New Yorkers are the last people on the planet to be interpreting “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” for the rest of us.

  6. The reason Justice Thomas never says anything or never asks questions is because his wife tells him what to do when he gets home. She listens in on C-Span and talks to her pals on K Street and then barks out the result.

  7. PreacherDog: Is it K Street in Washington DC where they have the hookers or is it C Street? One street has the lobbyists and one has the hookers, male and female. Never the Twain shall meet unless in DC. My half blind guy meets the hookers in the lobby of the Marriot. None would dare call them lobbyists tho. As guide dog I get to watch. And sometimes give a guiding paw. Like in that dog alert case in the Supreme Court yesterday. Some say that Alito went home and asked his dog how to vote.

  8. I ran across this blog posting about a google Ngram graph of mentions of “gay marriage” and “homosexual marriage” in books from 1800 – 2008 http://www.isteve.blogspot.com/2013/03/gay-marriage-in-ngram.html

    There is nothing until the 1970s and then very rare and then in 1994, its like a 75 degree spike straight up. In 2003 the spike becomes like 85 degrees. I have long since noticed that the news media allows hardly any opposition to gay marriage, hardly ever do they put on an opposing viewpoint. The commentary is almost always along the lines of whether and how much progress is being made towards gay marriage/acceptance of gay marriage.

    The blogger says: “I’m fascinated by the mechanics of media muscle reflected in the two inflection points. Here’s a topic that had interested almost nobody, straight or gay, for, roughly, ever, yet then in two stages becomes a cultural obsession.”

    One of the commenters on that blog writes about it being an exercise in power and that the exercise in power might be the point of the whole thing. I have wondered for years whats going on with this issue becoming a cultural obsession. With all the difficulties ahead for young people- straight or gay -, this is their main issue, gay marriage. Thats all they’ve heard about all their lives so it would have to be a pretty independent thinker to oppose it. Little wonder that the figure is like 70% supporting gay marriage.

    But, logically, very few gay couples will marry or stay married if they do marry. The tax code favors single filing for 2 income couples and most gay couples are going to be 2 income couples.

    In the last 20 years we have grown accustomed to “collateral damage” in wars based on lies being a non-issue. Reagan was said to be troubled that his strike on Libya killed Qadaffis infant daughter and he didn’t drop any more bombs any where. But at the same time, these last 20 years, we are also told – by the same people, the elites in the media and politics – that individual rights are so sacred that the Constitution requires legalization of gay marriage.

  9. Dredd; Clinton is a coward, he sticks his finger in the air either to lie or see which way he’s going to vote, Hilliary changed her mind on gay marriage too, a hint as to weather she’s going to run for president.

  10. Just change the marriage laws to be “individuals” instead of “male and female” and be done with it. All this intrigue and contention over legal interpretations, God’s will or whatever is absurd.

    I don’t care if two women, or men, or a combination thereof wants to live together in a relationship and everything else as far as the state is concerned relates only to financial, estate, or guardianship issues which gender makes no difference in whatever.

    I know that this is an important issue for gay people and they should have the ability to marry, the opposition will just have to get over it. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry someone of your own gender. It’s that easy.

  11. Many people including a few republicans have changed their minds about gay marriage over the past few years. The gay community supported Hillary over Obama in 2008, and I imagine they will support her again if she runs. None of the potential GOP candidates have come out in favor of gay marriage. They might even be for bans as Romney was.

  12. Darren,

    Such common sense is an affront to this country’s history as a Christian nation!

    (Surely I don’t have to stipulate that is maximum sarcasm.)

  13. Wasn’t it Justice Thurgood Marshall that after retirement, told an interviewer that he decided cases on what he thought was right and just waited until the law caught up. This seems to me an approach that wouldn’t wait to decide these constitutional questions or avoid them on a proceedural or standing basis. I think we all know where Marshall would come down on these issues.

    With respect to the Scalia, Alito and Roberts’ concern about prempting the democratic process in the states, wasn’t Scalia recently heard to express an opinion in the voting rights case recently argued, that there are certain things just too important to leave to congress?

  14. Argument recap: DOMA is in trouble

    Analysis

    If the Supreme Court can find its way through a dense procedural thicket, and confront the constitutionality of the federal law that defined marriage as limited to a man and a woman, that law may be gone, after a seventeen-year existence. That was the overriding impression after just under two hours of argument Wednesday on the fate of the Defense of Marriage Act.

    That would happen, it appeared, primarily because Justice Anthony M. Kennedy seemed persuaded that the federal law intruded too deeply into the power of the states to regulate marriage, and that the federal definition cannot prevail. The only barrier to such a ruling, it appeared, was the chance – an outside one, though — that the Court majority might conclude that there is no live case before it at this point.

    After a sometimes bewilderingly complex first hour, discussing the Court’s power to decide the case of United States v. Windsor (12-307), the Court moved on to explore DOMA’s constitutionality. And one of the most talented lawyers appearing these days before the Court — Washington attorney Paul D. Clement — faced fervent opposition to his defense of DOMA from enough members of the Court to make the difference. He was there on behalf of the Republican leaders of the House (as majority members of the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group), defending the law because the Obama administration has stopped doing so.

    Justice Kennedy told Clement that there was “a real risk” that DOMA would interfere with the traditional state authority to regulate marriage. Kennedy also seemed troubled about the sweeping breadth of DOMA’s Section 3, noting that its ban on benefits to already married same-sex couples under 1,100 laws and programs would mean that the federal government was “intertwined with citizens’ daily lives.” He questioned Congress’s very authority to pass such a broad law.

    Moreover, Kennedy questioned Clement’s most basic argument — that Congress was only reaching for uniformity, so that federal agencies would not have to sort out who was or was not married legally in deciding who could qualify for federal marital benefits, because some states were on the verge of recognizing same-sex marriage.

    Along with sharply negative comments about DOMA by the Court’s four more liberal members, Kennedy’s stance could put the law on the edge of constitutional extinction. But, if the Court were to do that based on states’ rights premises, the final ruling might not say much at all about whether same-sex couples were any closer to gaining an equal right to marry under the Constitution. Scotus Blog

  15. Karen in NJ, There was nothing until the 70s b/c homosexuals didn’t unite, they suffered massive discrimination mostly in silence. Then, in 1969, members of the gay community fought back at police brutality when the cops raided a gay bar (the Stonewall riot). This sparked the fight for gay rights. Same sex marriage wasn’t the first right on their list that included things like getting rid of police brutality, discrimination on the job and in housing. This could account for the spike in the 79s. As more and more gays came out of the closet, the movement grew. In the past few years non-gays joined the movement as their family members and friends came out and enjoined them in the arguments about basic civil rights. This could account for the other spike.

    Is it about power? Power is certainly an element. If you are powerless, your demands will be ignored. The gay community has built power over the years by convincing each other and the straight community that gay people are people first and entitled to basic civil rights.

    It matters not whether gay couples marry or not, same as for straight couples. Some marry, some do not. What’s important is that they have the right to marry, that they have the choice.

  16. Bruce 1, March 27, 2013 at 11:48 am

    Dredd; Clinton is a coward, he sticks his finger in the air either to lie or see which way he’s going to vote, Hilliary changed her mind on gay marriage too, a hint as to weather she’s going to run for president.

    nick spinelli 1, March 27, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    Bruce, You have the Clintons down pat.
    ============================================
    Trying to identify an individual politician by ideological “stability” is like giving a huge crowd the name of an individual.

    Example: 1 million people march on D.C. and the newsies name the crowd “Hugh” … 234,000 march on Berlin and the newsies name the crowd “Gunther” …

    The point is that politicans are like the desert sands … they change when the wind blows from a different direction.

    You also seem to be insinuating that refusing to change is a virtue under any circumstance.

    Change can be good or never ever ever never ever ever never never change under any circumstances?

    Doods …

  17. bettykath,
    thank you for your historical perspective. It is amazing that these Justices just can’t shake their religious beliefs and do their job. Why don’t we leave the decision to the states. We all know how well that worked for African americans!

  18. The sad fact is that the US Supreme Court — like all courts — keeps two sets of books. When they see no merit to a particular case they can drag out all manner of legal roadblocks like standing or harmless error or any of the other judicial contrivances to block or delay a decision on the merits that is contrary to their sentiments. If they like the case, they can move Heaven and Earth to decide it the way they like. Stare decisis? What’s that? The cold, dead hand of the past interfering with our problems — unless, of course, it supports our world view then it’s legal bedrock.

    We give judges too much credit and too little scrutiny. The same Court who gave us Brown v. Board also gave us Dredd Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. Anyone think it’s an infallible institution like say, the Pope? They are right because they are last and they read the newspaper as intently as any proof editor. You don’t get that job without being political these-days or any days.

  19. “We give judges too much credit and too little scrutiny.”

    Yep. As well as to the rest of that comment, mespo.

  20. The Court can do as they will … the people have already decided:

    “The civil rights movement was the transcendent experience in modern American history. The people didn’t just accept social change – they gradually re-evaluated their whole history, and it made them extremely sensitive to issues of fairness. And once the American public decides something’s not fair, the battle is pretty much over.” (Gail Collins, NYTimes)

  21. rafflaw
    I agree that it should be left to the states which is why I agree with Prop 8 because that is what the state of California agreed to in a democratic process.

  22. bettykath

    Gays have a right to marry just not in all 50 states. I simply believe that “Blessed is the NATION whose Lord is GOD.” We all know where GOD stands on the issue and no matter what gays do, they can’t run away from that reality.

  23. We all know this country isn’t a theocracy let alone a “Christian nation” by the merits and plain language of the 1st Amendment too. Well, at least those of us who understand the law know that.

  24. Dredd; It’s not refusing to change that’s the problem. It’s the reason why they made the change that’s the problem

  25. Tim; How does one know where God stands on any issue and which god. The christian god is believed to be a forgiving god. I don’t think the muslim god is a forgiving god, at least his followers don’t think so from what I’ve seen in Islamic contries.

  26. And the 1st Amendment doesn’t change that the rule of law in the US is not dictated by religious dogma, even dogma based on the Old Testament as used by fundamentalists to justify an unreasoned hatred of people who won’t and shouldn’t have to live by the dictates of their dogma by the terms of the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause and the 14th Amendment.

    If you object to gay marriage, Timmeh? Don’t marry one. Giving them the same civil rights as heterosexuals does not mean you have to become homosexual. What people do in the privacy of their own homes and whom they choose to do it with is none of your business so long as they are all above the age of consent and otherwise able to grant valid consent. You may not like it, but it has the advantage of being both fair and in line with the equal protection of laws.

  27. Gene H.

    “What people do in the privacy of their own homes and whom they choose to do it with is none of your business” The problem here is that it goes on in our country which can cause God’s judgement to come. This is why we stand against it-on moral principle.

  28. If you can not live with the current dogma then go with the dogpa. Notice how the male chauvenists always say dogma instead of dogpa? Us dogs dont even think in terms of all encompassing theory. If humans repeat something over and over and went in dumb and come out dumb too then we dogs call em RepubliCons.

  29. ithcinBayDog

    Europe has embraced socialist policies and look at Greece and Cyprus. Obama wants to follow them and the progressives want to follow. The Blind leading the blind is Democrats. They are not donkeys for nothing!

  30. Timmeh,

    Too bad for you I don’t believe in your angry churlish usually contradictory God as interpreted by people with a poor understanding of the history of the document they quote in rationalizing not loving their neighbor. Nor am I required to by the terms of the 1st Amendment. If you’re worried about “God’s judgement”? Take it up with Him when you see him. Until then, our legal system is concerned with the laws of men, not the Laws of God. If you want to live in a Christian theocracy? Vatican City awaits for you. Other than that, all of the world’s other theocracies are not based in Christianity, so your shopping choices are limited.

  31. Timmy,

    Report that you fulfilled the spring break assignment and received responses, one of which was a recommendation that you be required to take a remedial course in sentence structure and punctuation.

    God told me to tell you that because He is concerned for your future in the modern job market wherein clarity of written communications is of immense importance to career advancement.

  32. Timmy,

    What we have here is a difference of definitions. To be clear here, since the US doesn’t base it’s law on your particular theological definitions. They aren’t relevant to a Supreme Court decision. What IS relevant is the Legal definition, and according to that, Marriage is a legal contract, enforced by the government.

    You might get more out of taking the religious discussion to a forum that exists to discuss religion, and let those of us interested in discussing law, do so.

  33. I will wager anyone and will pay you $100,000 to $1 if Clarence Thomas does not agree with Antonin Scalia in whatever the outcome is in this case. Any takers?

  34. Bruce 1, March 27, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    Dredd; It’s not refusing to change that’s the problem. It’s the reason why they made the change that’s the problem
    =================================
    Or not the problem.

    Two edged sword.

    But, yes, Cheesus and Debil are in the details.

  35. Ralph Adamo 1, March 27, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    I will wager anyone and will pay you $100,000 to $1 if Clarence Thomas does not agree with Antonin Scalia in whatever the outcome is in this case. Any takers?
    ================================================
    They are like McCain and Graham aren’t they?

  36. Gyges

    Marriage is a state issue because it falls under the 10th amendment. Californians voted to not accept Gay Marriage and that is the correct outcome. Since a Federal court intervened then the Supreme Court should overturn their decision and revert back to the wishes of the state.

  37. Just saw the Martin Bashir show. The Professor did a good job as always. Unfortunately from the discussion there doesn’t seem to be an abundance of hope for any decision that isn’t, at best, narrowly focused.

    DOMA is a law that restricts rights, it allows the federal government to treat a segment of the population differently, and to their detriment, than the rest for reasons that are contrary to the spirit and intent and letter of other Federal laws. The court needs to strike it down for no other reason that it is in obvious conflict. At some point the law must have a unifying theme that is easily grasped and consistent. DOMA is a gigantic flashing sign that says ‘NOT CONSISTENT’. Striking DOMA down should be no more than housecleaning for SCOTUS.

  38. Gene H

    Your own thinking then justifies the wishes of Californians in Prop 8. Courts are not to legislate but to interpret. If two men have a right to marry then a man can also choose to marry his dog. It is that simple.

  39. LK,

    I think you’re right in predicting a narrow ruling. A broader ruling will only likely arise once interstate validity is challenged under a FF&C argument.

  40. Timmeh,

    1) Not in the slightest. You apparently don’t know the difference between “interpret” and “legislate”. If the courts interpret the works of the legislature as unconstitutional? Then that legislation is impermissible as currently worded. That what courts do every day in addition to acting as finders of fact, they interpret the meaning and validity of laws as promulgated by the legislature. If Prop * is ruled unconstitutional (and it likely will be), CA is free to take another swing at it, but given that the huge undue influence of religious organizations in the last vote on the matter has been exposed, it likely won’t happen. In fact, another attempt to discriminate by the state on behalf of religious interests is likely to have the exact opposite effect in CA and usher in legal homosexual marriage. As Gyges told you, the essential interest of the the state in marriage is in contract enforcement, not promulgation of religious dogma.

    2) Equating homosexuality with bestiality is not only a false equivalence, it’s childish. Sex with animals is not permissible because animals cannot grant valid consent. Sex with animals is also aberrant psychological behavior whereas homosexuality is a normal expression of sexual orientation in a small but statistically significant part of the human species. It is also seen in other species as well. That is the science of the matter. If you want to argue that homosexuality is a mistake, then you are arguing that your “God” made a mistake in making a significant number of people that way.

  41. Timmy 1, March 27, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    Sar7

    I am retiring soon because of God’s blessing!
    =====================================
    Which god (RE: 2 Cor. 4:4):

    New International Version (©2011) … The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

    New Living Translation (©2007) … Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

    The god of this world, another world, all worlds? How do you know?

    On another note, there are two types of marriage, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

    The one is secular marriage, which has traditionally been an activity of the states – hence states rights.

    The other is church, i.e., religious marriage, which neither the state nor the federal government can infringe upon because of the establishment clause.

    Some folks go down and get a marriage “license” at a state agency, while others are married in a church.

    These out not be considered the same thing, because they are not the same thing.

    I am dumbfounded that this was not an issue.

    The due process argument (5th, 14th Amendments) would apply heavily to state marriages, but less to to church marriages, depending on the facts.

    Especially since the 83 year old Lesbian who brought the action based on unequal taxation by IRS based on a government concept of marriage under DOMA section 3.

    In other words states cannot discriminate like churches can based a churches religious beliefs.

    When it comes to church marriage, the bible text as I read it does not define any particular scenario that would comport with DOMA in the slightest, even though it would sanction it.

    Some of the luminaries had multiple wives, and the liturgy concerning sacraments of marriage would be something like each state, under states rights, defining a completely different way of doing marriage ceremonies.

  42. Gene H. 1, March 27, 2013 at 2:07 pm

    Damn you and your earwigs, Dredd!

    Fortunately, I have the cure . . .
    ========================================
    Right on my brutha … it must be because my ancestors belonged to the Ear Whigs party.

    I have the cure on my side too … ;)

  43. Gene H.

    You are full of hot air. Since when is two men getting it on a natural act. They can’t pro-create. Also, I never said anything about sex with an animal only marriage so don’t change the issue.

  44. Dredd

    Assume the SCOTUS upholds the right of gays to marry. Then why is it ok for the government to outlaw polygamy? Are they not infringing on the rights of loving people?

  45. Gene H

    SCOTUS striking down a law passed by congress is Interpreting its constitutionality not legislating -you idiot!

  46. Timmy, A man and his dog LOL, you spend too much time listening to Rush and reading RedState. The world is a scary enough place without making up silly things to be scared of. Be kind to yourself and turn that radio dial to some nice classic rock.

    State issue? So was racial discrimination at one time but as a country we decided that we (through the court) were better than that. The concept of universal suffrage or universal civil rights means has ‘universal’ as its operand. Were better than that. Well, Scalia and Thomas aside.

  47. lottakatz

    I am not scared of a man and his dog. It proves the point. If two men have a civil right to marry then why is it not a civil right to marry your dog. There are many single people in this country who absolutely love their pet.

  48. Bettykath: “If you are powerless, your demands will be ignored. The gay community has built power over the years by convincing each other and the straight community that gay people are people first and entitled to basic civil rights.”

    Exactly.

    To add a bit to your above posting, Bill Mahar had Fmr. Gov. Jim McGreevey on Real Time last week and he was asked what caused the change in attitude toward gays and he had a one word answer: AIDS. He said that when AIDS became an issue it became apparent that as a matter of simple survival gay people had to organize and get some power in order to address the matter. (No one else cared or would act.) Consequently people stated coming out and all of a sudden people were finding out that their brothers and sisters and nephews and friends were gay and realized that gay people were like everybody else, they became visible and and organized. Once organized could address many cultural problems.

    I tried to find that clip because it was a good and I thought you would like it but I can’t find it.

  49. You really seem to have no basic grasp of the role of the courts versus the role of the legislature, Timmeh, but let’s get back to the question you can’t seem to wrap your lil’ mind around, shall we?

    “why is it not a civil right to marry your dog. ”

    Because 1) marriage is a contract, 2) contracts require valid consent from the contracting parties and 3) animals are unable to grant valid consent. Animals are chattel, not people, under the law. You can’t marry your television either. Animals also do not have civil rights. Civil rights are for people and under the 14th Amendment, they apply equally to all people even homosexuals.

  50. Also, Timmeh, procreating isn’t the legally defining purpose of marriage but rather a religious edict driven by dogma. The interest of the state in marriage is strictly to define the contract and the attendant contractual obligations between two people. Under that “logic” you employ, if what your brain produces can be considered logic, people who are infertile shouldn’t be allowed to marry either. So do you think infertile heterosexual couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry, Timmeh?

  51. Timmy,

    And an Italian nobleman once served peacock that had been carefully arranged so that it looked like it was alive and breathing fire at his daughters wedding.

    I only bring it up because it has as little to do with my question as your answer did. I know what miscegenation is, what I wanted to know is if you, Timmy, Think that it’s a issue that should be addressed by the states or by the federal government.

    So, do you?

  52. Timmy 1, March 27, 2013 at 4:24 pm

    Gyges

    Wrong! Marriage was created by God with the first marriage being Adam and Eve.

    *****

    Did Adam and Eve get married in a church? Who performed the marriage ceremony? Was it a Christian ceremony? Did it take place before or after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit? I bet there was no best man…and probably no maid of honor.

  53. Timmy wrote:

    “Wrong! Marriage was created by God with the first marriage being Adam and Eve.”
    ~+~

    Well, whether or not that is the case it is irrelevant. The supreme court is a trier of the laws in the scope of the constitution of the United States not canon law. The issue before the court involves the constitutionality of statutory law.

  54. At DOMA Hearing, Chief Justice Suggests Gays Are Too Powerful For Equal Protection
    By Nicole Flatow
    Mar 27, 2013
    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/27/1783091/roberts-doma-powerful/

    During oral arguments this morning, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to at least entertain the argument by House Republicans that gays and lesbians are too politically powerful for constitutional protection.

    Roberts suggested that gays and lesbians must be “politically powerful” because politicians are “falling all over themselves” to endorse gay marriage, according to a tweet by Mother Jones’ Adam Serwer. The brief by Paul Clement, who represented the House of Representatives in defending DOMA, had reasoned that gays and lesbians are winning political battles and “have the attention of lawmakers,” an absurd claim since the “power” assertion is factually inaccurate, and because such an argument would also cancel out protections for racial minorities and women.

    Roberts and his fellow conservatives also expressed concern over the White House’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, with Kennedy calling it “very troubling” and Justice Antonin Scalia criticizing the Justice Department’s “new regime.”

    By contrast, several of the court’s liberal justices expressed alarm over the impact of DOMA’s actual deprivation of federal marriage benefits on gays and lesbians, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg calling the rights left for married couples after DOMA “skim milk” and questioning, “What kind of marriage is this?” Justice Elena Kagan, meanwhile, pointed to evidence from a House of Representatives report that lawmakers passed DOMA with improper motives. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the likely swing vote, repeatedly expressed a different concern with DOMA — that it impinged on state definitions of marriage.

  55. From Elaine’s quote:
    Justice Anthony Kennedy, the likely swing vote, repeatedly expressed a different concern with DOMA — that it impinged on state definitions of marriage.
    ~+~
    So I am curious which constitutional amendment is going to be respected here; The 10th for state rights, or a combination of the 14th (due process / equality) and the 9th (No amendment construed to deny the rights guaranteed by other amendments).

    So if the SCOTUS rules that a state is free to define marriage in a way that excludes the equal protection (contract / estate / guardianship) of persons to engage in legal contracts on account of their gender would it be in violation of the 9th amendment because they are allowing the states to discriminate?

  56. Timmy 1, March 27, 2013 at 5:21 pm

    Dredd

    Assume the SCOTUS upholds the right of gays to marry. Then why is it ok for the government to outlaw polygamy? Are they not infringing on the rights of loving people?
    ============================================
    The legislative branch of government defines what an outlaw is and what an outlaw is not.

    The constitution tells those legislators what they can and cannot outlaw.

    The Judiciary is supposed to, then, tell them how they did in their lawin’ and outlawin’.

    This means now, after Laurence v Texas, that any private bedroom population, composed of consenting adults, is not a place for the government to look for outlaws.

  57. lottakatz 1, March 27, 2013 at 4:49 pm

    Just saw the Martin Bashir show. The Professor did a good job as always. Unfortunately from the discussion there doesn’t seem to be an abundance of hope for any decision that isn’t, at best, narrowly focused.
    ===============================================
    Well, even that is a solid first step.

    “No reason to get excited …” (love ya lotta!) …

  58. Well, I think this pretty much explains why the desire to legalize polygamy is not likely to be widespread.

    “BIGAMY, n. A mistake in taste for which the wisdom of the future will adjudge a punishment called trigamy.”

    Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary

  59. I’m not interested in a religious or a rights perspective. What interests me is whether “gay marriage” will (further) undermine traditional marriage. I know the Supreme Court doesn’t have the job to figure that out.

    Why are there so many benefits for legal marriage between a man and a woman in the laws? Why has human society here in the US and most of the whole world elevated and esteemed marriage between a man and woman?

    Frankly, I do not buy the answer that its just some kind of bigotry. Throughout human history (or most human history, I guess) one man-one woman legal marriage has been esteemed and encouraged. My own experience and observation is that it is the best and most beneficial way for people to live and organize their lives and raise children. I would not have had a child or owned a home or saved for a secure retirement without my marriage.

    Gay marriage seems like a feel good thing. No one was talking about it until the last 20 years when its become a cultural obsession. It is a redefinition of marriage; how can it be argued otherwise? Will gay marriage encourage or undermine monogamy? Traditional marriage encourages monogamy; I think monogamy is good for people.

    I’m probably not putting this all that well. The discussion is always about “fairness” and individual rights. Well, life is unfair. My father died at age 53 and I know young people struggling with cancer right now. Regarding individual rights, many of the people supporting gay marriage are OK with the collateral damage deaths of people on the other side of the world in our wars based on lies.

    My priority in this is protecting traditional marriage. The angle of the virtue of traditional marriage is nearly always absent from commentary amidst lots of promotion of gay marriage. I have to think that most likely gay marriage will undermine traditional marriage and thats why the discussion is so limited.

  60. Dredd, Hi guy! “Well, even that is a solid first step.” Yes, yes it is and I’ll take it as long overdue. It’s long overdue for the court to show some courage on many questions. Considering what they do when they step out of the box (Citizens United) I should be overjoyed at the possibility of a narrow ruling favorable to liberty. Embrace that half-full glass! I’m going to try that as a mantra. :-)

    Great song, one of my favorites. The future, a shadowy rider, is approaching and the walls will be breached. Thanks a bunch, truly, I needed some Dylan.

  61. Dredd

    Your problem is that if the legislative branch can prevent polygamy then it can also prevent gay marriage. SCOTUS intervening on either would be hypocritical. If marriage is a contract then it doesn’t matter how many are involved. Also, as one stated above, a dog can’t divorce but two wives can. If you are so concerned about what you believe to be civil rights for gays then you should be equally concerned about a man who loves and wants to marry two wives.

  62. Elaine M.

    God did it! Why did he create Eve? Because he saw that man was lonely and notice he didn’t create “Steve.”

  63. Homosexual marriage has absolutely zero impact on “traditional marriage”. I’ll say it again. Homosexual marriage has absolutely zero impact on “traditional marriage” Unless you think married gay couples are going to destabilize your marriage by breaking in while you’re asleep and redecorating in an effort to confuse your husband or wife into getting a divorce. Their being able to marry and enjoy the same legal benefits as heterosexuals under the law does not impact your marriage any more than a married heterosexual couple’s marriage which means unless your spouse is being unfaithful with a member of the other couple? There is nothing homosexuals could do to undermine your marriage that a heterosexual cannot do to undermine your marriage. If your priority is “traditional marriage”? Worry about the divorce rate or domestic violence, not what other people do in the privacy of their own homes between consenting adults.

  64. Gene H.

    You just don’t get us Christians. Gays marrying as you say does not effect traditional marriage. BUT, it will bring about God’s judgement on our nation. Though you may disagree, understand our way of thinking through our beliefs. Simply read, Revelation 22:15 and Romans 1:24-25

  65. How about Proverbs 12:15

    The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that listens to counsel is wise.

  66. Timmy 1, March 27, 2013 at 4:24 pm

    Wrong! Marriage was created by God with the first marriage being Adam and Eve.
    =======================================================

    which means the second marriage was between two of adam and eves children.

    same sex marriage is a no no, but brother/sister marriage is okay?

    religion is confusing

  67. And also, how about Timothy 4:4

    The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good,

  68. Timmy, The wonderful thing about this country is (supposed to be) that you can have your religious beliefs but others do not have to live by them and whenever a law boils down to a religious expression (or moral outrage) without an overriding state interest being demonstrated (as was alluded to in today’s hearing) it can and should be overturned. Keep your purely religious thinking, as government policy, off of my marriage, my ability to get a job, an abortion or my ability to vote.

  69. Standing is an abused concept by judges to ignore cases. If the government is violating the Constitution, any American citizen has standing. The violation is important (and future violations) not the standing of the party.

  70. Oh, I get Christians, Timmeh. Especially the ones who don’t properly understand their own book in context. I’m not worried about “God’s Judgement”. 1) God is a fairy tale and 2) if He isn’t, a God has a lot more universe to worry about keeping in order than to be concerned with who is rubbing naughty bits together and 3) a God, if such a thing exists, is so far beyond human comprehension that anyone claiming to know what he/she/it thinks – including what incurs their wrath – makes me laugh really hard because they are completely full of bullshit and their own ego as to be so arrogant that they, a lowly mortal, can speak to and for the motivations of a being that by definition is beyond the constraints of the physical universe and ergo by definition incapable of being understood even in the smallest part as he/she/it would not share the same frame of reference as the rest of our reality. This whole “the Bible is the literal Word of God” thing is a fairly new thing in the Christian tradition. For the bulk of Christianity’s existence, the Bible was understood and taught as a book of parables. A parable is a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels or by other teachers in other traditions such as Buddha in the various sutras. “Parable” is effectively a synonym for “allegory” (a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one) as it is derived from Middle English and the Old French parabole, from an ecclesiastical Latin sense ‘discourse, allegory’ of Latin parabola ‘comparison’, from Greek parabolē. They are not literal stories or edicts, they are ethical lessons couched in story that reflect the social mores of a Stone and Bronze Age peoples that often as not have no bearing on life in the 21st Century and the cultural mores of today. It narrows down to this: In the Old Testament, God is kind of a vengeful douche bag and a bloodthirsty bully. Then Jesus, a wise teacher, came along with the message that “God is love”, not a mean kid with an ant farm and a magnifying glass. If any of your literalistic and contextually improper interpretations of the Bible conflict with “God is love”?

    You have completely missed the point of Jesus’ teachings.

    I want to know how denying same sex couples the same rights under law as heterosexual couples based on religious bigotry translates to simple compassion let alone love because you choose to believe an imaginary sky daddy is going to punish everyone because two people love each other.

    “Love between consenting adult humans is a bad thing” or “God is love”, the two are mutually exclusive propositions.

  71. Well said Lotta! It is amazing that for people of faith want to push their beliefs on the entire country and then cry that they are being persecuted for their beliefs. As Gene stated above, this talking point of protecting traditional marriage is a joke. First of all, the divorce rate of traditional marriages is over 50%. Secondly, how does more people getting married harm any other married person? Heck, it is even good for business!

  72. I come from a far right wing background and it is my firm belief that

    1. Homosexuality is a natural, harmless human condition.
    2. To deny gays the right to marry in a secular country is thus a grave injustice.
    3. There are many millions of gay people in this country. They are not going anywhere.
    4. Although it will be a fight to the bitter end, gays will prevail.

  73. Gene H,
    That is just your opinion that homosexual marriage will not undermine traditional marriage. You really do not know.

    My opinion is that it will harm traditional marriage. Its too bad the discussion is so limited but I suspect that the reason for limiting discussion to “fairness” is that a full discussion would endanger the promotion of legalizing homosexual marriage.

  74. Homosexuality was not invented 20 years ago. If homosexual marriage was benign to human society it would have been legal and normal all along. I guess we live in an arrogant age and people think they know everything.

  75. rafflaw,
    The divorce rate being 50% (if it is; I don’t know) and the rates of children born outside of marriage are evidence that traditional marriage is already under stress. Why add gay marriage to the strains on this foundation of human society? Its not a logical argument.

  76. Karen,

    Then explain exactly and with specificity how homosexual marriage will undermine a heterosexual marriage.

    Start with your own.

    As for history? There have been numerous cultures where homosexual relationships were considered perfectly normal. Sparta. The Lesotho and Azande peoples of Africa. Ancient Egypt – they went so far as to consider bisexuals blessed because they could love anyone. It was common in the pre-Columbian American civilizations of the Aztecs, Mayans, Quechuas, Moches, Zapotecs, and the Tupinambá. Homosexuality was an acknowledged part of Chinese culture since 600 BCE as evidenced by their literature. Japan and Thailand have accepted homosexual relations for almost as long. It was a commonly accepted practice in Renaissance Italy. In Melanesia, homosexual relationships were an integral part of their culture until the Missionaries arrived in the middle of the last century.

    Yes, it is my opinion that homosexual marriage will do nothing to undermine “traditional marriage”. I’ve stated why as well. You’ve done nothing but repeat yourself.

    You think I’m wrong?

    Prove it.

    Tell us specific ways that other people getting married harms your marriage by them being the same sex.

  77. Of course, you can always choose to have a completely unfounded opinion or one that is flatly irrational.

  78. Gene H,
    I just found this article from a Google search. Its short and well written. I know nothing else about the article or the website or the organization

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-harm-of-same-sex-marriage

    This is a strong point made in the article:

    “The first was an op-ed piece by Katherine M. Franke, a Columbia University law professor. On the day before the bill passed, she confessed that she really didn’t want to marry her long-time lesbian partner anyway. Why lose the flexibility and benefits of living as domestic partners? As far as she was concerned, “we think marriage ought to be one choice in a menu of options by which relationships can be recognized and gain security”.

    One choice in a menu of legally supported relationships? How long is the menu? If marriage is just the most demanding of many options, it is sure to lose its prestige and popularity.”

  79. That article includes the concern I wrote about in my first post: monogamy. Monogamy is very important in traditional marriage, always has been, even if some people fail. I am skeptical that homosexual marriage will have that regard for monogamy, just being honest.

    Undermining monogamy will undermine traditional marriage because it would most likely be the male who is not monogamous, resulting in children from more than one woman and the financial consequences to the children and the women.

  80. That law professor and her partner do not want to marry because they have all the benefits of marriage with domestic partnership (which must be like civil unions). For 2 income couples it is usually an advantage to file income taxes as singles.

    If gay marriage is legalized, will civil unions be done away with?

    If civil unions are still available for homosexual couples, will they also be extended to heterosexual couples?

    That would surely undermine traditional marriage.

  81. Karen,

    Try again. A newsletter op-ed piece aimed at the Catholic/Opus Dei set is not proof, just more opinion and worse still it’s opinion with a well known anti-homosexual bias.

    Not only that, the specious arguments made there – that homosexuals aren’t capable of long-term relationships and that accepting homosexual relationships will eventually lead to accepting incestuous or polygamous relations – is irrelevant considering that the heterosexual marriages have a divorce rate of about 50% and it’s poor logic. The fidelity argument is an example of the logical fallacy of ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion). The whole homosexuality leads to incest/polygamy/bestiality is both a false equivalence and an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc – “after this, therefore because of this” which is also known as faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, or correlation without causation.

    Come on. Tell us, in your words, how another couple’s marriage harms your because they happen to be of the same sex.

  82. Karen,

    As far as the government and the legal system is concerned, all marriages are civil unions. The government cannot endorse one religious tradition over another and not violate the 1st Amendment. The government’s interest in all marriages is in the contractual relationship such a relationship incurs and the legal benefits and detriments therein.

  83. My marriage is not a “civil union” but gay people in New Jersey can have civil unions and continue to file income taxes as singles. It saves a lot of money for 2 income couples.

    If gay marriage is legalized, will that be the end of civil unions? That would seem to be a loss for most gay couples in civil union states. If gays are still allowed civil unions, why should heterosexuals be denied the financial benefit of civil unions?

    I mean, its not hard to contemplate a court case to that effect very quickly.

  84. Oh, and it was also said by some in our country and legislative bodies in the south that marriage between different races would undermine the entire race itself, much less the marriage. And look, now it is not uncommon. The only problem it has is in the minds of those who for whatever reason oppose it.

    And yes I had been in two interracial relationships previously. I am white, the others were Asian. Somehow after all “The Horror, The Horror” as some would think, I turned out just fine and got married to someone else later in life. It is my business. Why? Because I am free to choose whomever I wish to Love for any reason. If someone thinks they can tell me who I cannot love, frankly they can go to hell. I love my wife, and I have a good marriage. There isn’t a person or gov’t out there that will coerce me to believe I could not marry her or that I must divorce because “they say so.” And if I have a right to feel as I do, so should everyone else; whether they are gay, straight, rich, poor, interracial, religious, or not. Their validity as a human being is no greater or worse than mine is.

  85. Karen,

    You fail to recognize the proper governmental interests in marriage. The government does not give a damn what religious tradition you married under. Their valid interest is only in the benefits and obligations created between you and your partner. It may be called a marriage or a civil union but their valid Constitutional interests remains the same: the underlying contractual relationship.

  86. And I’m still waiting for specific examples of how a couple being married undermines your heterosexual marriage simply because they are homosexual.

  87. As far as the website and the article, if you do not like to address what it has to say simply because you have some animus to the organization, well, what can I say?

    I think those are good points. If there is a menu of legally recognized options available to people and traditional marriage is the most demanding (and pays more income taxes), fewer people will choose traditional marriage. Thats is an undermining of traditional marriage.

    I remember when Clinton signed DOMA and theres an article in the Times this week that Clinton encouraged Kerry to come out for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in 1994. So, I am not impressed with an argument that other redefinitions of marriage speculated by that author are simply “post hoc” etc. whatever. Proven in our lifetimes in less than 20 years.

  88. Clinton encouraged Kerry in 2004 to come out for constitutional ban — sorry I wrote that wrong.

  89. As for how gay marriage would undermine my traditional marriage, I don’t think thats relevant even. ( On what other issue do people keep asking “Whats it to you?” like you have to be personally involved to have an opinion.)

    As a commenter on another blog put it: “There are many generations yet to be born but only one that is alive right now. It’s not all about us. We have responsibilities.”

  90. “As far as the website and the article, if you do not like to address what it has to say simply because you have some animus to the organization, well, what can I say? ”

    Apparently you don’t understand the role of bias and eliminating it in good argumentation practice, Karen. I also don’t think NAMBLA is an unbiased source for argument for allowing pedophilia either. The points you think are good are material informal logical fallacies.

    If you choose to base your argument on bad logic? And then double down when that illogic is pointed out? Then your argument is irrational.

  91. “As for how gay marriage would undermine my traditional marriage, I don’t think thats relevant even.”

    It’s precisely relevant. You claim homosexual marriage undermines traditional marriage. Prove it by providing examples of how a homosexual marriage would undermine your marriage. Unless, of course, you’re claiming your heterosexual marriage is different from all other heterosexual marriages, which would be yet another informal logical fallacy – special pleading.

  92. Regarding civil unions vs traditional marriage, please be clear because I am not understanding you:

    1. Will civil unions be eliminated for gays if gay marriage is legalized?

    2. If civil unions are not eliminated for gays, will heterosexuals also be permitted to have civil unions?

    In the tax laws, civil union and marriage are DIFFERENT. You can file as a single if you are not MARRIED.

    Caps are because this is becoming a muddle here and I don’t know why when the questions are so clear.

    My marriage is a marriage, not a “civil union.” I can file taxes as “married filing jointly” or “married filing separately.” I cannot file as “single.” Civil union people can still file their taxes as “single.”

  93. What on the article is written with any “bias?” Thats a silly argument that because you don’t like the organization that their logic is faulty. I’m sure I haven’t liked a lot of the editorials in the NY Times but I get a lot of solid information from the NY Times.

  94. No, I don’t have to relate it to my marriage! Thats so silly. You participated in the high-school-principal-honors-night thread the other day, right? But you aren’t in high school any more. We all have opinions about right and wrong on issues that don’t affect us personally.

    (Although I do have a daughter and I want her to have a traditional marriage because I know her and thats what would be best for her, not something from a “menu” of legally recognized relationships.)

    That article could have easily itemized an additional point: The real losers in legalizing gay marriage will be heterosexual women. Of course, that should be obvious; the purpose of marriage has always been the protection and interests of women and their children.

  95. Your questions are irrelevant, but I’ll answer them anyway.

    “1. Will civil unions be eliminated for gays if gay marriage is legalized?”

    2. If civil unions are not eliminated for gays, will heterosexuals also be permitted to have civil unions? ”

    It depends on the jurisdiction. Most jurisdictions already allow a civil union as a form of marriage for heterosexual couples. Ask anyone married by a Justice of the Peace or a Judge. That is by definition a civil union because it was not presided by a member of the clergy.

    “My marriage is a marriage, not a “civil union.” I can file taxes as “married filing jointly” or “married filing separately.” I cannot file as “single.” Civil union people can still file their taxes as “single.””

    And that is an example of bias in the law – if that were true. There is no advantage to filing single if you’re married as joint filing provides additional tax savings. In fact, the relevant NJ tax code says nothing about being able to file as single.

    “Civil Union Act

    P.L. 2006, Chapter 103, the Civil Union Act, was signed into law on December 21, 2006, and took effect on February 19, 2007. The Act establisheds “civil unions” for couples of the same sex.

    The legislation was passed in response to the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Lewis vs. Harris, 188 N.J. 415 (2006). That Court unanimously held that “committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples.” The subsequent Act, as stated in section 4, gives partners in civil union couples “all of the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under the law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage.” Section 5n of the Act provides that “legal benefits, protections and responsibilities of spouses shall apply in like manner to civil union couples” to “laws relating to taxes imposed by the State or a municipality including but not limited to homestead rebate tax allowances, tax deductions based on marital status or exemptions from realty transfer tax based on marital status.”

    Section 92 of the Act provides that “Whenever in any law, rule, regulation, judicial or administrative proceeding or otherwise, reference is made to “marriage,” “husband,” “wife,” “spouse,” “family,” “immediate family,” “dependent,” “next of kin,” “widow,” “widower,” “widowed” or another word which in a specific context denotes a marital or spousal relationship, the same shall include a civil union pursuant to the provisions of this act.”

    The Civil Union Act impacts New Jersey State tax law and administration in the following areas:

    LOCAL REAL PROPERTY TAX
    TRANSFER INHERITANCE AND ESTATE TAXES
    GROSS INCOME TAX”

    And the CAPS is because you are frustrated and making a rather poor argument. I’m still waiting for a specific example of how a homosexual couple being married undermines a traditional marriage – like yours. Whether you like it or not, your position so far is simply irrational and biased. Irrational bias is the foundation of bigotry, Karen. You’re not a bigot, are you? Then you should be able to provide specific examples where a homosexual couple being married undermines a traditional marriage. Or you could admit your argument has no logical or evidentiary foundation.

  96. Ya’know Gene, I think there is an argument to be made by some of our commentors but they rely instead on the Bible argument or the claim that children will be harmed or that children will learn to be gay. If you have a behavior that you want to discourage and can make it or parts of it illegal (or give it no respect) then you can point to that as a teaching tool for training your children. Once the enforceable visages of the discriminatory behavior are gone and the behavior is legitimized as worthy of the respect by law then that tool disappears. There is nothing that legitimizes your opinion or prejudice in the real world. There is one less (and a big one less) reinforcement for your world view when indoctrinating/training your children. Children may feel more comfortable following a path not of your choosing. Traditional marriage overall may not suffer but traditional marriage among your cultural peers may suffer. Even some married but-still-closeted homosexuals may just walk away from their marriage. Leave a door open and who knows who will walk through.

    I don’t think people, when they make the children-based arguments are worried about roving bands of happy gays indoctrinating children or even children in general, it’s which children might have a new thought put into their heads. It’s like the joke ‘how do you know who in the Senate or House is gay?’. I think there’s more than a little projection going on.

    Personally, I think that is just a potential price of liberty and equality. The country going forward may be 11&1/2 % gay rather than 10&a scosh%.

    Same with the Bible arguments. What happens to your kids mind when gays can marry and have universal civil rights and the earth isn’t smote into a smoking cinder- after you’ve trained your kids to believe it will be?

    I will concede that there are probably a whole bunch of wives of some famous, big-time bible thumpers and homophobic legislators who have cause for concern though, Michelle Bachman comes to mind.

  97. Karen,

    The one acting silly here is you by evading the simple question that has been asked multiple times: You claim as specific harm – that homosexual marriages undermine traditional marriages. You claim to have a traditional marriage. Can you provide specific examples where a homosexual couple being married undermines a traditional marriage?

    No?

    Then your argument fails. Plain and simple.

  98. LK,

    Now you leave those poor Congress critters alone! And by “leave them alone”, I mean “give ’em Hell”. :mrgreen:

  99. Rafflaw, Thanks and I too am tired of having to listen to various religion based cries of suppression just because they are getting some push-back on their political agenda- sheesh, go sit on the bench with the House Republicans if all you’re going to do is whine about being suppressed.

  100. I married in front of a Justice of the Peace. Just to be clear. I am not Catholic and did not have a religious marriage but it is a marriage, not a “civil union” even if the ceremony was “civil.” (Its late or I’d like to turn that last “civil” into a joke :) – something about my mother, maybe.)

  101. Gene,
    I claimed harm to traditional marriage. Its you who have been claiming that I claimed harm to my own marriage. Straw man!

  102. Gene, please look into the tax code. For 2 income couples it is usually an advantage to be able to file as “single” rather than as “married separately” or “married jointly.”

  103. Geez, I’ve given a whole bunch of examples of how I think gay marriage will undermine traditional marriage, Gene. But you have your hands over your ears, I guess.

    New Jersey is not the whole megillah on taxes that people pay! Those New Jersey civil unioneers are paying their federal income taxes as “singles” and if they are a 2 income couple, they are likely paying less than a married 2 income couple with the same income.

  104. lottakatz,
    I think a lot of the supporters of gay marriage try to distract by claiming that opposition is based on the Bible. I’ve been reading comments all over the place lately and its rare to see the Bible come up, honestly. Most people are thinking about real life implications, not what God wants.

  105. Firstly, Karen, You claimed homosexual marriages undermine traditional marriages. Secondly, you claimed you have a traditional marriage. Thirdly, you cannot provide examples of the threat homosexual marrying poses to your own marriage, which means by logical extension that you cannot prove homosexuals pose a threat to traditional marriages at all including yours. You did all of this while making a false claim about NJ tax law which makes you a liar and/or simply ignorant of the facts. I have not misrepresented your argument in any way. I’ve asked you repeatedly to provide examples proving your stance – which you have not been able or willing to do.

    Now you can at this point provide proof in the form of examples of how specifically a homosexual marriage undermines a traditional marriage or at least an argument no based in logical error or lies and distortions.

    If you can? We have further to discuss and I’ll make a rebuttal, but given how well that worked out for you above? Perhaps you should recondsider. If not? It becomes manifest that you are either irrational in your arguments or simply trolling like a nitwit, either way, you have not proven your contention that homosexual marriage undermine traditional marriage.

    Arguments based on illogical and no evidence fail.

  106. “Geez, I’ve given a whole bunch of examples of how I think gay marriage will undermine traditional marriage, Gene.”

    And I’ve shown they are faulty biased reasoning.

    ” But you have your hands over your ears, I guess. ”

    And I guess you have your mind closed and are incapable of understanding that you don’t win arguments based on faulty biased reasoning.

    “New Jersey is not the whole megillah on taxes that people pay! Those New Jersey civil unioneers are paying their federal income taxes as “singles” and if they are a 2 income couple, they are likely paying less than a married 2 income couple with the same income.”

    Horseshit, Karen. The NJ Code clearly says “The subsequent Act, as stated in section 4, gives partners in civil union couples ‘all of the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under the law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage.'”

    The same. As in equal. As in equal rights. That thing your bigoted irrational argument seems to gravitate away from.

    Enjoy your complete and abject failure to make your case.

  107. Karen, see Timmy’s last few postings above. They are not untypical. Likewise, inexplicable harms to children and opposite-sex marriage are not untypical. You have made 3 claims of harm, none of which are persuasive or even logical except for an issue of tax filing which may vary from state to state for state tax’s. SCOTUS striking down DOMA would take care of some of the inequality at the federal level if Congress chooses to revise some statutes.

  108. Karen in New Jersey
    1, March 28, 2013 at 1:20 am
    One choice in a menu of legally supported relationships? How long is the menu? If marriage is just the most demanding of many options, it is sure to lose its prestige and popularity.

    Karen,
    How does marriage gain prestige and popularity when you hoard it for yourself?

  109. Karen in New Jersey
    1, March 28, 2013 at 1:28 am

    Monogamy is very important in traditional marriage, always has been, even if some people fail. I am skeptical that homosexual marriage will have that regard for monogamy, just being honest.

    Karen,
    Your hypersexualization about gays and gay marriage is showing.
    Are you suggesting that gays can NOT be monogamous?
    How many gay couples do you know to draw such a conclusion?

  110. Karen in New Jersey
    1, March 28, 2013 at 1:32 am

    re: Civil Unions

    Ever consider why it is that straight people can have a civil union AND/OR get married yet gays are relegated to JUST civil unions?

  111. Karen in New Jersey
    1, March 28, 2013 at 2:12 am

    No, I don’t have to relate it to my marriage! Thats so silly.

    So it’s not really a “THREAT” to traditional marriage then.
    Thanks for proving it.

  112. Darren Smith
    1, March 27, 2013 at 11:58 pm

    Thank you for that post.

    What amazes me are the Christians that:

    1) Insist it’s not judging their brother when they condemn their brother for what they perceive as a “sin” knowing full well that they too, have a mote in their eye.

    2) Insist on loving the “sinner” when they’re busy defining that “sinner” for how God made them.

    I call them a wayward flock being led down the path to perdition.

  113. Timmy
    1, March 27, 2013 at 11:33 pm

    Gays marrying as you say does not effect traditional marriage. BUT, it will bring about God’s judgement on our nation.

    Which will bring Judgment more:
    1) Torture and war in the name of the Nation
    2) Love between two consenting adults

    “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

    Even Jesus saw the need for the separation of Church and State, after all, who did He toss out of the Temple and who did he scorn for allowing the two to mingle?

  114. Apologies if this has been mentioned already in the thread above, but I have been away from my desk since early yesterday. I heard somebody on the radio talking about the case. The person said the only purpose of marriage is procreation. If that is the case, and they really believe it, let them step up to the plate and write laws that marriage licenses be issued only to fertile couples who will sign an affidavit they intend to have children.

    I am sure that will go over well. Not.

  115. OS
    The laws would also have to have expiration dates on marriages. As the couple grows old together, eventually they no longer will be able to procreate.

  116. Lotta, Good point about HIV/AIDS being an important aspect in the activism of the gay community. How could I have forgotten it? I think the first spike Karen mentioned was the result of the initial organizing after Stonewall, the second spike to 75% was probably due to the organizing around HIV/AIDS, and the third movement to 85% was family and friends understanding and joining.

    Dealing with HIV/AIDS was undoubtedly first on the list of demands. Discrimination in jobs, housing, etc. was on the list. Same sex marriage was further down the list and was somewhat controversial with many wondering why they would want to formalize a relationship that heterosexual couples seem to muck up. That opposition seems to have turned to an acceptance of choice for those who want it.

    Karen,

    You seem focused on the tax question, but there are other benefits and responsibilities of marriage as Gene identified above. Some examples:
    * Inheritance laws give special consideration to a spouse, but not a significant other.
    * Hospital admittance to gravely ill patients is available to a spouse, but not a significant other
    * Medical decisions that cannot be given by a patient are made by next of kin, e.g. a spouse, but not by a significant other
    * Social security allows a spouse to benefit, but not a significant other
    * There are many varieties of private retirement plans but most allow a spouse to benefit. As a recent change to some retirement plans a significant other may benefit.
    * Some insurance provisions are limited to spouse or next of kin, excluding a significant other.

    Another consideration: Many same sex couples have children. What happens to the children if the couple breaks up? If they are married, the law has specific rights and responsibilities identified. If they are not married the children can be hurt by losing one parent without the benefit of prescribed visitation or child support.

    There are contractual ways of dealing with many of these issues but many couples aren’t aware of all the pitfalls that may lie ahead and/or they may not be able to afford a competent attorney to draw up the contract.

    Any heterosexual marriage that be seriously harmed by the marriage of another couple must already be in serious trouble.

  117. BK sez: “Any heterosexual marriage that be seriously harmed by the marriage of another couple must already be in serious trouble.”

    ********************************************

    Now THERE is a slogan that ought to be put up on billboards all across the country.

  118. Karen, Gene,

    Another thought about the tax question. I suspect that Karen is correct that federal taxes require that same sex partners in a civil union file as single. After all, DOMA does not allow same sex marriage/civil union. I suspect that Gene is right that NJ state taxes require that same couple to pick one of the married designations. I haven’t done all the research but it’s one possible explanation.

  119. BK sez: “Any heterosexual marriage that be seriously harmed by the marriage of another couple must already be in serious trouble.”

    ********************************************

    Now THERE is a slogan that ought to be put up on billboards all across the country.

    ————————-

    Otteray,
    This has always been the rational for laws that give benefits to marriage (as traditional one man-one woman marriage): Marriage is fragile. Women and children are vulnerable.

    One of the things that bothered me the other day listening to the Supreme Court arguments was the attitude of the female justices. These are elite women. Their attitude bespoke a total lack of sympathy for the lives of ordinary women. Kagan especially with her questions about couples over childbearing age — those older women need the protection of marriage, too.

    The victims of legalizing homosexual marriage will be women and children. Of course, this is kept out of the public discourse about the issue because its a very strong argument and the prospectiive victims need to be kept in the dark. .

  120. Karen, Lesbian women are victims because they can’t marry not because of gay marriage. The children in gay families will benefit if their parents can marry. Therefore, all children and women will benefit along with men. Sotomayor grew up in poverty and the other two female justices have worked extremely long hours most of their lives.

  121. Gene,
    Where did I claim that homosexual marriage will harm MY marriage? I already have my child, my house, my retirement savings. My concern is for future generations, including my own daughter.

    Its plenty debatable whether I’ll be affected by global warming or the Keystone Pipeline but I’m allowed to have opinions about those matters.

    You refuse to read the article I posted and you refuse to look at the federal tax code. Don’t bother you with any facts!

    The most prominent homosexual marriage columnist, who I’ve seen on TV many times, Dan Savage advocates against monogamy per that article. Logically, homosexual marriage will have less regard for monogamy than traditional marriage. In traditional marriage, the wife has an interest in the husband being monogamous so that he does not sire children with other women.

    I base none of my reasonings on religion. Common sense and the wisdom of the ages support maintaining traditional marriage as the definition of marriage and, honestly, this discussion has strengthened my opinion because the reasoning on the other side is very weak and refuses to even acknowledge, let alone consider the arguments on the other side. Perhaps you have to be narrowminded to support gay marriage.

  122. Swarthmore mom,
    I’d like to know the exact circumstances of Sotomayor’s childhood to say whether I think she grew up in poverty. Did she go hungry? Did she not have heat and running water? Did she have to walk 2 miles to school?

    Whatever, she is not in poverty now. She is elite and has been among the elite for at least 30 years.

    A lesbian woman cannot get impregnated and abandoned by her partner, surely. Thats the plight that marriage has always been intended to protect women from.

  123. Karen, Sotomayor grew up in the Bronx housing projects. She was raised by a single mother after her alcoholic father died when she was nine. She developed Type1 diabetes as a child. She sterilized her own needles because she could not afford new ones. You should read her book.

  124. Karen,

    Now you’re misrepresenting your own case.

    Your concern for your daughter is irrelevant but you should be able to provide example of how Steve and Bruce or Shelley and Linda being married somehow undermines your daughter’s attempt at traditional marriage. The issue is how exactly does homosexual marriage undermine traditional marriage? Give concrete examples. You haven’t yet, so I’m pretty sure you can’t at this point, but you’ve certainly evaded the question.

    What Dan Savage says is irrelevant. He not the “Ambassador of Gay”. You claimed you have a traditional marriage and that homosexual marriage undermines traditional marriage. I said “prove it” – not opine, not whine, not have a fit – but prove it by giving specific examples of how homosexuals being married undermines traditional marriage and you could not give a single one that wasn’t irrational illogical gibberish. Either homosexuals marrying is a threat to all traditional marriages or it isn’t. Either your marriage is a traditional marriage or it isn’t. Either you have specific examples of how a homosexual couple being married undermines your daughter’s or anyone else in their traditional marriage.

    As for the Federal tax code? What you point to is an inequity against homosexuals. A harm against homosexual couples, not a benefit. FACT: Being married allows for far more deductions than filing single. You live in a state that gives homosexual equal rights on their state taxation, and yet you b*tch about Federal taxes because they somehow help gay couples who are married? An unequal law that negatively impacts a married homosexual couple’s tax burden is somehow a benefit to them in your mind. Do you realize how crazy that sounds? The benefit to them accrues under state law in the case of New Jersey. The detriment accrues to them under Federal law.

    From what I’ve seen you don’t have any reasoning at all, just a conclusion for which you have no rational explanation or evidence.

    Perhaps you simply don’t have a clue as what you are talking about.

    If you cannot state the particular nature of any threat homosexual marriage poses to yours or any other heterosexual marriage?

    You’re simply full of crap.

    Have a day.

  125. bettykath,

    You wrote a long list so I’ll try to address them because I have thought about them:

    1. Inheritance laws do give special consideration to a spouse and if we redefine marriage, those special considerations will be vulnerable. Why wouldn’t someone want to “marry” anyone they want to assign as their beneficiary? Say a widow has a $2 million 401(K) and is told she has 6 months to live. Why wouldn’t she want to “marry” her own child to avoid tax penalties that a non-spouse would encounter? (If you’re told you got 6 months to live, you don’t care what people think.)
    2.Medical decisions – you can set that up with a medical power of attorney at least as easily as with a marriage. (And I have some experience with this; it all depends on the doctors you run into as to whether the person not the patient will really have any say in medical decisions regardless of marriage or advance directives.)
    3. Social Security — The end result will be tossing that special consideration for a spouse (see 1.).
    4. Retirement accounts – Do you mean extending ERISA to civil union participants so that the person holding the account can only name a spouse as beneficiary (if there is a spouse) unless he/she gets consent of the spouse? Redefining marriage won’t stop at gay marriage so I’d have the same considerations as under 1. that the end result will be to lose that special status that now exists for the traditional marriage spouse.
    5. Insurance — thats so up in the air now anyway with the implementation of the healthcare law.

    As you say, a lot can be done contractually but even with a marriage, people run into problems about custody of children and child support.

  126. Swarthmore mom – I don’t know that you’ve described “poverty,” honestly. Her needs were met. What need did she lack? When I was a child we lived in a one bedroom apartment in Astoria, Queens, an old building on Steinway St. Was that poverty? I’d never tell anyone that I grew up in poverty.

  127. Gene,
    By and large, the federal tax code benefits homosexual couples because they are likely to be 2 income couples and they can file as singles. You should make up an account on Turbo Tax and let them figure it out for you if you don’t want to do the work of looking up the federal tax laws and how they operate. Or just google it “Marriage Penalty.”

  128. I have given you concrete examples and I have explained why monogamy is idealized in traditional marriage. Repeating it over and over hasn’t registered with you thus far so I’m going to stop repeating myself.

  129. Wow.

    1) 1st degree incest is illegal but please, go for the false equivalence again. This also begs the question that marriage is only between a man and a woman which has no bearing on the underlying legal contractual issues if both parties are of the age of consent and competent. Begging the question is also a logical fallacy.

    2) Heterosexual couples don’t have to file anything and yet they get the right to make medical decisions for their spouses. Why do you want to penalize homosexual couples by making them take and extra step to get a right everyone else already has? Oh, that’s right. You think homosexuals are 2nd class citizens. Would you like them to wear a pink triangle on all of their clothes too? Just so yous can spot ’em easier?

    3) Like in #1, your statement begs the question that marriage is only between a man and a woman – which is a religious argument and definition, not a (valid) legal argument and definition.

    4) More correlation is not causation. You loves you some logical fallacies, don’t ya?

    You’re still haven’t shown a single instance of how the relationship of married homosexual couple undermines “traditional marriage”.

  130. Repeating yourself over and over doesn’t prove anything except you repeat yourself when you don’t have a valid counter argument or any evidence as if repeating yourself is somehow proof you are right.

    It isn’t.

    And please, don’t do your own taxes.

  131. Gay marriage case’s Edie Windsor: marriage ‘magic’
    By JESSICA GRESKO | Associated Press
    http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-cases-edie-windsor-marriage-magic-203852659–politics.html

    Excerpt:
    WASHINGTON (AP) — When Edith Windsor got engaged in the 1960s to the woman who eventually became her wife, she asked for a pin instead of a ring. A ring would have meant awkward questions, she said: Who is he? Where is he? And when do we meet him?

    On Wednesday, the 83-year-old stood on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, the face of a case that could change how the U.S. government treats married gay couples. She wore a grey pants suit, a pink and orange scarf and her engagement pin, a circle of diamonds.

    Windsor, whose wife, Thea Spyer, died in 2009, sued to challenge a $363,000 federal estate tax bill she got after Spyer’s death. The pair married in Canada in 2007. Had Windsor been married to a man, she would not have paid any estate tax.

    Windsor said the spirit of her partner of 44 years was watching and listening Wednesday, and she called marriage a “magic word.”

  132. Karen in NJ has a serious chip on her shoulder that is at once unrelated to both marriage or logic.

    Still waiting for the actual harm caused… no signs of it yet… a lot of silly handwringing though.

  133. To Karen in NJ
    It still shocks and crushes me to think that there are so many people out there like you, who completely fail to see the hate and injury that is caused by strangers asserting themselves into the private and intimate lives of others.

    The obsession that you people have with gays’ and lesbians’ personal lives speaks volumes about your ethics (or lack thereof), morality (or lack thereof), and perversion (yes, perversion). [“Perversion” def. according to Merriam-Webster–“an aberrant sexual practice or interest especially when habitual”.]

    A complete stranger’s unwanted public detailing and commentary on their peer’s sexual preference/orientation, which consists of mutual/consenting behavior between adults, qualifies as “aberrant”…”interest”…and “habitual”, don’t you think?

  134. Karen,

    “The real losers in legalizing gay marriage will be heterosexual women. Of course, that should be obvious; the purpose of marriage has always been the protection and interests of women and their children.”

    *****

    I’m a heterosexual woman…so is my daughter. I fail to see how women like us would be losers if gay marriage were legalized. What protection would heterosexual women and their children lose?

  135. Karen in NJ has yet to explain how she personally, as well as other heterosexuals in general will be harmed by other couples who love each other getting married.. On the other hand she sees nothing wrong with the psychological and economic harm done to gay couples by preventing them from having the same rights and privileges she has, solely by accident of birth.

    Her circular logic has been heard before in the treatment of other “different” couples. One only has to read the arguments made by the Commonwealth’s attorney in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) to hear the same kind of bigotry expressed in a different context.

    Karen, in case you are not familiar with Loving v. Virgina, here is the link:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

  136. (AmeriStat, March 2003) Images of the traditional family still dominate our televisions and magazines, but they do not represent how most Americans live. In 2002, only 7 percent of all U.S. households consisted of married couples with children in which only the husband worked. Dual-income families with children made up more than two times as many households. Even families with two incomes and no children outnumbered the traditional family by almost two to one.

    http://www.prb.org/Articles/2003/TraditionalFamiliesAccountforOnly7PercentofUSHouseholds.aspx

  137. Otteray,
    I’ve explained it repeatedly. You are just like a kid saying, “I know you are but what am I?”

    Read the damned article I linked to or else you just want to remain ignorant of the arguments against gay marriage (because you know they are very strong).

    And thats why the TV news media has been so one-sided on this issue. They cannot allow the opponents of gay marriage to have an equal say or anything near an equal say because the arguments are so strong and the other side has to quickly resort to ad hominem attack. (I shouldn’t lump everyone together but theres a lot of it on this thread. I haven’t said anything about “aberrant” or “perversion” or anything about religion other than that its not my concern.)

  138. How the War on Gay Marriage Turned Into a War on Adoption
    By Tom Junod
    3/28/13
    http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/war-on-adoption

    Excerpt:
    I have been married for 28 years. I met my wife in my freshman year of college. We started dating in my second semester, and have been so exclusive that we celebrate the anniversary of our first kiss rather than our wedding day. We met in our late teens; we are now in our mid-50s, and continue, with high hearts, the lifetime project of enduring the certainty of temporary hardship in order to keep alive the possibility of sustained joy. Though not regular churchgoers, we believe in marriage the way others believe in God, as something worthy of faith, commitment and sacrifice — indeed, as a provision that God has made for the happiness of all his mortal creatures. We have never thought of our marriage as anything but pleasing to anyone who cared to judge it, and have never imagined that the sanctity of our marriage might threaten the sanctity of other marriages, not to mention the institution of marriage itself.

    Until now.

    What has changed our understanding of the way some people see our marriage is, of course, the general debate unleashed by the last two days of argument before the Supreme Court on the subject of same-sex marriage. No, my wife and I are not of the same sex; I am a man and she is a woman. But we are infertile. We did not procreate. For the past nine years, we have been the adoptive parents of our daughter; we are legally her mother and father, but not biologically, and since Tuesday have been surprised and saddened to be reminded that for a sizable minority of the American public our lack of biological capacity makes all the difference — and dooms our marriage and our family to second-class status.

    Like many Americans, I have had what a politician might call an “evolving position” on the issue of marriage equality. For a long time, I thought that “domestic partnerships” would suffice as a kind of parallel institution to the institution of holy matrimony — marriage in all but name; marriage for those who were otherwise not entitled to marry. Of course, it was the totality of that last phrase — a phrase that so confidently assumes who is entitled to what — that led me to examine my beliefs. Why were gay people not entitled to marry? Why did they not enjoy the same rights that my wife and I did? I was open to hearing arguments from those willing to justify such extreme and eternal stricture, as long as they did not originate in a rote recitation of scripture. But I never heard any that made sense. For a long time I was told that same-sex marriages somehow endangered my own, but like anyone who has ever been married, I understood that whatever threat there was to my marriage came from within rather than from without. I was not the only one to reject out of hand the logical fallacy of what might be called the “zero sum” defense of traditional marriage, and before long I started hearing an argument based on biology or, as groups such as the National Organization for Marriage would have it, “nature.” For all its philosophical window dressing — for all its invocation of natural law, teleological destiny, and the “complementary” nature of man and woman — this argument ultimately rested on a schoolyard-level obsession with private parts, and with what did, or did not, “fit.” There was “natural marriage” and “unnatural” marriage, and it was easy to tell the difference between them by how many children they produced. A natural marriage not only produced children; it existed for the purpose of producing children. An unnatural marriage not only failed to produce children; it resorted to procuring children through unnatural means, from artificial insemination to surrogacy to, yes, adoption. The argument against same-sex marriage now boiled down to a kind of biological determinism, and so became almost indistinguishable from an argument against adoption itself.

  139. Ok, so now lets talk about finances: A gay couple has very serious tax consequences that a married couple does not. I like to explain it to people by using the example of joint accounts.

    Most couples share at least one financial account through which they support and tend to the “relationship” and the structure of the relationship. For example, they will have a joint account to use to maintain their shared household.

    For married couples, there is really nothing to think about here in terms of tax liability. For non-married couples, including gay or lesbian couples, if that account is largely funded by one person, a gift tax liability becomes a real issue, especially under Federal tax laws, where there is a limit as to how much a person can “gift” to another person.

    Were the two married, it would simply be recognized as a joint account. But, the gay couple is not married, especially under federal tax law, and therefore if one of the couple transfers more than the allowed gift amount (which I think is currently 13k) into the joint account, they WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY A SUBSTANTIAL TAX ON THAT MONEY EACH YEAR. Now, I suspect that none of us think that any couple can maintain a household on less than 13,000 a year. So, in a very real number of these couplings, they will incur a very significant increase in their tax liability each and every year.

    And the important thing to remember here is that there is no legitimate, substantive, or overwhelming justification for this type of disparate treatment between the couples. If the government could find a beneficial justification for the tax “break” for one couple, then our society will also enjoy the benefits emanating from applying the break to the next couple. And, remember, the government’s justifications for its intrusions into the personal nature of marriage and a person’s liberties is based on, in a very broad sense, the idea that two people committing to care and provide for each other end up providing a lot of relief for the state in carrying out its burden of protecting the heath, safety, and welfare of its citizens.

    How is our society not benefitting from the extrapolation of that reasoning to include gay and lesbian couplings?

    And, for the record, I would like to remind people to be honest about where the majority’s insistence on things like “morality”, “tradition”, and even religion have gotten us in the last 2000 years. If we are in a current state of moral decay, look at who’s watch it happened on.

  140. Elaine,
    Heterosexual women would be victims of legalizing gay marriage because the long term result would be the undermining of traditional marriage, which has always been intended to protect women and children.

    That article I linked to above brings up some good points in this vein and I’m going to paste the first one here again because its very strong:

    “The first was an op-ed piece by Katherine M. Franke, a Columbia University law professor. On the day before the bill passed, she confessed that she really didn’t want to marry her long-time lesbian partner anyway. Why lose the flexibility and benefits of living as domestic partners? As far as she was concerned, “we think marriage ought to be one choice in a menu of options by which relationships can be recognized and gain security”.

    One choice in a menu of legally supported relationships? How long is the menu? If marriage is just the most demanding of many options, it is sure to lose its prestige and popularity.”

  141. James Knauer writes, “Karen in NJ has a serious chip on her shoulder that is at once unrelated to both marriage or logic.

    Still waiting for the actual harm caused… no signs of it yet… a lot of silly handwringing though.”

    You refuse to bother to read my arguments because you prefer to remain ignorant and you attack me personally. Do you really think thats making your case??

  142. Karen,

    “Heterosexual women would be victims of legalizing gay marriage because the long term result would be the undermining of traditional marriage, which has always been intended to protect women and children.”

    You’re repeating yourself. What you cut and pasted from that article does not explain how gay marriage will undermine my traditional heterosexual marriage–and the marriages of other heterosexual women. Give it some more thought–and get back to me.

  143. Karen,
    Its irrelevant–your reference to any marriage penalty begs the underlying and fundamental question/issue here, which is:

    There appears to be no governmental justification for its disparate treatment of couplings that serve the same purposes.

    You can do what ever you want, but the government–OUR government–the institution that exists SOLELY to protect our health, safety, and welfare, has to behave differently, with more logic and with less bias.

  144. You’ve had your equal say, Karen.

    Your arguments suck as numerous people have pointed out. They don’t suck because you suck, no, they suck because they are devoid of logic and substantive relevant evidence as has been pointed out numerous times. That’s not an attack on your position based on ad hominem, but rather an attack on your position based on the merits. If any of us were to say, “You’re wrong because you suck”? That would be dismissing your argument because of your person and that is ad hominem. We don’t allow that around here. Several have implied you suck because your argument is wrong, but that is merely opinion, not ad hominem. With very narrow exceptions, argumentum ad hominem is as irrelevant as opinion. You have an opinion that is founded upon a poor argument which means it is unfounded opinion and should be weighted as such in evaluation. That the foundation for your argument is irrational and lacking evidence is just a bonus.

    As for “I haven’t said anything about “aberrant” or “perversion” or anything about religion other than that its not my concern.”: this statement is belied by your insistence of using a religious definition of marriage (heterosexual couples only). Your explicit statements wallow in implicit religiosity. We’re by in large a much more sophisticated audience linguistically than perhaps you are used to dealing with. You’ll have to do better than you have so far. Speaking of which, as step in the right direction would be to give examples of how you personally, as well as other heterosexuals in general, will be harmed by other couples who love each other getting married simply because they are of the same sex.

    Saying you’ve “explained” it already when you haven’t given a single example of how homosexual marriage undermines heterosexual marriage is insufficient.

    You have no evidence, no examples and no logic supporting your contention.

    Get some or accept that your argument is a failure on the merits.

  145. Karen,
    And your example of a lesbian claiming to not want to lose the flexibility of a domestic partnership is also an ineffective argument: The lesbian can chose to NOT MARRY. Just like the man and women couple can chose to not marry. You are acting like the government is going to FORCE women to get married.

  146. Gene, I have a feeling you have no experience with advance directives and didn’t pay attention to the Terri Schiavo case. People shouldn’t argue that medical decisions business at all, really. You have no idea what you are facing in the life and death decisions regarding a loved one and legal instruments are no guarantee.

    If marriage can be redefined in this regard, it can and will be redefined in other ways. That the concerns are financial opens the door to other persons wanting to “marry” for the financial benefits. Marriage doesn’t require sex. The example I gave of a mother wanting her daughter to inherit with the same tax treatment a spousal beneficiary would have does not involve any incest.

  147. Karen,

    I took tax law in law school. Did you? Do you even know how the marriage penalty works? I do. And it has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with disparity in incomes within a couple – regardless of their gender and sexual orientation. Even your beloved Turbo Tax points out there are ways around it, ways around it that heterosexual couples exploit every day. Do you think there is some kind of “queer deduction” that homosexual couples are getting that you don’t? Because that is the only scenario where being a homosexual or part of a homosexual couple that would provide them with an advantage over you. And if you do think there is one, please cite the specific tax code that grants this “queer deduction”.

  148. Karen in NJ sez: “…the purpose of marriage has always been the protection and interests of women and their children.”

    **********************************

    Izzat so? I have been doing some research on the origins of marriage. Nowhere in the many articles I read is any such claim as that you make. Historically, marriage has been for prestige, religious belief, social, sexual desire, emotional and financial.

    Marriage rules vary among cultures, governments and tribes, but basically it is a legal way of establishing rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws. Spouses is a generic term and is not gender specific. Karen, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Where is yours?

    As Justice Kagan pointed out, DOMA was the outgrowth of hatred, and rather than its ostensible purpose of “protecting” marriage, it had the more specif purpose of the government expressing disapproval and moral outrage toward homosexuality. Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, explained it this way:

    Back in 1995, a group of individuals, including Don Wildmon, met in Memphis, Tennessee, because of what had happened in Hawaii where the court imposed same-sex marriage. Of course the folks there pushed back in the state of Hawaii. But then there was a concern that this could happen across the country. And so a group of leaders met in Memphis, Tennessee, and talked about the need to solidify marriage and by preventing states from imposing definition of marriage on the states. So the concept of the Defense of Marriage Act—wasn’t called that at the time—originated, and actually we took it back to our policy shop at FRC and formulated the policy and actually gave it the name Defense of Marriage Act.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center lists the Family Research Council as a “hate group.”

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council

  149. fedup,
    Thats the point the article was making: People will choose not to marry or they will choose another legally recognized form of relationship that is less demanding than marriage.

    Please look up “marriage penalty.” I know heterosexual couples who do not marry because they would pay more taxes than if they file as singles. Most gay couples are 2 income couples and benefit from the ability to file as singles.

    So! As in the article, gay couples already have this domestic partnership/civil union tax treatment benefit over marriage. Is the law going to take that away from them and either require them to marry or else they will have none of those retirement account/insurance/whatever benefit?

    Is the law going to allow heterosexual couples to have domestic partnerships and civil unions? How can the law deny heterosexuals a right to civil unions/domestic partnerships?

    End result: undermining traditional marriage

  150. Scribe,
    Thanks for that last entry on marriage throughout history. Its always disappointed me that there hasn’t been a concerted response the allegations of “traditional marriage” that “educated” the general public as to the real history and “tradition” of marriage.

  151. Karen,

    You should be, in all fairness, informed that no one here is expecting to change your mind. That is not the shape of victory as your mind is made up. The shape of victory is illustrating that your arguments are crap for the audience. In that, the pro-equal rights side of the argument has you soundly defeated. The only thing your continued refusal to accept that your logic is faulty and you have no evidence for your contention gains is a chance for those of us on the pro-equal rights side to illustrate yet further how empty and blindly bigoted your argument is. You are an object lesson. The more you fight, the more we win.

    Enjoy.

  152. Gene, I am waiting for Karen to explain to my gay grandson, whom you have met, why he cannot get married if he ever does find someone he loves and with whom he wants to share his life.

    Most important, I want her to explain to this gentle and soft spoken young man, precisely how forbidding him the benefits of legal marriage under the law, will protect her and her children.

  153. BTW, your last argument was already refuted by definition earlier. But please feel free to repeat yourself. Repetition is a key element of the Big Lie method of spreading propaganda.

    If you have any questions relating to propaganda or anti-propaganda, just search this site for the terms “Propaganda 10″.

  154. OS,

    As am I. Your grandson is a good kid (smart as a whip too) and he’d be a good catch for any lucky guy, but I cannot see how his happiness and equality under the law is a threat to anyone. That’s because his happiness and equality under the law isn’t a threat to anyone . . . except maybe those who would oppress him for malice, stupidity, religion or whatever rationale they choose to justify an inherently irrational position.

  155. Karen,
    Still, your argument is fatally flawed, first because it assumes that ALL gay/lesbian couples are of the same income structure as those non-gay/-lesbian couples that are subject to your so-called “marriage penalty.” This simply is not true. Gay/Lesbian couples, like non-gay/-lesbian couples, come in a variety of financial situations, the majority of which do NOT subject the couple to any sort of “marriage penalty”.
    Second, and the most damaging to your argument, is that non-gay/lesbian couples have the ability to chose, whereas gay/lesbian couples do not. You know this, you just are not “knowing” this, because you write:

    “Thats the point the article was making: People will choose not to marry or they will choose another legally recognized form of relationship that is less demanding than marriage.”

    See there where you say “people will choose”…that right there, yep, that’s you expressing an awareness that CHOICE is the issue–so, why again is it that one couple is allowed the opportunity to make the choice and the other should be prohibited from the opportunity to make the choice?

  156. Karen,

    “Thats the point the article was making: People will choose not to marry or they will choose another legally recognized form of relationship that is less demanding than marriage.”

    *****

    You agree with the point made in “the article” that if gay marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will choose not to marry or choose another form of relationship. Can you explain how the author drew that conclusion? It sounds like tortured logic to me.

    BTW, can you make any points of your own? Must you constantly refer to that article?

  157. I had a dream one night. In it, God spoke to me saying “Go forth to Apple Annie’s Antiques in Cashmere, WA and there you will find the answer to gay marriage within the United States and its special maritime and territorial jurisdiction.”

    Compelled as I was to obey, I embarked in my Subaru on a pilgrimage to Apple Annie’s, enduring a long two hour journey.

    As I stood forth before the doorway, I wondered what mysterious way I would find the answer. But the wait was not long, for what I saw it was obvious. Next to a small bush (which was not yet burning) I saw two magical creatures in the taxidermy section. In a display case, I saw two Jackalopes and a sign that read “Ma and Pa Jackalope”.

    Seeing the two holy critters, jack rabbits with antelope horns and feathers, a bright light came from the skylight above and God said unto me “So blessed are these jackalopes that they may marry, then so blessed shall also gay couples be.”

    So people of the world, I have heard the word of God, and he has given permission for gay marriage within the United States and its special maritime and territorial jurisdiction. It is God’s will

  158. Elaine,
    Why on earth are you making such an antagonist comment? Please think about that. I’ve said this quite a few times already here: The hostility and personal attacks weaken your arguments. Its really a dumb way to discuss anything.

    You haven’t bothered to read all the posts I’ve made, obviously, because its all out there, plenty of my own reasoning. But I can’t force you!

  159. fedup,

    Why would it require all gay couples to be in the same tax situation for the law to have to make a ruling about whether civil unions/domestic partnerships can continue for gay couples if gay marriage is legalized?

    Of course there will be a case of a heterosexual couple wanting to have a civil union/domestic partnership if gay couples can have civil union/ domestic partnerships in addition to marriage.

  160. Otteray,
    I have a loved one, a young person, who has cancer. Would you like to explain to my loved one why she has cancer?

    Boy is there a lot of sadness in the world thats more compelling than your grandson not being able to get married.

  161. Karen, honey, are you being this dense just 2 f with others? “It” is YOUR ARGUMENT. And, the word was “assumes”, not “require.”

  162. And did you ever think about the possibility that your loved one and her grandson might be the same person?

  163. Gene,
    a heck of a lot of what you write is kind of gobbledygook so if I don’t respond, please understand that I am shaking my head that its incomprehensible.

  164. Elaine,
    You can’t be serious!

    How the heck is this not antagonistic:
    “BTW, can you make any points of your own? Must you constantly refer to that article?”

    And, as noted in my reply, I HAVE made my own points but you don’t bother to read them.

  165. Karen,

    No one else here seems to have a problem understanding my words.

    Your failure to understand plain language and logic is entirely your failing.

  166. Rob Portman Discovers Decency
    By Charles P. Pierce
    3/15/13
    http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Rob_Portman_Discovers_decency

    And Rob Portman removes himself forever from Republican VP short-lists.

    Sen. Rob Portman has renounced his opposition to gay marriage, telling reporters from Ohio newspapers Thursday that he changed his position after his son Will told the Ohio Republican and his wife Jane that he is gay.

    Any old Portman in a storm, I guess, but am I wrong to see this as ever more anger-making?

    “It allowed me to think about this issue from a new perspective and that’s as a dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister have,” Portman said.

    But, what? If Will hadn’t come out, or if he’d been as straight as Nebraska highway, Portman wouldn’t have cared about the sons and daughters and brothers and sisters of all the other Dads who love them and want them to have the same opportunities? It’s not just the implied notion that discrimination is OK unless it inconveniences Sunday dinner with the Portmans. It’s also the relentless banality through which even “decent” Republicans struggle to come to simple humanity. Does any group of people have dark nights of the soul that are so endlessly boring and transparently insincere? It’s like listening to Kierkegaard sell flatware. I’m glad there’s another vote for marriage equality here. I’m also glad I didn’t have to listen to the full explanation behind it.

  167. will laws concerning child custody have to be changed? Since one spouse is not a biological relative? How will this impact heterosexual couples?

    Will this force people to adopt children?

  168. fedUp,
    Well, obviously my loved one, a “her,” is not anyone’s grandson. I don’t know why thats important, of course, but I reply so that you don’t feel I ignored your comment.

  169. Gene,
    You haven’t been addressing that much to other people for reply so they probably haven’t been taxing themselves to figure out everything you write. I have tried and just wanted you to know that if I don’t reply its not because I want to ignore you.

  170. I assure you all who have doubts the Miracle of the Jackalopes has blessed gay marriage as being righteous. We can all now love gay couples as bretheren.

  171. No, Karen, you haven’t made your own points.

    You have yet to give one example of how heterosexual marriage undermines “traditional marriage” that wasn’t from the garbage article filled with poor logic, no evidence and reeking of Catholic anti-homosexual bias.

    If you had a substantive argument, you should be able to give at least one example that isn’t based on distortions or fallacious logic.

    One.

    Can you do it or not? Name with specificity how a homosexual couple being married undermines some other couple’s heterosexual marriage?

    undermine /ʌndəˈmʌɪn/, v.,
    1: erode the base or foundation of (a rock formation): the flow of water had undermined pillars supporting the roof [Ed. note: inapplicable]
    2: lessen the effectiveness, power, or ability of, especially gradually or insidiously:

    How does another’s relationship as part of a couple lessen your or any other heterosexual marriage simply because they are the same sex as their partner and you are not?

    It’s a simple question.

    Answer it in a way that passes critical scrutiny.

  172. Elaine,
    Thanks for bringing that up. I was just talking about this the other day. It seems rather void, substantively, ethically, and logically, for a politician to use “I feel for my gay kid” justification to cut up their anti-gay card.
    “My kid counts, but yours don’t.”
    If a politician can get to renouncing “anti-gay” for this reason, there is no reason why they shouldn’t have gotten there without using their kid as an excuse. Claims of Support, Morality, and Understanding–for a politician, anyway, should never stop at their family door.

  173. Karen,
    Interestingly, Elaine’s post should have provided you with the confirmation of the underlying premise of my post “they might be the same person”: That we, as separate conversations in this topic, or any topic, can’t really deny the fact that we are all talking about the same people–people that we all love and wish happiness for. There is NO justification or logical basis by which to allege that we should be expressing more concern for one person over another here. NONE.

  174. Karen: “End result: undermining traditional marriage”

    ****************************************

    Wow, Karen. Now, I await with bated breath for your explanation of “traditional” marriage.

    During the 11th Century, marriage was about securing an economic or political advantage. Such marriages were “traditionally” arranged between the young couple’s fathers. The wishes of the couple; much less their consent, was of little importance. The bride, in particular, was expected to bow to her father’s arrangement without complaint.

    The first recorded evidence of marriage contracts and ceremonies dates to 4,000 years ago, in Mesopotamia. In the ancient world, marriage served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs. Even in the lower classes, women had little say over whom they married.

    Ancient Hebrews, engaged in polygamy. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Polygamy is rather common in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is practiced across much of the Muslim world.

    Up until the early part of the 18th century, marriage for love was relatively unknown. In fact, extramarital affairs were regarded as the highest form of romance. The 18th century French philosopher Montesquieu (Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu) wrote that any man who was in love with his wife was probably too dull to be loved by another woman.

    The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. How recent? Think in terms of the late 19th and early 20th century.

    What was that about “traditional” again? Which tradition, and whose?

  175. I’m at home with a bug today and I argue for sport, so please, bring it on, Jersey Girl. Again, all I’ve said is in demonstrating that your argument is based in fallacious logic and has no evidence. You can say you’re ignoring me because “you just don’t understand” but that’s bullshit and everyone reading knows that. You’re ignoring me because I have your argument cornered and dissected. You’re ignoring me because critical scrutiny reveals your arguments invalid.

    Again, how does another’s relationship as part of a couple lessen your or any other heterosexual marriage simply because they are the same sex as their partner and you are not?

    It’s a simple question.

    Answer it in a way that passes critical scrutiny.

  176. fedup,

    Excellent point about “my kids count but yours don’t”. It’s simple elitist hypocrisy, but that is just par for the course with today’s pols. Unless it impacts them personally, they could give a damn about their constituents.

  177. Elaine,
    Do you suspect that Portman’s expressed reasoning for the
    switch” is just a “spin” to introduce the concept of tolerance into the Republican party?

  178. Karen, You’ve really started something here.

    I think your comments show a fear of losing benefits that you now get if the definition of marriage is expanded to move those who are now treated as second class citizens into your class. That’s such an elitist pov.

    I believe it was Justice Ginsberg, quoting Justice Kennedy, indicated that there are 1100 statutes that provide special benefits for married couples. And that’s just the feds. Guess you should up your fear factor.

    re: monogamy. There are many couples, gay/lesbian and straight, that enjoy monogamous relationships. There are also couples in relationships where one person thinks it’s monogamous but the other person isn’t. Sexual orientation isn’t the determining factor though.

    Your assertion that the purpose of marriage is procreation ignores the number of marriages of couples when one or the other is infertile, e.g. when both are over 55. Are you suggesting that all couples wanting to get married pass a fertility test? Do you not see any other (non-monetary) benefit?

    Marriage and monogamy (for the woman!!) was created to insure that the children birthed by the wife were the husband’s, insuring that his blood line would continue and that those inheriting were his children and not someone else’s. Considering that women and children, especially female children, were considered chattel, I don’t see marriage being created for the benefit of women and children. It was all about property and power. Fortunately, things have evolved with women and children having some rights. Now, marriage isn’t the only determining factor – that’s what paternity tests are for.

    You seem to think that same sex marriages don’t produce children. Well, some of them do. I know of lesbian couples that used artificial insemination and have a biological child. Gay couples adopt and I wouldn’t be surprised to hear of them using a surrogate.

  179. Yeah, but lets not forget that Marriage today is the government’s way of ensuring the a citizen, and not the government, is assigned, first and foremost, the responsibility of providing for the products of the union, whether its the other spouse or children.

  180. This “national” debate has been frought (sp?) with an improper mix of debate over what is really “emotional” union between two people (which the professionals usually refer to in a religious context), and the government’s union between two people. WE REALLY MUST NOT ALLOW THAT MIXTURE TO OCCUR. Our debates should always remain based on the “civil” union.

  181. Gene,
    I’ve certainly tried mightily to reply to you! Sometimes whatever point you think you are making gets lost in the weeds. You have to try to be more concise. No offense. You just wrote another one that begins “No, Karen” that I’m not going to make the effort to try to figure out (and thats only fair since you do not make the effort to understand what I’m saying about the likely undermining of traditional marriage and why that concerns me).

    Other than that, I enjoy discussing things, arguing as it were. I don’t have anything against anyone here – its all just adults having fun, in my opinion. We’re not running anything.

  182. An example of my “mixture” danger is amply demonstrated in the nature and language of the Supreme Court Justices’ questioning during the two cases it recently heard on same sex marriage. Much of their language used referred directly to “gay” “homosexual” “marriage” “children” etc. These are all very personal, intimate and private–AND LEGAL, things. It is NOT illegal to be gay. It is not illegal to have children. It is not illegal to be married. And, yet, here we are, allowing the highest court in our nation into the most private and cherished recesses of our homes and personal lives, letting the media present it ad nauseum, and letting it be debated ad nauseum in circles like these and in our neighborhoods and work places. Doesn’t this offend anyone else like it offends me: We–and the government, especially, have NO PLACE or authority to be imposing into citizen’s private lives this way. So, why are we allowing it? I think it is because we are really discussing the underlying “emotional” and, yes, religious, aspects of marriage.

    Just read the transcripts from these two hearings, and my suspicion is that we can find ample evidence that the questions were extremely carefully worded to try to hide the religious “pretext” and undertones.

  183. bettykath,
    I will try to reply to your points but you have invented me saying things I haven’t said. I didn’t say that marriage is for the purpose of procreation. I said that marriage is for the purpose of protecting women and children.

    I am not afraid of losing benefits and have said several times that what I perceive has been the benefit of traditional marriage in my own life are things you cannot take away from me. This is my concern (I saved this from a commenter on another blog):

    “There are many generations yet to be born but only one that is alive right now. It’s not all about us. We have responsibilities.”

    Yes I head that about the 1100 statutes and thats what I was talking about in my original post on this thread: WHY? Why has there been such effort to elevate and encourage marriage, one man-one woman marriage? The reason must be the societal benefit.

    So, you got this huge societal benefit recognized with 1100 statutes on one hand and you want to risk that? I’m thinking there are good reasons not to risk undermining traditional marriage and the 1100 statutes is an argument in favor of my side.

    I’ve made the essential point about monogamy a few times but will repeat it once more: Traditional marriage has a concrete reason to value monogamy that gay marriage does not have and its of concern to women (wives). Women want monogamy so that the man doesn’t sire children with other women and dilute the family’s resources to provide for other women and their children.

  184. Does anyone know of a NON-religious group that has fought gay marriage, gay adoption, …? I mean a truly non-religious group, like a group with a well established atheist reputation, for example.

  185. Karen,

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but…

    You know women can work and own property these days right?

  186. Karen, regarding your comment at 12:30 pm. That is the fallacy of false equivalence. Cancer and other diseases are just that. Disease. Becoming ill is not voluntary.

    Laws are passed by legislative bodies and are fully voluntary on the part of those who vote for and against them.

    Positing any kind of equivalence between a disease and governmental actions lacks any semblance of logical thinking.

  187. Otteray,
    So you think piling on more sadness makes your point that gays not being able to marry is so sad and should move me (the original comment was directed to me personally) to change my opinion?

    That doesn’t make sense but you won’t see that.

  188. Karen,

    Again, no one else seems to have a problem with understanding my words.

    This isn’t a remedial class.

    If you can’t understand – which everyone reading knows is simply bullshit – that onus falls on you. The question is simple:

    Can you provide specific examples where a homosexual couple being married undermines a traditional marriage?

  189. Karen, you are logically challenged. I think everyone here but you seems to see that.

    Bless your heart.

  190. Gene,
    You’re beating a dead horse. You don’t bother to read my comments or think about them. I figured that out.

  191. Karen,

    You’re not answering a simple question with a valid answer because you can’t.

    Everyone’s figured that out.

    Except you.

  192. Yeah, Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginzburg don’t see women as vulnerable. I got that the other day. They are pretty stuck up elites who don’t live in the real world, of course.

  193. Otteray – the 19th and 20th centuries are pretty much the entire history of the United States.

  194. Karen, you are simply wrong–please try very hard to pay attention and understand each step of this argument before moving on to the next step

    To start. Let’s just give you the assumption that “traditional” marriage, for you in your arguments, means that union that assigns responsibilities to those who comprise the union. (We will keep it real general with respect to terminology, ok?)

    First, you still can NOT deny the fact that many of these unions do NOT include children for which the “husband” of the union is assigned any responsibility. On this note, some unions are comprised of “offspring” “sired” by a different husband (or from a different “wife”), meaning the law has assigned the responsibility for that particular child to a man DIFFERENT than the current husband. (eg. children from a previous marriage.) So, we can now agree that just because the man in a union does not have children for which he sired and has responsibility for, we do not consider that union void, dissolved, or anything less than a marriage. So, we also have to accept that the government-backed “marriage” is much broader that simply serving the “concrete reason” of “monogamy” that you profess.

    Second, I am really offended that you haven’t realized yet that you just can’t make these blanket statements professing to know or understand what “women” want, or what the financial situation is of “most” gays, or that gay unions do not have monogamy that gay marriage does not have. No, Karen, you are not in the position to “reinforce” your argument by stating these things, and the primary reason is because there is no truth to them. How can I say that? Well, if your premise is that monogamy is valuable to a spouse because it assigns responsibility on the parent of one of the children of the union, then I strongly encourage you to acknowledge that there are hundreds of thousands of children with same sex parents (and would-be spouses) that, as we converse, are NOT protected by the benefit of monogamy that you allege is created by marriage.

    Last–court precedent and legislation developed over the last 100 years or so clearly acknowledges that the union is designed with the purpose of assigning certain responsibilities among the spouses. However, contrary to too narrow view of the purpose, that responsibility includes caring for the spouse–of either gender, surprise, surprise. So, why, again, should that protection not be afforded to a woman JUST BECAUSE HER WOULD-BE SPOUSE IS A WOMAN?

  195. Elaine,
    You don’t bother to read my posts!

    Actually, a requirement of critical thinking would be for YOU to make the effort to know and understand the reasons some people oppose gay marriage and think it will undermine traditional marriage. I fully understand the reasons of the supporters; I’ve thought about the other side.

  196. and how does legally assigning responsibility for caring for one woman (who is a lesbian) “risk” the “monogamy protection” “provided” when the law holds YOUR husband responsible for the children that he “sired” with you?

  197. fedUp,
    I do wish you would drop this business of being “offended.” Thats how you started out and you know you were all wrong, saying that I was preoccupied with things I’ve never even mentioned like “perversion.”

    That children are produced in a marriage or not is just irrelevant. Traditional marriage is valued because of huge societal benefits that go beyond each individual couple.

  198. Ooo. The appearance of reason in the light of a demonstrably unfounded opinion. Like we haven’t seen that tactic before.

    Your opinion is irrelevant to the issue, Karen.

    Your inability to substantiate your opinion based on logic and evidence is relevant though.

    The failure to apply critical thinking – as in formally correct logic backed by substantive relevant evidence – is entirely yours. You have yet to successfully refute any rebuttal of your assertions and you cannot/will not answer what should be a very simple question given the nature of your assertion.

    The only reasonable conclusions at this point is that you are devoid of logic and critical thinking skills or you are a troll.

    I’m guessing the latter at this point.

    Very few people are as logic proof as you present yourself.

    Can you provide specific examples where a homosexual couple being married undermines a traditional marriage?

    “I don’t understand”, “you don’t understand” or “just ’cause” are not substantive responsive offers of proof in logic and evidence in support of your position.

    Give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”.

    That means an example not based in a logical fallacy, a distortion of law, an implicitly religious definition of marriage or an outright lie.

    If gay marriage is such a manifest threat to “traditional marriage”, you should be able to answer that question you have been dodging all along.

    Easily.

  199. Karen,

    “Traditional marriage is valued because of huge societal benefits that go beyond each individual couple.”

    I happen to think that society would benefit if loving gay couples who want to remain in monogamous relationships could marry.

  200. Karen,
    These “children” that you keep referring to are the “product” of SEXUAL reproduction. These “homosexuals” you keep referring to are defined by their SEXUAL acts with others. Yes, by your own language, you are repeatedly (ie. habitually), expressing an interest in SEXUAL acts.
    You, and people presenting your type of arguments CAN NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS–you can either premise your argument on SEX, or you can’t. But, if you do, take responsibility for it.

  201. Karen, what does how long since this country was founded have to do with anything? And everybody came from somewhere, bringing their culture with them. Your comment begs the question.

    You never did explain what “traditional” marriage is. I know why you didn’t. It is because you can’t. Why? Because that is like asking, ‘how long is a rope.’

  202. Karen,

    ” I didn’t say that marriage is for the purpose of procreation. I said that marriage is for the purpose of protecting women and children.”

    You’re right.

    You say,

    “So, you got this huge societal benefit recognized with 1100 statutes on one hand and you want to risk that? I’m thinking there are good reasons not to risk undermining traditional marriage and the 1100 statutes is an argument in favor of my side.”

    but you also say,
    ” … I am not afraid of losing benefits ”

    Are you saying you’re not afraid of losing benefits but I should be?

    —————
    You say,
    “I’ve made the essential point about monogamy a few times but will repeat it once more: Traditional marriage has a concrete reason to value monogamy that gay marriage does not have and its of concern to women (wives). Women want monogamy so that the man doesn’t sire children with other women and dilute the family’s resources to provide for other women and their children.”

    I really don’t see how any same sex marriage threatens monogamy in “traditional” marriages. I think this is the disconnect. How is the marriage of gay/lesbian couples a threat to the monogamy of straight couples? The lack of an answer to this question is what makes your “argument” specious. I can’t accept your assertion without understanding what makes it true. You have provided no evidence that it’s true.

  203. Gene,
    You should be able to make the effort and do the critical thinking to know what the opposition arguments are and why the opposition cares.

    We haven’t advanced beyond your notion that the opponents are just “bigots,” I guess.

    I have to get dressed and drive to Montclair but will check back tonight.

    All the best,
    Karen

  204. Gene,
    We now have another perfect example of an ideologue wandering into a blog populated by trained logicians. Ideology versus logic. Not really a fair fight, is it?

  205. Oh, and I just thought of a rather humorous thing eroding Karen’s arguments:

    In our country, the child born to a married couple is PRESUMED to be the husband’s child. The husband does NOT need to be, in fact, the child’s biological father. So, this means that wives that cheat on their husbands, have children sired by the “adulterer”-male, and that keep that hidden, will, under the law, be able to hold her husband-not the real father responsible for the child.

    What say you about the “monogamy protection” now? Guess it doesn’t work both ways, and why not? Why shouldn’t the husband want to be assured that his wife was monogamous and that he his supporting HIS OWN CHILD? What kind of society are we if our “marriage” does not provide protections regardless of gender? So, why does it matter if your spouse is a man or a woman?

  206. OMFG!!! That last shot by Karen takes the cake. Wow. Talk about lack of insight. Gene is not capable of critical thinking. I gotta remember that one.

    Karen, you really need to buy a clue.

  207. Karen, please don’t ignore this other post of mine:

    “and how does legally assigning responsibility for caring for one woman (who is a lesbian) “risk” the “monogamy protection” “provided” when the law holds YOUR husband responsible for the children that he “sired” with you?”

  208. Or, put in your terms,
    How does legally assigning responsibility for the care of one woman’s child (where the woman is a lesbian) “risk” the “monogamy protection” “provided” to you?

  209. And, Karen, do you have any idea just how much “irresponsible” “siring” is going on out there?

  210. Applying your own logic, the government should be promoting gay/lesbian marriage for the simply biological fact that there can not be any “accidental” pregnancies for which the gay spouse refuses to take responsibility for. Now that’s a way to “protect” the family’s resources…

  211. Tuesday, February 12, 2013
    ‘Biblical’ marriage unmasked
    Those who claim the biblical model for marriage is one man and one woman for life apparently haven’t been reading the Bible.
    http://www.abpnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/8209-%E2%80%98biblical%E2%80%99-marriage-unmasked#.UVSGzVfAGSo

    Excerpt:
    Many Christians today speak about the traditional biblical marriage, but if truth be known, the traditional marriage is not a biblical concept. In fact, it would be hard to find a modern-day Christian who would actually abide by a truly biblical marriage in practice, as the biblical understanding of marriage meant male ownership of women who existed for sexual pleasure.

    Upon marriage, a woman’s property and her body became the possession of her new husband. As the head of the household, men (usually between the ages of 18 and 24) had nearly unlimited rights over wives and children.

    A woman became available for men’s possession soon after she reached puberty (usually 11 to 13 years old), that is, when she became physically able to produce children. Today we call such sexual arrangements statutory rape. The biblical model for sexual relationships includes adult males taking girls into their bedchambers, as King David did in 1 Kings 1:1-3.

  212. OS,

    Not really, but who is at fault for the imbalance when they bring a knife to a gun fight?

    **********

    Karen,

    I know the opposition’s argument. That is how I dismantled yours. See, that’s what logicians – including lawyers – are trained to do. My doctorate is essentially in critical thinking, logic and argumentation. That is what lawyers do. That is not said in an appeal to my own authority as a fallacious appeal, but as a substantive appeal. An appeal to authority is only invalid if the appeal to authority is not actually an authority. Whatever your expertise might be? It manifestly isn’t critical thinking, logic or argumentation.

    I understand your argument is based on fallacious logic, no evidence, distortion and an implicitly religious agenda. That is why it has failed to be persuasive on the merits, why it was so easily dismantled and why you cannot answer a very simple question. I also understand the outcome – the conclusion – of your argument. That is why it is a fair statement to describe it as simply bigoted (having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others). Your opinions are unfounded and worse still they are intolerant to the rights of others based on nothing but your prejudice and desire to oppress people by denying them the very same rights you enjoy.

    I’m not saying all opponents to gay marriage are bigots, that’s your statement. I’m saying your argument’s conclusion is bigoted, that its foundation is fallacious, and that you have no substantive relevant evidence to back your contention that homosexual marriage undermines traditional marriage. That bigoted arguments tend to come from bigots is simply the Tao of things.

  213. OK, I can’t resist. I always leave lots of time to get anywhere.

    Bettykath – the threat is to the valuing of monogamy.

    Yes, I am afraid for other people and future generations losing the benefits of traditional marriage. I do not think it would be permanent, though. As that article I found put it: “same-sex marriage will heighten our esteem for real marriage. But in the meantime, the suffering will be great.”

    FedUp – I don’t really understand the question.

  214. You know, in all seriousness, I think we’re missing a big argument with Karen here.

    It doesn’t matter if it somehow undermines straight marriages. I support equality for gay people, because THEY ARE PEOPLE. Period. If I have a right to marry who I want, so do they.

    End of discussion.

  215. Gyges,

    Such a common sense and ethical approach to the equal application of the law is just too rational a position to adopt for some.

  216. Karen,
    In all seriousness, that’s too bad (that you don’t understand the question), because it really is just a rephrasing of your own argument that same-sex marriage will cause “suffering”–in that it will somehow “risk” (your word) the “monogamy” (your word) protection created by “preventing” males from diluting the family’s resources by siring children with other women (again, your words).
    Stick with your own kind–others may not treat you so civilly as they have here and you may take it personally.

  217. Gene

    ” My doctorate is essentially in critical thinking, logic and argumentation.” – You wasted a lot of time then getting that doctorate. You have said absolutely nothing that would compel an opponent of gay marriage to reconsider one iota. Sorry to say that. You don’t have a single strong argument. Its the same “whats it to you” argument you started out with.

    As I’ve said a few times, I feel strengthened in my opposition to gay marriage after these discussions. I haven’t read anything the least bit compelling on the other side nor any new information nor even an honest effort. And then theres the personal attacks and whines about bigotry.

  218. It doesn’t matter if it somehow undermines straight marriages. I support equality for gay people, because THEY ARE PEOPLE. Period. If I have a right to marry who I want, so do they. – Gyges

    Well said. End of argument.

  219. Karen in New Jersey
    1, March 28, 2013 at 2:19 pm

    What threat to monogamy being devalued?
    Isn’t monogamy a behavior CHOICE?
    How will gay marriage change your values about your monogamy between you and your husband?

  220. Karen,
    In all kindness, where does your fixation and your hypersexualization of homosexuals and sexuality come from?
    How many gay couples do you know that cause you to draw such a conclusion?

    I find myself asking that question AGAIN because you’ve ignored this aspect of what your personal relationship dynamics are and how gay marriage affects it.

    You bloviate on about how gay marriage undermines monogamy, traditional marriage, women and children yet can not relate one iota as to how it will affect you, your daughter, and your marriage. If gay marriage were to be legal tomorrow, waking up in the morning will be different in your household just how?

    As a gay man, I have been celibate for over a dozen years and when I was in a relationship, it was with that person ONLY. My codes of conduct and morals value monogamy. Yet, your arguments hint that my values are somewhat lesser than yours. You’ve got this warped sense of demise about what the gay culture means, yet I question as to how you arrived to your conclusions.

  221. Karen,

    Quite frankly, your opinion of me is even more meaningless that your unfounded opinion that homosexuals deserve to be treated like second class citizens. I value your opinion of critical thinking, logic and argumentation about as much as a theoretical physicist would value your opinion on tensor field dynamics. I value your opinion of me even less.

    You haven’t won the argument on the merits nor have you been able to provide a single valid instance of how homosexual marriage undermines heterosexual marriage. You thinking you’ve won and you actually winning are not the same thing. As I said, dismantling your argument is not done with the goal of changing your mind, but to demonstrate the baseless and irrational nature of your argument to the audience. An audience that seems to be of the overwhelming observation that you have not made your case by logic or by evidence.

    Concurrently, you haven’t wasted your time at all. They say ignorance is bliss. One cannot teach to those who cannot learn. A lack of logic and critical thinking skills almost universally precludes learning. Bad news for you but the benefit of holding a position that is essentially argument from ignorance is you’ll never know the difference in your bliss. You haven’t even wasted our time. As I said before, “The shape of victory is illustrating that your arguments are crap for the audience. In that, the pro-equal rights side of the argument has you soundly defeated. The only thing your continued refusal to accept that your logic is faulty and you have no evidence for your contention gains is a chance for those of us on the pro-equal rights side to illustrate yet further how empty and blindly bigoted your argument is. You are an object lesson. The more you fight, the more we win.

    Enjoy.”

  222. Timmy: You just don’t get us Christians. Gays marrying as you say does not effect traditional marriage. BUT, it will bring about God’s judgement on our nation. Though you may disagree, understand our way of thinking through our beliefs.

    I understand the Bible. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, remember that line? Do you believe you are without sin, brother Tim?

    As for the rest of your foolishness, do you presume to know the mind of God and what will bring his judgment? If you do, you are sinning in that belief. I understand the modern Christian way of thinking entirely, it violates the words of Christ every time it turns around. Have you given all your money to the poor? Do you live like the wildflowers in the field? Will you let a complete stranger sleep in your home because he asked you for shelter? Do you pray in public, or in private? If a man tries to take your coat, do you give him your shirt off your back as well?

    Christians cherry-pick the Bible for the verses and commandments they like, and ignore the rest; that is how Christians think.

  223. “As I’ve said a few times, I feel strengthened in my opposition to gay marriage after these discussions. I haven’t read anything the least bit compelling on the other side nor any new information nor even an honest effort. And then theres the personal attacks and whines about bigotry.’

    *****
    Shame and a pox on all of you who “whine” about bigotry!

  224. Karen,

    In re: that gay/lesbian couples in civil unions must file single on their federal tax returns (but not their state returns), that is due to the Defense of Marriage Act that is currently being argued, the subject of this thread btw. The DOM Act prohibits same-sex couples from filing married whether they are in a civil union in NJ or a marriage in MA. Your complaint is really with those who wrote and passed DOM and Prez. Clinton for signing it. If the Supremes strike down DOM as being unconstitutional, as it should imo, the those civil union couples in NJ will have to file as married. Problem solved.

  225. BK,
    “… civil union couples in NJ will have to file as married.”

    Not that they will “have” to file as married, they will now have the choice. And that’s what this is all about. The ability to choose, instead of having choices removed. For example, some married couples have legal or financial reasons for filing separately.

  226. Dave Agema, Michigan Republican, Uses Facebook To Condemn The ‘Filthy’ Lifestyle Of ‘Homosexuals’
    The Huffington Post
    By Chelsea Kiene
    Posted: 03/27/2013
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/dave-agema-homosexuals_n_2965310.html

    Excerpt:
    One Michigan Republican National Committeeman promoted an article’s claim that “part of the homosexual agenda is to get the public to affirm their filthy lifestyle,” Slate reported Wednesday.

    Dave Agema, a former member of the Michigan House of Representatives, took to his personal Facebook page (only viewable by Agema’s friends) to express his views on the gay and lesbian community, sharing an article titled “Everyone Should Know These Statistics on Homosexuals.”

    In addition to labeling gays and lesbians as “filthy,” the article — penned by Frank Joseph, M.D. — makes several aggressive accusations against the gay and lesbian community, including pinning homosexuals as child molesters.

    “Because homosexuals can’t reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children.” the article adds. “Homosexuals can be heard chanting ‘TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT’ in their homosexual parades.”

    Agema has been an outspoken opponent of gay and lesbian rights, voicing his strong opposition to same-sex marriage and domestic partner benefits.

  227. “Because homosexuals can’t reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children.” the article adds. “Homosexuals can be heard chanting ‘TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT’ in their homosexual parades.”

    Are we sure, that’s not from the Onion?

  228. OS, there are two classifications for married: married filing separately or married filing jointly. That is what I meant. They cannot file as single.

  229. Gyges,

    Here’s an excerpt from and a link to the article by Frank Joseph:

    Everyone Should Know
    These Statistics on Homosexuals
    Frank Joseph, M.D.
    http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html

    Excerpt:
    The statistics on homosexuality and its effects
    Some statistics about the homosexual lifestyle:

    One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3).

    One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

    Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7).

    Many homosexuals don’t pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: “Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior” (16).

    Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. “Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence” (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels “subjective distress”) (27).

    Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population.

    Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27).

    73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13).

    25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11).

    Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex.

    78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20).

    Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10).

    Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals” (10).

    50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10).

    ©2002-2013 International Organization of Heterosexual Rights

  230. Kern:

    “I feel strengthened in my opposition to gay marriage after these discussions. I haven’t read anything the least bit compelling on the other side nor any new information nor even an honest effort. ”

    ********************

    The not-so-new information is that these folks are your fellow citizens who want nothing more than to be left alone to associate with whom they please without government interference or public scorn. If that isn’t “compelling” enough I suggest a read through the Scarlet Letter.

    “It is remarkable, that persons who speculate the most boldly often conform with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society. The thoughts alone suffice them, without investing itself in the flesh and blood of action.”

    ~ Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

    Amen, Brother Hawthorne. We are oft too yielding of the suffering of others.

    (I know of no better crafter of words -and hence thoughts — than Nathaniel Hawthorne)

  231. Karen in New Jersey,

    Do you wear a KICK ME sign, in public? Alternatively, do you resemble a pinata? Your posts remind me of what happens when I leave a comment on a right-wing militia page. They love it.

    I know you hate fruits, but you are such low-hanging fruit that you’re no challenge.

    Is the purpose of your life, to serve as a warning to others?
    You are already a deeply unhappy, frustrated person. It’s only going to get worse. How’s that workin’ for ya?

  232. Karen played the fool by writing:
    Gene

    ” My doctorate is essentially in critical thinking, logic and argumentation.” – You wasted a lot of time then getting that doctorate. You have said absolutely nothing that would compel an opponent of gay marriage to reconsider one iota. Sorry to say that. You don’t have a single strong argument. Its the same “whats it to you” argument you started out with.”
    ~+~

    You clearly have demonstrated that you have not only lost the argument, but you have crashed and burned miserably in the process. You might want to look in other parts of this blog for entries by Bill McWilliams and his various noms de plume he has gone by for some insight into how your both sets of comments don’t work at all.

    She continues with:

    As I’ve said a few times, I feel strengthened in my opposition to gay marriage after these discussions. I haven’t read anything the least bit compelling on the other side nor any new information nor even an honest effort. And then theres the personal attacks and whines about bigotry.
    ~+~

    Well, good for you! Feeling strengthened in your beliefs in oppposing the civil rights of citizens of this country, that’s something to brag about. Says a lot about your character.

    You may claim your pyrrhic victory here but you are not understanding what this blog is about. It is a legal blog where arguments are expected to be supported by evidence or logic. And it is traditional here (though I have only been here just under a year so I am conjecturing) for others to challenge positions based upon evidence and logic that others may take in opposition. You won’t find victory here just by claiming that “I am right” without any support. What you believe to the contrary is not going to help you.

  233. BK,
    That’s what I thought you meant, but just wanted to clarify.

    Darren,
    Excellent response and observations. You are real asset to the discussions here. Hope one day to visit with you in person.

    Bob Kauten,
    I am glad I didn’t have anything in my mouth when I read your last post. That was worth a double spew.

  234. Elaine,

    Now I remember the name. I heard him get eviscerated on talk radio once. The sad part was the host wasn’t TRYING to, they just were trying to find out where he got his stats from. The guy’s that special type of liar that thinks that he can’t be wrong, so the facts will eventually catch up with what he says.

    That line about chanting just seemed so over the top, I was hoping nobody was really that far gone. Fear of “Other” is a hell of a drug.

  235. Gene,

    Mark and I haven’t been in contact since the last seance I attended several years ago. He did tell me at that seance that some people–between 25% and 90% of the American population–don’t know what the heck they’re talking about.

    ;)

  236. I think that Karen doesn’t understand the rules and conventions of argumentation and logic. I took a course in logic but don’t remember what the different fallacies are called. I needed to use logic at work but didn’t need to know the names of the fallacies. I just needed to be sure I didn’t use them. (I might a good remedial by carefully re-reading Gene’s posts.)

    Karen, A sound argument needs to follow the rules of logic. If you don’t know what they are, reread Gene’s comments where he indicates how your argument fails and look up what it means. Straw man and false equivalence are two examples. Logic is about whether or not an argument is true or false. If the argument violates any of the rules for true, it is false and nothing in the argument may be assumed to be true.

    What you have presented as facts are simply opinions with only your emotions to support them. It doesn’t mean that your emotions don’t count, they just don’t count when trying to convince others of the truth of your opinion. There is no reason for Gene to look at the meat of your argument because there is none. Your arguments fail the rules of logic and are false.

    Several of us have patiently tried to help you form a valid argument by the questions we ask but to no avail. My suggestion is that you spend some time learning some of the rules of logic. The Teaching Company also has a great course on Argumentation. They have fairly frequent half price sales.

  237. Karen, One more point. The conclusion of an argument that fails the true/false case may be true, but NOT with the argument that is used to prove it. If you really believe your conclusion is true, you must find a way to make an argument that is true What you have been doing is restating your conclusion without any valid argument to back it up.

  238. Otteray Scribe wrote:
    Hope one day to visit with you in person.
    ~+~
    Likewise. Actually I might be able come over to where you live in the latter part of April if that works for you.

  239. Otteray.

    Good. Let me talk with my wife and such and see where my schedule will work out. I’ll get in touch tomorrow.

  240. Actually Elaine, Karen did explain how same-sex marriage will hurt opposite-sex marriage way back up at the top and I’m not going to hunt for it but I do know how to read and this is the explicit rationale: * Monogamy is advanced with opposite-sex marriage. Homosexual males presumably do not have the same respect for monogamy and will maintain adulterous relationships beyond the bounds of their vows. Heterosexual married males [will see this and be tempted to also] have extramarital affairs. These heterosexual males may even have children with other women while married to their wife. Having to support those extra children will have a negative impact on the wife and child/children of the actual marriage. *

    Srsly.

    Also [separate argument], allowing homosexual marriage will diminish the pool of eligible bachelors for women. (Like I said, so does the priesthood- lobby the pope about that.)

    Srsly.

    These two arguments and the tax thing are the only arguments Karen has actually advanced.

    ———————
    fedupNdisappointed
    1, March 28, 2013 at 12:30 pm
    Karen, honey, are you being this dense just 2 f with others?
    —————– :-)

  241. Darren honey, when you get your degree in theology (there are several websites running sales on those) and incorporate your church (might I suggest : The Holy and Miraculous Revelation of the Divine Jackalope Church and Spiritual Center – Unaffiliated) might I have dibbs on becoming the fist registered member? I think I could feel at home there.

    Might I also caution you, do not pick your own mushrooms.

  242. fedupNdisappointed
    1, March 28, 2013 at 12:30 pm
    Karen, honey, are you being this dense just 2 f with others?

    ——————————————————————————————

    Bingo

  243. Darren,

    OS would like me to give you his contact information. Do I have your permission to use your registered email or is there another account you’d like it sent to?

  244. lotta, I missed the rationale, too. Oh, dear.

    Married straight men now respect monogamy and won’t b/c gay men don’t? I think this fails the cause/effect test. I’d be more inclined to believe that gay men who opt for marriage to one partner are at least as likely to remain monogamous as straight men. Some may stray, others won’t.

    Homosexual marriage will diminish the pool of eligible bachelors for women? I think this fails the common sense test. Gay men marry women when they are in the closet and continue to live a lie. These are some of the men most likely to have affairs outside of marriage, but with their gay lovers, not other women.

    And the tax argument is really about the restrictions of DOMA.

  245. Lottakatz:

    Good idea. But unfortunately one of my subsequent revelations told me to name the church Jesus’s Allmighty Christian Kingdom And Land Of Proper Ettiquette.

    Blessed are the Jackalopes, for they shall espouse the truth

  246. Gene,

    Yep … what are the odds that Karen, as she has presented herself here, would ever in a million years stumble across this blog as she was surfing the net looking for recipes and Christian dating sites.

  247. BK, “I’d be more inclined to believe that gay men who opt for marriage to one partner are at least as likely to remain monogamous as straight men.”

    Last I read the incidence of infidelity was between 35% and 70% in opposite-sex marriage. It’s hard to pin down because everybody lies about it, that’s what the pollsters and researchers say anyway. LOL

  248. OS, Great link! Thanks for that.
    ————-

    JACKALOPE is good, proper etiquette never goes out of style.

    Darren, Srsly, we’re on to something here, we could grow this thing and attract wealthy and high profile people, celebrities even. Make them tithe. Swear them to secrecy. We could be RICH, RICH I tells ya’!

    Oh wait, it’s been done. People would never fall for that again. Darn.

  249. Karen complains, “You refuse to bother to read my arguments because you prefer to remain ignorant and you attack me personally. Do you really think thats making your case??”

    What evidence do you have I did not read your articles? That I do not suddenly agree with your horrific position? Answer: you have none.

    Observing you have a chip on your shoulder — which you clearly do, and is plain for all here to see — is not “attacking you personally.” I invite you to grow up.

    I have no case to make. Gay marriage is going to happen. This means you have no case to make, either, mostly because you have yet to demonstrate actual harm. No article to which you linked is anything more than bigoted opinion.

    In fact, every time anti-marriage people have had a chance in open court to demonstrate actual harm, they have not done so. Instead, we get intense dislike fanned by religious kookiness. You may claim not to be religious, but your argumentation relies on the same flawed reasoning: Us vs Them.

    Try this on for size: it’s none of your business, and never will be. Unless you are a gay person seeking marriage, this does not affect you or anyone else one iota. You want it to, yes, so you can go on with your irrational hand wringing.

    A majority of your fellow Americans now disagree with this position, and the gulf will only widen. If you stop and catch your breath, you would see you are being offered a chance to set down this irrational intense dislike — which you did not create for yourself but inherited — without any real consequence. That window is closing fast.

    Please choose wisely. Look what the string of bad choices dating back to the integration of the armed services has done for conservatives. Summary: bupkis.

    Meanwhile gay marriage has already happened. Deal.

  250. Karen whines, ” And then theres [sic] the personal attacks and whines about bigotry.”

    Suggestion: stop making bigoted arguments.

  251. LK

    35% is what the spouses that don’t cheat think. 70% is what it averages out to from the spouses that do.

  252. The primary reason Americans continue to shift towards marriage equality with such due speed is social networking. When Karen in NJ berates gay people, she is not just insulting them. In the Age of Movable Type, gay people were much more isolated, and unable to muster much, if any, support.

    In 2013, however, when you insult gay people, you are insulting their family, their friends, co-workers, and teammates, pretty much immediately. Telling two people in love they cannot marry does not make either the love or the couple suddenly disappear, and they are going to let you know it, also immediately. None of us is going anywhere.

    If Karen in NJ is alarmed by the resulting push-back, she only has her own words to blame.

    When you attack a class of people for CENTURIES, and suddenly the reasons for these attacks are revealed for the abject bigotry that they are, the attackers never see the correlation between the horrible words spoken and the affect it has on gay people. Talk them down, shut them out, especially your kin, and watch the mental illness set in. “Living in the closet,” for example. Who needs to lie about such a fundamental thing, just to please Karen in NJ, so she can what? Sleep better at night?

    That dog will no longer hunt, and it makes people like Karen in NJ lose their ever loving marbles, even though the choice to lose them was always hers to begin with. The world is too bleeding small for this effing Us vs. Them tribal nonsense.

    Because Karen in NJ knows it’s over. Gay marriage has already happened.

    I invite Karen in NJ to please set down her irrational fears.

  253. James Knauer,
    Where did I “berate” gay people???? Thats a thread going on in this thread, people making things up.

    I haven’t talked about religion except to say that I’m not concerned with it; I haven’t said “aberrant” or “perversion;” I haven’t “attacked” anyone.

    This ad hominem business is a really weird way to discuss an issue in the news and bespeaks a lack of confidence in your position.

  254. Karen in NJ
    I am still waiting for some kind of answer as to exactly how a gay couple of either gender getting married legally is going to affect you or your family adversely. A straight answer.

  255. Karen in NJ claims, “I haven’t talked about religion except to say that I’m not concerned with it; I haven’t said “aberrant” or “perversion;” I haven’t “attacked” anyone.”

    The results of all your bigoted arguments end in the same place: depriving your fellow citizens of their rights, ones which have already been exercised, the exercise of which only affects you because you chose to be a busy-body and insist they don’t.

    It’s the same place religious arguments end up as well. You can claim you are not religious; the end result is identical, and just as painful to gay people. How many more centuries must we listen to it, Karen, for you to what? Sleep better at night?

    In 2013, fewer and fewer are taking your arguments seriously.

    Is it your desire to revoke all gay marriage licenses already issued? How deep is your unrest?

  256. James Knauer (continued)
    The reason you think I have a chip on my shoulder, of course, is that I am responding to others who address me. If it comes off as “defensive” that I am defending my views, well, how could it not?

    Bob Kauten,
    Re wearing a “Kick Me” sign — why would you think that? As I noted above, I think discussions on the internet are just adults having fun. I’m sitting in my recliner chair with my nice dog next to me. I don’t feel abused at all. What I have noted is that attacking me is a dumb way to argue your case.

    Blouise,
    I’ve visited this blog before and commented before. Its probably several years since I found this blog. And of course, most people interested in the law know of Jonathan Turley. I don’t usually comment on blogs but lately have felt like making an effort. It goes in cycles; I used to go to Glenn Greenwald’s blog on Salon a lot and comment at one time. Thats a few years ago.

    Darren Smith,
    I wonder why anyone would go to the trouble you did to berate an anonymous poster on the internet. You do realize thats the only thing you accomplished, don’t you?

    mespo,
    The honest truth is that I have not said anything negative about gay people! How weird the way people make things up. Nothing that I’ve said contains an animus towards gay people. IMy honest belief is that gay people are not yearning for marriage. Its a media/politician created issue. I know some gay people and none of them want to marry. This marriage issue is being imposed upon gay people. (Being totally honest, I think they are being used as pawns for purposes of political power but thats a whole nuther issue.)

  257. bettykath,
    I see your problem. You think that I am trying to convince you of something. I think I am just speaking my mind. If you are actually interested in why anyone would oppose gay marriage, you could just put that in the google, right?

  258. Otteray,
    Again, the same as with bettykath, why not just google “Arguments for opposing gay marriage” and find loads of well written articles?

    Why are you so fixated me, an anonymous commenter on the internet?

    It doesn’t really make sense. At the end of the day, you still wouldn’t know me if you passed me on the street.

  259. “Poll: 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage

    Poll analysis by Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Anthony Salvanto and Fred Backus

    As the Supreme Court begins to hear oral arguments in cases involving two high-profile laws to do with same-sex marriage – California’s Proposition 8 and the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -53 percent of Americans think it should be legal for same-sex couples to marry, while 39 percent say it should not be legal.

    Although public opinion on this topic has been consistent for the last few months, it has reversed markedly from as recently as a year ago. In May 2012, just after President Barack Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, 51 percent of Americans said it should not be legal for same-sex couples to marry.

    The poll suggests the extent to which people’s views have changed. Thirty-three percent of Americans who now think same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry say they once held the opposite view.

    When asked why they changed their minds, one in five volunteers that personally knowing someone who is gay or lesbian was the deciding factor (20 percent). Other reasons mentioned include being more tolerant now (17 percent), more educated now (17 percent), or that is the modern way of thinking about the issue (12 percent).

    Americans’ awareness of gays and lesbians in their own lives has grown over the past ten years. In 2003, most Americans said they did not have a work colleague, close friend, or family member who was gay or lesbian. Today, six in 10 Americans say they do.

    Knowing someone personally who is gay or lesbian appears to be an important factor in how Americans feel about the issue of same-sex marriage. While two-thirds of Americans with a close relationship to someone who is gay or lesbian think same-sex marriage should be legal, most without such a close relationship don’t think so.

    Most Americans under age 45 believe same-sex marriage should be legal, including 73 percent of those under 30. Americans between 45 and 64 are divided, while 52 percent of seniors do not think it should be legal.

    Politically, most Democrats (63 percent) and independents (56 percent) favor legalization of same-sex marriage, while most Republicans (56 percent) do not. Still, support for same-sex marriage among Republicans has increased from just 13 percent in May 2012 (after the President announced his support of same-sex marriage) to 37 percent today.” [emphasis added]

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57576249/poll-53-of-americans-support-same-sex-marriage/

  260. Karen in NJ claims, “The reason you think I have a chip on my shoulder, of course, is that I am responding to others who address me. If it comes off as “defensive” that I am defending my views, well, how could it not?”

    I actually do not care about any of that.

    Many here today have asked you to present the actual harm marriage among such a tiny minority affects you or anyone else. You have responded with links to articles based on bigoted opinion, and wild speculation.

    This is not sufficient reason to deprive your fellow citizens of their rights, particularly those already exercised.

    As a remedy, do you favor revoking marriage licenses already issued?

  261. No, Karen, you Google and present your own arguments.

    As irrational and illogical as they are. Or . . .

    Give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”.

    That means an example not based in a logical fallacy, a distortion of law, an implicitly religious definition of marriage or an outright lie.

  262. Karen in NJ suggests, “Why are you so fixated me, an anonymous commenter [sic] on the internet?”

    Because YOU are the one here making the argument, not “the internet.”

  263. I’m giving up on trying to explain why monogamy is logically more important to heterosexuals than to gays. It seems to be a brick wall.

  264. OS,
    Thanks. I’ll preface such observations with “Swallow your milk or melting chocolate before reading this.”
    I mention chocolate, because it went into my nasal cavity, once. The pain was…exquisite. Try getting that stuff out of there.

  265. Gene,
    As I said to bettykath, my purpose is just speaking my mind, not convincing you. This whole exercise has enforced my original opinions so its been worthwhile to me.

    For you, though, I can’t see the purpose.

    The argument from you is like the old PeeWee Herman shows – he holds his hands over his ears and makes a face, he sticks his tongue out and says “I know I am but what are you!”

  266. And let me explain to you how argumentation works:

    You make a claim.
    A rebuttal is offered.
    The burden of proof then shifts back to you to refute to rebuttal.

    You made a claim. Your claim alludes to a specific harm.
    It failed on the merits as the rebuttal pointed out your logical fallacies and lack of evidence to prove a specific harm.
    The burden of proof is on you to either bolster your initial claim with sufficient evidence to overcome the rebuttal.

    You have yet to do so.

    In layman’s terms, that means you lose the argument.

    Or you can keep providing ammunition to further demolish your argument by being evasive, making the same logical errors over and over and not presenting valid unbiased evidence in support of your contention.

    Again:

    Give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”.

    That means an example not based in a logical fallacy, a distortion of law, an implicitly religious definition of marriage or an outright lie.

  267. Karen,
    You are present here. This is a legal blog where issues are discussed in a rational and reasoned manner. Not all the commenters are lawyers, but all are very interested in the law and a level of argument such as one might find in any forensic debate. Since you are here discussing the issues, how about responding directly to points you raised yourself. It is disingenuous tell a person with whom you are having a discussion to respond to a civil and honest question with, “…why not just google “Arguments for opposing gay marriage” and find loads of well written articles?”

    Baloney. You indicated some harm would come to you and/or your family members if gay people got married. You bought it; now you own it. Please explain what your reasoning is behind that statement.

    You asked, “Why are you so fixated me, an anonymous commenter on the internet?”

    The answer to that is, you are the commenter here making claims, not the rest of the internet. If they happen to show up, we will ask them to explain themselves too. Now how about explaining what you meant when you claimed some kind of harm would come to you and your family personally.

  268. “…monogamy is logically more important to heterosexuals than to gays…”

    What!? Where exactly did you get that information? Please provide either a link or explain–or both. There is an adage in forensics that says, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”

  269. James Knauer,
    I’ve hashed and rehashed my opinions and why I’m concerned in the first place. What does it matter to you what I think? I’m going to assume that it doesn’t matter because we are total strangers. I’m going to accord you the goodwill that you aren’t writing posts here just to attack some anonymous person in New Jersey over the internet.

    So! If your interest is in finding out why there is opposition to gay marriage the internet is such a great resource. Just put “reasons for opposing gay marriage” into a search.

    Its not my job to convince you to change your mind and more than that, I don’t even want to change your mind. I came to my own opinions by making the effort to find and read different opinions on the different sides and I thought about it all. I wouldn’t want it any other way for anyone else. Its up to you to do your own reading and thinking.

  270. I don’t give a damn what your purpose is, Karen.

    Prove what you say or be recognized as being quite simply unable to back your contention. In layman’s terms: full of shit.

    Also, you really need to get a new line other than protesting that the counter arguments presented are “I know you are but what am I”. Your argument has been dismantled with specifics of how you logic fails and your evidence is of insufficient quality because it either irrelevant or biased. The fallacy you think you understand but don’t is a variation of the tu quoque fallacy – an argument that states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position. My position is consistent and based in valid logic and substantive evidence. So is yours . . . consistently riddled with logical errors, devoid of evidence and bigoted that is.

    Until you can give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage” (meaning an example not based in a logical fallacy, a distortion of law, an implicitly religious definition of marriage or an outright lie)?

    You haven’t accomplished anything other than to repeat your bigoted, irrational, illogical and unfounded opinion.

    Which does not help your bolster your position in the slightest.

    The harder you argue in this manner, the more damage your position takes.

    Carry on.

  271. Otteray,

    Yeah, I’m present here but I’m not your slave who has to dig holes and fill them up and dig them all over again. :)

  272. Bob Kauten,
    I’ll see you a chocolate bar and raise you one orange juice. I don’t drink soft drinks, just coffee and OJ. I’ve been known to snort OJ all over my keyboard. On the other hand, I got hit with an accidental overspray of Mace at a training seminar last week. 5,300,000 Scoville Units. Now THAT will clear your sinuses. Just ask Darren.

  273. Gene,
    Obviously, the only people you’ve convinced are the people who agreed with you all along.

    My “position” cannot be “damaged” here on this blog. I have nothing to gain or lose from any of the other posters.

    My position is just what I think and if I changed my mind, I would not consider that to be “damage” to me. If someone says something that changes my mind, I’m grateful; it means they gave me information or insight I didn’t have before.

    That hasn’t happened here and I don’t say that to be mean, just honest.

  274. Proving your contention is not slavery.

    It’s called “showing your proof”.

    The burden of proof in an argument rests with the one who makes the contention, in this instance, that homosexual marriage undermines heterosexual marriage. You have failed to meet your burden of proof for the reasons noted above. When you say you are right but provide no proof? That’s a logical fallacy called ipse dixit – the bare assertion fallacy, which describes a sort of arbitrary dogmatic statement which the speaker expects the listener to accept as valid just because they say so absent any proof.

    It’s not nice to play with your ipse dixit in public and it won’t win you an argument.

  275. Karen wrote:
    Darren Smith,
    I wonder why anyone would go to the trouble you did to berate an anonymous poster on the internet. You do realize thats the only thing you accomplished, don’t you?

    ~+~
    How about you do as Gene suggests and “Give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”.” to show me an example of accomplishing something?

  276. Your position cannot be damaged?

    Quite the contrary. It can be illustrated to be irrational, illogical and based on insufficient biased evidence when you bother to present evidence at all.

    You can (and are) be (being) made to look like a childish irrational bigot.

    Sure, you’re an anonymous bigot who cannot back up what she says, but still . . . if the shoe fits . . .

  277. Karen in NJ claims, “I’ve hashed and rehashed my opinions….”

    Hash is a good word, as your arguments so far have relied on bigotry.

    Show the harm, or quit. You have not done either.

    Why you are here is none of my business, and not relevant to the arguments you so far have been unable to make.

  278. Evasion -(noun)

    A statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth; to wit:

    equivocation
    deception, misrepresentation, deceit – a misleading falsehood
    indirect expression, circumlocution – an indirect way of expressing something
    doublespeak – any language that pretends to communicate but actually does not
    hedging, hedge – an intentionally noncommittal or ambiguous statement; “when you say `maybe’ you are just hedging”
    cavil, quibble, quiddity – an evasion of the point of an argument by raising irrelevant distinctions or objections

    OK, Karen, your turn. Or, you can just admit that your are in over your head.

  279. rafflaw,
    Thank you. I don’t know why anyone would think that I think my opinions are anything more than my opinions.

    ???

    I keep saying “my opinions.”

  280. raff,
    You know what they say about a certain part of anatomy. Everyone has one. It’s just that some people ARE one.

    It’s late and I am about done for the day. I will leave you with some commentary by Jackie & Dunlap.

  281. Here is a video that I feel symbolises the situation for the gay marriage and civil rights movement quite rightly.

  282. Gene, it just occurred to me that Karen seems to think if she plays the broken record long enough, she will have the last word. We all remember Brent who tried that tactic. That thread went on for over six hundred comments before he picked up his broken toys and left in a snit with his dignity in tatters. Bluster and evasion as a tactic for avoiding honest debate only goes so far.

  283. You do indeed have a right to your opinions and to express them, Karen. You don’t have a right to have them go unchallenged. You’re free to say what you like. You are also free to suffer the negative consequences when you say something others find objectionable. That 1st Amendment can be a cruel mistress, but so is the nature of political discourse. As I said at the beginning when the truthfulness of your assertion was brought into question, you can always choose to have a completely unfounded opinion or one that is flatly irrational.

    If you don’t like having that pointed out by others?

    That simply the risk you run in a free speech forum.

  284. Gene,
    you are right about the song from Darren!
    OS,
    I loved the Jackie and Dunlap video! See everyone tomorrow. Or should I say later today!

  285. I’m just putting this out there…

    The trend of accusing and shaming others of what you have done is prevalent within the anti-gay culture. Most often it’s the “straight” man that gets caught in the restroom or the preacher with his coke dealing boyfriend or rent boy carrying his luggage. But do not be fooled to think that it is only a male issue. The term DL has often been used primarily in black culture to hide behind code words about homosexuality within the anti-gay culture, predominately married folks in opposite sex relationships.

    To cover for the DL, most are ardent deniers and accuse others viscously of the horrors of the “gay life style”. They’ll claim disease issues, faith issues, traditional marriage issues, children issues, population factors, and even throw kids up as their human shields all in an attempt to hide their DL.

    Sometimes, children grow up with social signals about how the unacceptable gay needs to be rid of and is somehow “less than” anybody else and deserves to be treated with contempt and ridiculed back into the closet. As children grow, their own sexuality begins to be discovered and explored. Some kids try same sex relationships on their own DL (keep it hidden from adults and shame) while others don’t “experiment” because of different factors. Eventually, once reaching adulthood and having figured their sexuality out, they proceed down life’s path.

    I think someone who’s been avoiding explaining how gay marriage and the LGBT community is a threat to “traditional marriage” may be on her own DL or is suffering from some form of adolescent shame imposed upon her from her social constructs as a child and is projecting it upon the LGBT community without really getting to know individuals and their relationships within the LGBT community.

    I’ve been reading along and all signals light. But I could be wrong…

  286. Karen,

    “I see your problem. You think that I am trying to convince you of something. I think I am just speaking my mind. If you are actually interested in why anyone would oppose gay marriage, you could just put that in the google, right?”

    I don’t want to know why others oppose gay marriage, I want to know why you oppose gay marriage.

    Our time hasn’t been wasted. You have convinced me of something. You are quite willing to believe bad stuff about a group of people of whom you know little and without any rational explanation. You have convinced me that you are a bigot.

  287. Bettykath,
    No offense but that almost qualifies as you having an obession with me. For the life of me, I can’t see why anyone would put in so much effort just to form an opinion about some anonymous internet commenter. Thats what I’m missing here, I guess. I’m still fully aware that there is still no one on this page but Jonathan Turley that I could pick out of a police line-up.

    I haven’t said anything bigoted towards anyone. An objective third party would see me as the most tolerant person commenting here and I am saying that sincerely.

  288. Max,
    Oh, good grief. You’ve been “reading along” — yeah, you’ve been reading along whats in your own head.

    I haven’t been shaming anyone. Of course you don’t have to do it; I can’t order you around. But for purposes of clarifying it in your own mind, please cut and paste here EXACTLY my own words that dealt with the gay lifestyle. Exactly what it is I said.

    I didn’t say anything about the gay lifestyle. I said monogamy is valued in traditional marriages to keep husbands from siring children with other women. What does that have to do with the gay lifestyle?

  289. Otteray,
    I don’t know why I would want the last word. I thought I was being polite and responding to people who addressed me by name.

    So, OK, and not to be antagonistic towards you, I will not respond to anything you write that mentions my name. Thats what you would like, I guess, so thats fine with me.

  290. Gene,
    Are you thinking I’m some kind of paranoid nut? I’ve said a few times that internet discussions are just “adults having fun.” I’m sitting in a recliner chair with a cup of coffee. My dog, the artist, is outside designing something mixed media (plastic, wood, bird netting) in the yard.

    What “negative consequences” am I suffering? No offense but that just seems like the most from-outer-space notion in the whole discussion.

  291. I would offer you extra shovel for that bigoted hole you’re digging yourself, but you seem to have brought your own.

    Carry on.

    Unless, of course, you can give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”.

  292. Paranoid? No. Not in the slightest. But since you asked, I think you’re a bigoted irrational half-wit spreading unfounded irrational anti-gay propaganda.

    Since you asked.

    BTW, can you give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”?

    You’ve alleged a specific harm, yet you have been unable to articulate just what that harm is.

    The question will not go away. It’s a simple question. One you would be asked in court if you wished to challenge equal rights for homosexual couples in court. It should be easy to answer.

    Can you answer the question, Karen?

  293. And, Karen, as I provided yesterday–I showed you several ways in which marriage does NOT keep husbands from siring children with other women (and depleting the family’s resources, as you ultimately argue is the “danger”) But you have not responded to any of those criticisms. So let me summarize them again for you:

    1. The WIFE of a marriage can be non-monogamous and produce a child into the marriage that is NOT the husband’s, but is someother man’s. That depletes the family’s resources.

    2. The marriage can be (other than in the above scenario) comprised of children from another, previous, marriage. Thus, as in 1, above, really, and legally, some other man will be held responsible for the children. Thus, marriage is not the mechanism here that “protects” against the depletion of the family’s resource. Its the laws imposition of parental responsibilities on the biological parent that does.

    3.If the ultimate risk that marriage protects against is depletion of the family resources, then why doesn’t that count for children with gay or lesbian parents? For example, why doesn’t a child with two gay parents deserve to have the government/law protect against the depletion of his family’s resources by imposing “monogamy” on the gay or lesbian parents?

    4. Marriage (at least the government’s version of it, which is all we are talking about here) does NOTHING to impose a rule of monogamy on the spouses of the marriage. Now, religious marriage does. So, is that what you are talking about?

  294. “JACKALOPE is good, proper etiquette never goes out of style.”

    And a fine gin made in Palisade Colorado.

    Darren,

    Ahem, I believe you meant, this

  295. Also, I really really hope that the appropriate song becomes

    If for no other reason then more people need that Shelly Manne album, the version of I Could Have Danced All Night is hip in ways I wouldn’t have thought possible.

    Also, if Karen says she’s done, let’s take her at her word.

  296. fedUp –
    Of course, people fail in marriages and every other kind of endeavor.

    Wish I could come up with an analogy that works. Heterosexual marriages NEED monogamy. Thats the reason why monogamy has evolved to be so valued in traditional marriage.

    So, I’m not even saying whether monogamy is good or bad or even whether I think its moral or immoral. I don’t know what God thinks. I do think that monogamy is good for people; you’re better off being monogamous. You’re better off not drinking alcohol; you’re better off keeping your home tidy; you’re better off having one cat rather than 20. Those aren’t “value judgements” from me!

  297. “So, OK, and not to be antagonistic towards you, I will not respond to anything you write that mentions my name. Thats what you would like, I guess, so thats fine with me”

    ******************************************

    Now that is a new twist. Interesting dodge to avoid eye contact, metaphorically speaking. As for “expressing opinions,” one must always keep in mind that, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

    Let me put this in the form of a leading affirmative question in order to make it easy to answer:
    Question: Isn’t it true that there is no personal harm that will come to any heterosexual couple or their straight children if gay couples are allowed the legal right to marry?

  298. The nice thing about an affirmative questions is that it only requires a “yes or no” answer, then the respondent can explain his or her answer. Of course, I put the words “straight children” in there for a reason. There is a follow up question:

    Question: Isn’t it true that if one’s child turns out to be gay, psychological, legal, financial and even physical harm may come to that child unless that child has the full protection of the law in all aspects of life, including the right to marry?

  299. “Paranoid? No. Not in the slightest. But since you asked, I think you’re a bigoted irrational half-wit spreading unfounded irrational anti-gay propaganda.”

    Ha! Gene, you’re reinforcing my opinions again there.

    I don’t start discussions from the premise that people who disagree with me are bad people or that good people ONLY think the way I think. I’m a big believer in goodwill towards others.

    Now, Gene, just as I said to Max, I can’t force you to do anything but please cut and paste my exact words that are “irrational anti-gay propaganda.” You will not find that in anything I’ve written. Other posters have posted anti-gay propaganda.

  300. But by making your point by saying “heterosexual marriages” and then “monogamy is good for people”, and “you are” “you are” “you are better off”, YOU, Karen, you are, defeating your own arguments because you are saying that you are NOT assigning value on any certain type of person (or activity) while, in practically the same breath, at the beginning of your response, you specifically call out only a certain type of person or activity. Karen, people are being very nice to you here, because your own language reveals that you can’t even understand that you lack the capacity to talk about “people” as INCLUDING people who are NON-heterosexuals. Simply put, YOU, Karen, you, can’t allege that you are talking about “people” and how “people” are “better off with x,y,and z”, all people, and then say that only heterosexuals “need” “x” and then conclude by saying that you haven’t engaged in judging something. That last response of yours is, in fact, the classic example of someone who has placed a value on one thing over another. And, in your case, your “judgment” is so believed by you that you can’t even make an argument outside of that judgment–meaning, you can’t talk about what “people” need without reducing your working definition of people to heterosexuals only.

  301. The myth of monogamy

    and

    Facts and Statistics About Infidelity. which states:

    “It is estimated that roughly 30 to 60% of all married individuals (in the United States) will engage in infidelity at some point during their marriage (see, Buss and Shackelford for review of this research). And these numbers are probably on the conservative side, when you consider that close to half of all marriages end in divorce (people are more likely to stray as relationships fall apart”. This means that if every divorce was based upon infidelity (which they aren’t, infidelity is the third leading cause of divorce behind lack of communication and money issues)? That at the high end of the infidelity scale, approximately 10% of marriages continue despite infidelity at a minimum.

    1 in 10 is a statistically significant number.

    “Heterosexual marriages NEED monogamy.”

    Apparently not.

    Monogamy is antithetical to the human male’s breeding strategy as it has evolved under natural selection. Women desire monogamy as a breeding strategy as chosen by natural selection, but studies show that as women become more financially and emotionally independent that their propensity to cheat is more comparable to men. Monogamy is clearly optional in the institution of marriage based on the number of heterosexual couples remaining married despite infidelity.

  302. Karen,

    I don’t care what premise you start your discussions from. It’s irrelevant. You asked my opinion and you got an honest answer based upon your words here. Before this exchange, I had no opinion of you one way or another. However, your denial that you are posting unfounded irrational anti-gay propaganda is simply prime facie bullshit as evidenced by the long line of valid criticisms of your “opinion” that you consistently avoid addressing. Speaking of which , , ,

    Can you give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”?

    You’ve alleged a specific harm, yet you have been unable to articulate just what that harm is.

    The question will not go away. It’s a simple question. One you would be asked in court if you wished to challenge equal rights for homosexual couples in court. It should be easy to answer.

    Can you answer the question, Karen?

  303. Any supposition by a straight heterosexual couple that they can’t, or won’t, have a gay child is denial at its best. It is not a choice, but due to the developing brain being “hard wired” while still in the womb. Since the advent of sophisticated brain scans, there is now incontrovertible scientific proof that gay men have brains more like females than males. The same applies to lesbian females, who have brain structures more like males. There are observable and measurable differences in the brains of gay males and lesbian females. This is not one isolated study, but has been replicated many times now. One of the first definitive studies was done in Sweden during 2007 and 2008, and first published in 2008.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

    Here is a link to the original journal article by Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström. This is the abstract of the article. The full article may be purchased from the The National Academy of Sciences of the USA or you local university library may have a subscription to the journal.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/105/27/9403.short

    If someone has scientific evidence to the contrary, let’s see it. Of course, since this is a legal blog, such evidence needs to be sufficiently sound scientifically to withstand a Daubert and/or Frye scrutiny.

    I saw a comment a couple of days ago in which someone asked a homophobe, “When you were going through puberty, how did you resist all those raging hormones and turn straight instead of gay?”

  304. fedupNdisappointed,

    In re your post of 10:27 am:

    Good analysis. I hope you keep posting here beyond this thread.

  305. Thank you for your response, Karen. But I would really like you to hear from you on this. It won’t be hard. I phased it so it can be answered with a simple yes or no; then feel free to explain if you like.

    Question: Isn’t it true that there is no personal harm that will come to any heterosexual couple or their straight children if gay couples are allowed the legal right to marry?

  306. Fed Up,
    Heterosexuals need monogamy so that the husband doesn’t have children with other women. Not every man is a sultan with the resources to support concubines and their children. Even today with all the birth control methods, what percentage of children are “unplanned?” (IMO, most. Even today.)

    Yes, gay people can have childen but they have to go to a heck of a lot of trouble. Monogamy evolved into a high value in traditional marriage because getting another woman pregnant was likely going to happen with ANY extramarital relationship. It happens a lot today. Every once in a while we learn that some congressman has a child with a woman other than his wife. Just a hunch: the child wasn’t planned.

    So, a very strong stricture about monogamy evolved out of that very practical concern. Not being monogamous is bad because it will inevitably lead to poverty for women and children, in other words. And society recognized that so monogamy became a value in itself.

  307. March 28, 2013

    Bitter Scalia Leaves U.S.

    Posted by Andy Borowitz

    WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Justice Antonin Scalia dropped a bombshell on the Supreme Court today, announcing his decision to resign from the Court “effective immediately” and leave the United States forever.

    Calling this week “by far the worst week of my life,” Justice Scalia lashed out at his fellow-Justices and the nation, saying, “I don’t want to live in a sick, sick country that thinks the way this country apparently thinks.”

    Justice Scalia said that he had considered fleeing to Canada, “but they not only have gay marriage but also national health care, which is almost as evil.”

    He said the fact that nations around the world recognizing same-sex marriage are “falling like deviant dominoes” would not deter him from leaving the United States: “There are plenty of other countries that still feel the way I do. I’ll move to Iran if I have to.”

    Throwing off his robe in a dramatic gesture, Justice Scalia reserved his harshest parting shot for his fellow-Justices, screaming, “Damn you! Damn each and every one of you to hell! You call yourself judges? That’s a good one. You’re nothing but animals!”

    Breathing heavily after his tirade, he turned to Justice Clarence Thomas and said, “Except you, Clarence. Are you coming with me?”

    Justice Thomas said nothing in reply.

    Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/03/bitter-scalia-leaves-us.html#ixzz2OwPaqjUW

    Wouldn’t it be nice…

  308. Karen,
    in your last post you claim, once again, that monogamy is a highly valued in marriage, but you give examples of traditional marriage partners having sex with a different partner and not being monogamous. Secondly, your redundant claim that not being monogamous is bad and will lead to poverty for women and children. Since more than 50% of traditional marriages end up in divorce, does that mean that 50% of women and children are in poverty?

  309. FedUp,
    so thats why monogamy is valued in traditional marriage but when I told you of my own personal opinion that monogamy is good for people, thats just in keeping with my own preference for making life simple.

    Thats how I tried to raise my daughter – make it easy on yourself, don’t look for trouble. She’s in her 20s and she’ll talk about how if she marries she wants to work out an arrangement for sharing the housework, blah, blah, blah :) and I tell her, better yet to keep a simple household so there isn’t that much housework. Try to keep it in mind that you don’t want to be a nag; its bad for the nagger. Make life easy where you can.

    But thats just my preference and the world would be a much duller place if everyone was like me.

  310. rafflaw,
    Yeah, marital break ups do tend to lead to women and children having a tough time financially.

    Infidelity in marriage leads to divorce leads to women and children suffering.

    Thats why society came to value monogamy.

    How to take care of women and children without an adult male has always been a big social concern, hasn’t it? Thats why they had suttee of the widows in India. Thats why in some cultures the brother would have to marry his deceased brother’s wife.

  311. Gene,
    The “monogamy” issue is nothing but a red herring tactic designed to divert the conversation to another direction. Getting married legally has nothing at all to do with monogamy, and everything to do with legal rights.

    I want my grandson, and all others similarly situated, have the right to file a joint tax return, to pay the same inheritance tax rates as straight married couples, and many other of the hundreds of benefits that straight people get without having to jump through many legal hoops. Straight people get these rights automatically without even thinking about it, but gays have to hire an attorney simply to get basic rights to things such as medical decisions. Even then, there are hospitals on record as saying they will ignore advance directives and living wills if it involves homosexual couples.

    To that end, there have been several horror stories in the news recently about gay couples when one partner is ill or dying. Reports have been published in news media about couples who have been together for years, to the disapproval of their straight homophobic families, have the partner pass away in a hospital. The family of the dying patient will not let the partner visit his or her dying loved one. After death, the family claims the body and has a private burial to which the partner is not allowed to attend. I would like to hear some reasonable explanation as to how that benefits gay couples while adversely affecting straight couples.

    Straight couples claiming they will be irreparably harmed if gays can marry, but gays will not be harmed if they can’t, is a leap of mental gymnastics fantastical in the extreme.

    I saw a comedian (straight, with multiple marriages) on television make a joke about why he supported gay marriage. He said, “I want gays to be able to marry so they can be as miserable as the rest of us.”

    Still waiting for some kind of logical explanation from Karen as to how she and the straight members of her family will be adversely affected. Also, how she thinks the gay members of her family will NOT be affected by being unable to marry. OOPS! Did I let he cat out of the bag? Our family doesn’t have any gay members? Sorry straight friends, you do, but you just don’t know about it…..yet.

  312. Otteray:

    “Question: Isn’t it true that there is no personal harm that will come to any heterosexual couple or their straight children if gay couples are allowed the legal right to marry.”

    Well, first off I am not your hostile witness who has to respond with a yes or no, especially to a philosophical question.

    The harm will be to traditional marriage by undermining it by changing the definition of marriage, even to the extent of including “a menu of legally recognized relationships.”

    Would it harm heterosexual couples and their straight children (and their gay children!) to harm marriage? Undermining marriage will harm the people who depend on marriage (someone’s marriage, their own or their parents’ marriage).

  313. Karen, there simply is no such thing as “traditional” marriage. It is a term bandied about by people who want to start the conversation off on their own terms with their own pretextual conclusions.

    Off course “gay marriage” will undermine “traditional marriage”, and that’s because traditional marriage is a recent invention, created by religious cults that are set to undermine gays and lesbians.

    The real problem here with you is that there is no such thing as traditional marriage, just like there is no such thing as gay marriage. Its a fiction–and a fiction just swarming in and of religiosity.

    All your bloviating has been on a fiction–a religious fiction, and the people here have given that to you, politely, yet you still insist on “yelling” your part in this conversation.

  314. Guys, you’re arguing with someone who insists, that even though divorce is so common that there are lawyers who specialize in it, and judges who do nothing but hear cases related to divorce, child support, child custody, etc. that the system won’t be able to handle the increase in infidelity that results from straight men who are JEALOUS that gay men cheat and they don’t get to.

    Further more, you’re sitting here arguing with someone who, on a legal blog, doesn’t care about the legality, and who has admitted that she’s not going to change her mind, no matter what you say.

    I mean, I guess I’m saying that you might as well be arguing with this (Warning, The SCP is a HUGE time sink for sci-fi fans. If you haven’t seen it before, it’s a bunch of short stories written about paranormal things in the style of government reports).

    One thing I’ve learned over the years is that if someone tells you they don’t care what you have to say, you should save your breath for someone who does.

  315. This left me scratching my head: “Would it harm heterosexual couples and their straight children (and their gay children!) to harm marriage? Undermining marriage will harm the people who depend on marriage (someone’s marriage, their own or their parents’ marriage).”

    That last sentence baffles me. I don’t believe I have a reading comprehension problem, but I don’t understand what that means. What are you saying? What? How? Exactly?

  316. Her grey matter is more sophisticated than she expresses–logic will, whether she wants it too or not, fester in her subconscious and, hopefully, will disturb her dreams and interrupt her sleep. However, if she is neurologically impaired, at least any others stumbling across her dysfunction will also see a response to it.

  317. Fed Up,

    Where did I “yell” anything? Its my nature to be pretty mild and moderate so its not at all hard for me to avoid yelling or attacking people; I don’t tend to pat myself on the back for it. The yelling has all been from the other side and makes me wonder how they deal with people in real life.

    You concede that “of course” gay marriage will undermine traditional marriage. You don’t value traditional marriage but you acknowledge that those who do value traditional marriage have reason to be concerned.

  318. fedup,

    True, but the at this point there’s really nothing we can add. Other then mockery,and at this point, we’ve made most of the jokes worth making.

  319. Yes Karen, that’s because traditional marriage was invented to undermine gay marriage—see how that works, in the end, marriage as a whole, as a broad concept that should be available to every citizen of this country, has been rendered UNAVAILABLE to ALL citizens–and that is BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE WHO CREATED THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE AS “TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE”.
    If you have to constantly add the work “traditional” to YOUR concept of marriage, that should tell YOU right there that YOU are qualifying or limiting the concept of marriage. Therefor, YOU, Karen, YOU, have undermined marriage by insisting, insisting, insisting, that for us to talk about marriage that it HAS to be this more limited form of marriage, “traditional marriage”, a form that by its very definition and purpose, was invented to put a governor on marriage.

  320. Gyges,
    I said in my first comment that my concern was not something that the Supreme Court will address, the undermining of traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is under lots of stress already. Gay marriage is the topic at hand but not the only way that I’m concerned for the stresses on traditional marriage.

    Is this a “legal blog?” I think way back a few years that this blog was the first place I saw that little video of the prairie dog turning abruptly and staring.

  321. When someone says that they are worried about “traditional marriage”, and that person has been subjected to a pretty accurate description of the history of marriage (and that history does NOT support limiting “marriage” to “traditional marriage”), they are really admitting that they are worried that the married couples will undermine the current religious definition of marriage.

  322. Karen,

    “I’m not interested in a religious or a rights perspective. ”

    Rights are a legal concept. So if you’re not interested in the rights perspective, then you’re not interested in the legal perspective.

    On the left hand side of the Blog there’s a list of honors the blog has recieved, including,

    “SELECTED AS TOP LEGAL OPINION BLOG (2011)
    SELECTED AS TOP LEGAL THEORY AND LAW PROFESSOR BLOG (2008)
    Winner — Top Opinion Writer By Aspen Institute and The Week Magazine for Best Single-Issue Advocacy (Civil Liberties)”

    From JT’s bio

    “Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, and other schools.”

    “Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Professor Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was also found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He has been repeatedly ranked in the nation’s top 500 lawyers in annual surveys (including in the latest 2010 rankings by LawDragon) – one of only a handful of academics. In prior years, he was ranked as one of the nation’s top ten lawyers in military law cases as well as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40. He was also selected in 2010 and 2011 and 2012 as one of the 100 top Irish lawyers in the world.”

  323. That is what you are worried about Karen, isn’t it? You just don’t want us to be distracted with arguing or criticizing the religious aspects of your argument, so you are trying to make a religious argument disguised as a secular argument.
    Just for the sake of full disclosure here, when was the last time you prayed or went to a church service?

  324. To say that you are “not interested” in making the religious argument is not to say that you are not afraid of making it. Are you afraid to make a religious argument against gays getting married?

  325. OK, want to talk ‘traditional marriage? Let’s turn to a couple of experts who have spent their professional lives studying marriage. This first link is to a scholarly paper by Dr. Jessica Feinberg, Assistant Professor, Mercer University School of Law. The article is 52 pages long in PDF format. It was published in the Northwestern Journal of Law & Public Policy Spring issue 1012.

    http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1090&context=njlsp

    The article at the link below was written for Huffington Post by Dr. Richard Feinberg. By way of background, Dr. Feinberg has the academic credentials to comment on this matter of “traditional marriage.” He has been a professor of anthropology since 1974, has published over a dozen books and monographs, and approximately 100 professional articles.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/american-anthropological-association/defending-traditional-marriage_b_1460026.html

    I am willing to wait on a response. It will probably take quite a while to absorb the full contents of Dr. Jessica Feinberg’s dissection of the question of what “traditional marriage” means.

    Karen, notice that I am not just saying that “I have an opinion.” I am backing it up with facts. Y’know, those troublesome things that keep getting in your way.

  326. I would venture to say that most of the posters on this blog would be very respectful of you in that case, in the situation where you are being so obstinate and, well, dense and illogical, because, deep down inside you have a nagging concern about the religious argument here. I think that it would be a very humble thing to admit that you have some internal questioning going on yourself about these issues.

  327. fedupNdisappointed sez: “Are you afraid to make a religious argument against gays getting married?”

    **************************************

    Personally, I am waiting to see ANY argument. I have been looking but have not found one yet. Searching for a rebuttal argument, or even simple clarification of her positions, from Karen is kind of like going snipe hunting. All we are getting from her is ipse dixit.

  328. Fed Up,
    I’m not religious. I can go back to being very, very young and having a problem with religion because its always that one’s particular religion is the “one, true religion.” How could the Chinese have heard about Jesus before Marco Polo, in other words – that bothered me way, way back.

    So, I’m just coming at it from “whats beneficial to human society?” I believe that gay children have the same interest in the strength of traditional marriage as straight children, of course. All children are vulnerable; the purpose of marriage is to protect them and their mothers.

  329. FedUp,
    ” I think that it would be a very humble thing to admit that you have some internal questioning going on yourself about these issues.”

    I’ve thought about it a lot in the last few years simply because I have no animus towards gay people and the impulse is always to say what you think people want you to say. (I said something above about what the other posters here might be like in real life discussing this issue. In real life, I’d avoid the topic. I’m not emotional about it because I’ve thought it through and my concerns are not emotional but other people are emotional because, IMO, they have the opinion that someone cannot disagree with them on this without being a bad person. Thats all they have ever heard. So, it would likely be an unpleasant conversation in real life, sorry to say.)

  330. Otteray,
    Jessica Feinberg’s opinions are not facts!

    It looks like a long paper; the article I linked to early on was just like one page. I always scratch my head at internet discussions where someone tells me to read some book, like they’d read a book if I told them to.

  331. Karen wrote:

    “So, I’m not even saying whether monogamy is good or bad or even whether I think its moral or immoral. I don’t know what God thinks. I do think that monogamy is good for people;…”

    *****
    Karen didn’t say monogamy was good or bad–she just said she THINKS monogamy is good… That’s all. Got it?

  332. Karen wrote:

    “The harm will be to traditional marriage by undermining it by changing the definition of marriage, even to the extent of including ‘a menu of legally recognized relationships.’”

    *****

    Same-sex marriage is legal here in Massachusetts where I live. It has been for nearly a decade. It has not undermined traditional marriage in my state.

    *****
    Divorce Rates Lower in States with Same-Sex Marriage
    By Danielle Kurtzleben
    July 6, 2011
    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/07/06/divorce-rates-lower-in-states-with-same-sex-marriage

    Excerpt:
    On July 24, New York will join the league of states that allow gay marriage. Meanwhile, demographic data show that this group is already united in another significant way: lower-than-average divorce rates. Interesting, but does this mean that same-sex marriages in New York will last longer? Are the two characteristics even related? Perhaps, as data show that factors like education level and marriage age tend to be related to both a state’s divorce rate and its stance on same-sex marriage.

    According to provisional data from the Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control’s National Vital Statistics System, 5 of the 10 states, plus the District of Columbia, with the lowest divorce rates per thousand people (of the 44 states, plus D.C., that had available data) are also among the nine jurisdictions (a group that includes eight states and the District of Columbia) that currently perform or recognize gay marriages. Of course, states with more marriages naturally have more chances for divorce. But the trend also holds up when one looks at divorces as a share of marriages. In states that recognize or perform gay marriages, the number of divorces in 2009 was 41.2 percent of the number of marriages. In the 36 other states for which 2009 data are available, it was 50.3 percent. Remove the outlier Nevada, the state with by far the lowest divorce rate by this metric (16.3 percent), likely due in part to Las Vegas’s status as a wedding hotspot for out-of-state couples who may get married there but divorced elsewhere, and the figure jumps to 53.2 percent.

    In early 2010, the New York Times’s Nate Silver (then writing at his blog, fivethirtyeight.com) analyzed state divorce rates over time and noted a similar correlation. He found a statistically significant relationship between states’ gay marriage laws and changes in divorce rates over a five-year span.

    But the above data is from 2009–a year in which only two states performed gay marriages for the full year, joined later by Iowa and Vermont. And Gary Gates, Williams Distinguished Scholar at the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute, a think tank that works to advance sexual orientation law, says that same-sex couples divorce at rates comparable to those of different-sex couples. Data from Massachusetts, the state with the longest track record on gay marriage, seems to support this. The numbers show that divorce rates in that state have not changed since same-sex unions became legal in 2004. Though it fluctuated in the intervening years, the rate of 2.2 divorces per 1,000 people in 2004 was the same in 2009.

  333. CDC Report Shows Massachusetts has Lowest Divorce Rate
    http://divorce.com/cdc-report-shows-massachusetts-has-lowest-divorce-rate/

    A recently released study of divorce in the United States shows that same-sex marriage has not ruined the institution of marriage in Massachusetts as some opponents had claimed it would back in 2004 when the state began issuing same-sex marriage licenses following the Supreme Court decision in the case of Goodridge vs. the Department of Public Health.

    Looking at the total number of divorces in Massachusetts reveals that the state had the lowest divorce rate in the nation for the year 2007 according to a recent study released by the Division of Vital Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control. In 2007, Massachusetts had a divorce rate of 2.3 per 1000 people and a marriage rate of 5.9 per 1000. Early reports indicate the divorce rate has continued to fall in 2008 as well, with just 2 divorces per 1000 people indicated in initial accounts for the year.

    In fact, all five states in the U.S. that allow legalized same-sex marriage have low divorce rates. According to the CDC, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont all have an average divorce rate that is nearly 20% lower than the average of the rest of the country. The average divorce rate for the five same-sex marriage states is just 3 per 1000 people. The average rate for all the other states that reported data is nearly 4% (3.95%).

    Critics of the Massachusetts same-sex marriage option who claimed the law would destroy America’s family structure will have to find another complaint since marriages appear to last the longest there, and the state with the highest rate of divorce in the country (Nevada) happens to be a state where same-sex marriage is not legal. Critic’s claims that same-sex unions violated “the laws of God and nature” and would “destroy the American family” have not panned out in light of the new CDC report. The new evidence has not halted attempts to ban same-sex marriage, but has slowed efforts down some since the most recent effort was defeated by the Massachusetts State legislature in June of 2007. For now and until 2012 at least, same-sex marriage will remain legal in Massachusetts.

    Divorce Rates by State

    1 Nevada: 7.1
    2 Arkansas: 6.2
    3 Alabama: 5.4
    3 Wyoming: 5.4
    5 Idaho: 5.3
    6 West Virginia: 5.2
    6 Kentucky: 5.2
    8 Tennessee: 5.1
    8 Florida: 5.1
    10 Mississippi: 4.9
    11 Arizona: 4.7
    11 Colorado: 4.7
    13 Washington: 4.6
    13 Maine: 4.6
    13 Oregon: 4.6
    13 Alaska: 4.6
    17 North Carolina: 4.5
    18 New Mexico: 4.4
    19 California: 4.3
    19 New Hampshire: 4.3
    21 Vermont: 4.2
    21 Virginia: 4.2
    23 Utah: 4.1
    24 Ohio: 4
    24 Montana: 4
    24 Missouri: 4
    27 Texas: 3.9
    28 Michigan: 3.8
    29 Hawaii: 3.7
    30 Kansas: 3.6
    30 Nebraska: 3.6
    32 Delaware: 3.5
    33 South Carolina: 3.4
    33 New Jersey: 3.4
    33 Maryland: 3.4
    33 New York: 3.4
    37 South Dakota: 3.3
    37 Connecticut: 3.3
    39 Rhode Island: 3.2
    39 Wisconsin: 3.2
    41 Iowa: 3.1
    41 Minnesota: 3.1
    41 Pennsylvania: 3.1
    44 North Dakota: 3
    45 Illinois: 2.9
    46 Georgia: 2.5
    47 Massachusetts: 2.3

  334. Low Massachusetts divorce rate another defeat for same-sex marriage opponents
    By: Megan Coffey
    http://www.examiner.com/article/low-massachusetts-divorce-rate-another-defeat-for-same-sex-marriage-opponents

    Excerpt:
    In May 2004, Focus on the Family’s James Dobson predicted “the legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family.”

    In June 2004, Christianity Today’s Charles Colson warned that allowing gays to marry would lead “to an explosive increase in family collapse.”

    In July 2004, during a Senate debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment, Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) fulminated that same-sex marriage “is a master plan out there from those who want to destroy the institution of marriage.”

    Five years later, Massachusetts has proven them all wrong.

  335. Elaine,
    I explained to FedUp why I think monogamy is good for people and its in line with my general outlook about most things: ; make your life easy. Thats me, I don’t want drama if I can avoid it and theres so much you have no choice about. Don’t go looking for trouble.

    If I was giving someone advice, I’d say “be monogamous” if I was asked. (No ones ever asked.)

  336. Gyges,

    We have some Chicken Littles in this country who are opponents of same-sex marriage running around claiming the sky will fall on traditional marriage if gays and lesbians are allowed to legally marry.

    Same sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for years and we haven’t witnessed the destruction or undermining of traditional marriage here. If two people of the same sex being allowed to marry can destroy one’s “traditional” marriage–I’d guess that “traditional” marriage wasn’t worth a hill of beans.

  337. Gene H.
    1, March 29, 2013 at 10:35 am

    Great link.
    Monogamy is a behavioral choice that straight or gay people make.

  338. Elaine M.
    1, March 29, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    Nice list.
    I guess Massachusetts, being the first State to legalize gay marriage, shows how legalizing gay marriage doesn’t harm the institution, rather it strengthens it.

  339. Karen,

    I’m not looking for trouble. I’ve been married to the same man for nearly forty-four years. Both my husband and I believe gays and lesbians should have the same legal rights as we heterosexuals. We have never been afraid that our traditional marriage would suffer if same-sex marriage became legal in our state.

    There are many gay and lesbian couples like my husband and I who are in committed monogamous relationships. They want the right to marry each other. Why not support their desire to pledge their love and commitment to one another in a legal marriage?

  340. Elaine,

    Well, if you don’t have something to fear, well then you might start noticing that people who aren’t different from you aren’t perfect either, which might lead to the conclusion that YOU aren’t perfect, and well, nobody wants that.

  341. Otteray Scribe
    1, March 29, 2013 at 10:46 am
    I saw a comment a couple of days ago in which someone asked a homophobe, “When you were going through puberty, how did you resist all those raging hormones and turn straight instead of gay?”

    Because of my personal experiences with anti-gay people (mostly family) my reasoned question has always been: “If, as you say, that Homosexuality is a choice, when did you choose to not be gay?”

    Most anti-gay people will answer: “I’ve never had to make that choice because I was born straight. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.”

    My follow up question blows their mind: “So it’s lifestyle choice? If so, when did you face this choice to not be gay? And if it’s a choice, how come you can claim that you were born straight if sexuality is a choice?”

    My contention has always been that I was born gay…

  342. Elaine,

    ???? I didn’t say you were looking for trouble. Sorry if you took it that I was making such a personal remark to you, something I’m not inclined to do.

    I’m not afraid that this issue will affect me personally in my own marriage but if that was the standard for what you can have an opinion about, theres not much to talk about. Most supporters of gay marriage are not personally affected by the issue – they have to bring up a friend or relative – but I wouldn’t say to them, “Whats it to you?”

    I give blood every 2 months and have done so for years and will do so as long as they let me. I know how important blood is and there are so many who need it. It is a tiny, tiny sacrifice to give blood. But I would never say to someone “Why don’t you give blood every other month?” They have their reasons for not giving and I accord them the goodwill that their reasons are rational.

  343. Karen,
    I’ll ask one more time: If gay marriage were legalized tomorrow, how will your marriage suffer? How will your daughter’s marriage be threatened?

    Oh, never mind. You haven’t answered the others here asking the same question and only responded to me when I suggested that you may be lashing out due to personal reasons…

  344. max-1:

    and you are probably right.

    In some cases sexuality is a choice but in most I dont think it is.

    people should just live and let live.

  345. Karen,

    If you feel that the legalization of same-sex marriage would not affect you personally, why do you think it will affect other heterosexuals who are bonded to each other in traditional marriages? As I showed in previous comments, the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts has not “undermined” traditional marriage here. What say you to that?

  346. Max,
    I could stand on my head and give you the same answer over and over and you would still say I haven’t answered your question. Because I do not agree with you, you will never be satisfied with my answer. Its like talking politics.

  347. You apparently know that leading questions are a perfectly valid method for dealing with hostile witnesses but not that giving non-responsive answers (like you have) is considered being a hostile witness. Interesting. You really over played your hand.

    Are you a Regents Law grad, Karen? Or did you just finish at the bottom of your class? Took some paralegal courses but couldn’t cut it? Watch a little Perry Mason so you think you can argue like a pro? Strike that. Not germane but really funny considering that you don’t realize – or claim you don’t realize – that you are harming your position by not substantiating it and yet you object to being questioned like a hostile witness.

    Can you answer this question:

    Can you give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”? One that does not rely upon logical fallacy, distortion of law, an implicitly religious definition of marriage or an outright lie?

    It’s not leading in the slightest. It is relevant to your assertion that homosexual marriage undermines “traditional marriage”. It is, in fact, key as it goes to a specific harm alleged. Keep in mind your good will or lack thereof is irrelevant to you being able to make a substantive argument in support of your position.

    Either you can answer, you can’t answer or you won’t answer. The first will either make or break your case, the second will only harm your case and the last makes you evasive and dishonest in your argument at best.

    Come on.

    You can do it, Bobby Boucher!

    There’s a frog muffin in it for you.

  348. Karen,

    “Most supporters of gay marriage are not personally affected by the issue – they have to bring up a friend or relative – but I wouldn’t say to them, “Whats it to you?” ”

    *****

    Many supporters of same-sex marriage are gays and lesbians who are affected by the marriage laws in different states. Many opponents of same-sex marriage are not personally affected by the issue. “What’s it to them” if gays and lesbians get married? Why fight to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry legally because said opponents don’t think they should be allowed to?

  349. Karen,
    Stand on your head for me please…

    If gay marriage were legalized tomorrow, how will waking up in the morning be different for you and your husband?

  350. Elaine,
    Something thats gone on for like 10 years or so (?), gay marriage in MA vs traditional marriage (which one commenter contends is a 19th century invention but whatever its still over 200 years) — the first is not even one generation.

    I keep going over the same ground. FedUp finally agreed with me that gay marriage will undermine traditional marriage but he/she thought that was a good thing. I think traditional marriage is valuable and the 1100 federal statutes that confer some benefit on it would seem to concur. 1100 federal statutes is a pretty heavy weight reflecting a lot of thoughtful consideration that traditional marriage is very valuable to society.

  351. No one has agreed with you, Karen.

    Apparently you don’t process sarcasm any better than you process logic or facts.

  352. Max,
    I could probably shrug off most everything and I don’t think internet commenting is making much of an effort, either. I always vote (try to figure out the lesser of 2 evils) but I don’t think there has ever been an election in my lifetime thats affected me personally.

  353. Karen,

    You keeping saying the same thing. You think the legalization of same-sex marriage will undermine traditional marriage. You have no proof that it will. You got nothing–while I provided some statistics that showed that same-sex marriage has not destroyed traditional marriage here in Massachusetts. You don’t like the information I provided? Too bad. Why don’t you do some research and find PROOF that the legalization of same-sex marriage will have the negative impact on traditional marriage that you say it will? Then get back to me.

  354. My take on “traditional marriage”…
    A legal union between two consenting adults to form a lasting relationship.

    Am I off the mark?
    This application can be used to define gay OR straight marriages. NO?

    We already know that marriage has been redefined throughout the ages from early Biblical up through race relations here in America’s late 20th Century. And the basic definition I wrote above covers most types of marriages in the modern world, excluding arranged marriages of adolescents by their parents and polygamy (most notably a religious institutionalized theory outlawed in America).

  355. If you’re indifferent and think what you are doing is ineffective, why are you still flapping your lips about how homosexual marriage somehow undermines “traditional marriage”?

    Contradiction is a terrible thing, but it looks good on you.

  356. Colbert Takes On DOMA Supreme Court Decision, Chief Justice Roberts’ Gay Cousin (VIDEO)

    Posted: 03/29/2013 9:56 am EDT

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/colbert-takes-on-doma-supreme-court-chief-justice-roberts-gay-cousin_n_2978685.html

    “Even though the oral arguments for and against the Defense of Marriage Act have ended, Stephen Colbert is on pins and needles waiting for a decision. On last night’s “Colbert Report,” he tackled how the individual justices have responded to the case.

    He addressed Justice Ginsburg’s reference to traditional marriage with full benefits, as opposed to “skim milk marriage.”

    “I have always suspected that skim milk was gay. I mean, it’s got homogenized right there on the carton. And Sean Penn won an Oscar for it!”

    He also looked at the specific benefits denied gay couples, fixating on a law that allows straight couples to turn over their guano islands to their partner. (Guano islands are islands primarily composed of bat and seagull droppings.)

    “It was in my vows!” Stephen said. “Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife, and leave her a turd-splattered rock in the middle of the sea? And I said, I do-do.”

    He also envisioned an awkward Thanksgiving between the conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and his lesbian cousin, who is attending the hearings.

    “‘John, may I have some mashed potatoes and sweet potatoes?'” Stephen imagined their conversation. “‘Or are those two things too similar to share a plate and offend your traditional Thanksgiving values, even though they taste great together and are perfect for one another? If anyone needs me I’ll be in the car.”

    Realistically, though, the conservative wing of the court and the liberal wing nearly always side together, leaving one swing vote: Anthony Kennedy.

    “The entire future of marriage rests with Justice Anthony Kennedy, the man who declared in Citizens United that corporations are people with constitutional rights,” Stephen said. “I just hope he doesn’t do anything rash, like declare that homosexuals are people with constitutional rights.””

  357. karen:

    stable unions which create stable children are good for society. I am not sure you need marriage per se, just 2 people committed to each other. For god’s sake, heterosexual couples have made a mess of marriage and have screwed up children for years. Gays have never been married and have only recently been able to adopt children so I am not sure how they have screwed up society?

    I do know some gay men who married women and really made a mess of their wives and children but maybe if they had had another option it would not have come to that.

    I am very conservative and I really havent heard a good argument against gay marriage. The only argument against it is biblical as far as I know and the bible also says to use prostitutes.

    Hell, 2 dads are better than no dad especially if they are like Robin Williams and Nathan Lane.

  358. Karen wrote:

    “Most supporters of gay marriage are not personally affected by the issue – they have to bring up a friend or relative – but I wouldn’t say to them, “Whats it to you?” ”

    *****

    Good for the people who aren’t personally affected by the issue of same-sex marriage but who stand up for the rights of others. Were the abolitionists slaves themselves? Were there men who supported women’s suffrage? Are there individuals who have never been tortured who believe it’s a crime against humanity to torture people and who speak out against it?

    What’s your point?

  359. National Organization for Marriage Has a Rough Start to 2013
    Posted by Evelyn Schlatter
    March 26, 2013
    http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2013/03/26/national-organization-for-marriage-has-a-rough-start-to-2013/

    Excerpt:
    Thousands of conservative culture warriors are gathering in Washington this morning for the “March for Marriage,” timed to coincide with today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments over the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 voter referendum that banned same-sex marriage.

    The march and rally on the National Mall is sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the most visible and well-funded group working to deny marriage to same-sex couples. It’ll probably be a feel-good moment for the anti-LGBT activists, but given the rapidly changing political landscape and a powerful tide of public opinion turning against them, it wouldn’t be surprising if the NOM organizers felt they were marching straight into oblivion.

    In fact, in recent months, the news has been only bad for NOM.

    Since November, when virtually every anti-equality measure against LGBT people failed at the ballot box, the group has suffered through a series of missteps as it grapples with a U.S. population growing more favorable toward LGBT people and the idea of same-sex marriage. NOM’s tactics appear to have become more strident, veering into the kind of demonizing rhetoric that the group has typically tried to avoid in the past. It doesn’t seem that this approach, perhaps born of desperation, is working out too well.

    In January, NOM-Rhode Island posted two videos that contained numerous anti-LGBT claims, including that gays are “lethal” and are not going to heaven. In the videos, a lawyer from the notoriously anti-LGBT Liberty Counsel says there’s a radical gay agenda out to destroy America, while Matt Barber, also of the Liberty Counsel, calls homosexuality “unnatural.” One of the videos includes clips of Brian Camenker of MassResistance making false claims about what Massachusetts schools are teaching. Kara Young, the creator of the videos, calls homosexuality a “disorder,” while her husband, Chris Young, claims that the push for LGBT rights is actually an attempt to force “atheistic Communism” onto the nation. The video includes quotes from Joseph Stalin. After bloggers noticed the nature of the videos and started circulating them, the videos were removed from the NOM-RI website that same day. But one blogger captured them and you can see them at the link above.

  360. Karen,

    Can you give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”? One that does not rely upon logical fallacy, distortion of law, an implicitly religious definition of marriage or an outright lie?

    Ignoring it won’t make the question go away.

  361. 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda
    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners

    Excerpt:
    National Organization for Marriage
    Princeton, N.J.

    The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which is dedicated to fighting same-sex marriage in state legislatures, was organized in 2007 by conservative syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher and Princeton University politics professor Robert George. George is an influential Christian thinker who co-authored the 2009 “Manhattan Declaration,” a manifesto developed after a New York meeting of conservative church leaders that “promises resistance to the point of civil disobedience against any legislation that might implicate their churches or charities in abortion, embryo-destructive research or same sex marriage.”

    NOM’s first public campaign was in 2008, supporting California’s Proposition 8, which sought to invalidate same-sex marriage in that state. It was widely mocked, including in a parody by satirist Stephen Colbert, for the “Gathering Storm” video ad it produced at the time. Set to somber music and a dark and stormy background, the ad had actors expressing fears that gay activism would “take away” their rights, change their lifestyle, and force homosexuality on their kids.

    The group, whose president is now former executive director Brian Brown, has become considerably more sophisticated since then, emphasizing its respect for homosexuals. “Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,” NOM says on its website, “[but] they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

    For a time, NOM’s name was used by a bus driver named Louis Marinelli, who drove a van for NOM’s “Summer for Marriage Tour” this year. Marinelli called himself a “NOM strategist” and sent out electronic messages under the NOM logo that repeated falsehoods about homosexuals being pedophiles and gay men having extremely short lifespans. In homemade videos posted on his own YouTube page, he said same-sex marriage would lead to “prostitution, pedophilia and polygamy.” But this July, NOM said it was not associated with Marinelli.

  362. Gene H.

    When a child asks a Homosexual about pro-creation, he can’t say I do it with my partner. That in of itself goes against traditional marriage. Providing the same rights as heterosexual couples reduces the sacredness of marriage as if it has no real value. Why? Because then polygamy can exist or even marrying your dog. You can’t say that government should legislate that because that is wrong without using the same reasoning why two men marrying is wrong.
    Finally, No one has addressed this: Why would those of you who agree with Gay marriage believe that Polygamy is wrong?

  363. Timmy,

    One can answer a child’s questions about procreation without talking about his/her personal sexual experiences. All one has to do is provide a child with factual information–not anecdotal tales.

  364. Bron

    Don’t blame heterosexuals for messing up marriage. Blame “free will!” Also, the Bible doesn’t condone prostitution. Those who had concubines were criticized by Christ himself when he stated that marriage was always intended to be between one man and one woman. The Bible is very clear on homosexuality and those of us who profess to be Christians take offence to redefining marriage. We also are tired of being disrespected and put down which is why you will see another revolution in the 2014 elections.

  365. So a mother that hooks to support her meth addiction and a father whose alcoholism has cost him his leg are more qualified to be married than two gay wo/men?

    I don’t get it…

  366. Timmy,
    Because we’re discussing what to do in a secular Nation that has limitations on endorsing religiously based laws, can you please leave out your Faith based dogmas? Where’s my freedom to not be controlled and limited by your faith?

  367. Timmy,

    I thought you might find this article interesting:

    HIV/AIDS in Sub-Sahara Africa
    http://www.guide4living.com/hiv-aids/sub-sahara-africa.htm

    Excerpt:
    Sub-Saharan Africa is the region of the world worst hit by HIV and AIDS. More than 25 million people are infected with the virus and the number is growing each year.

    In 2004 the epidemic killed around 2.5 million people and more than 12 million children, many of them infected as well, were orphaned by AIDS.

    The situation is truly devastating and in the majority of the region shows no signs of abating.

    It’s only recently that the true scale of the AIDS horror in Africa is emerging as many people who have been infected with HIV for many years are now becoming seriously ill.

    The epidemic is expected to peak by 2010 which means that the social and economic impact will continue to be felt for many years afterwards.

    Southern Africa in particular remains the worst affected region with a quarter of the population infected with the virus – in 1990 it was just five per cent. In Botswana and Swaziland, nearly 40% of the population is HIV positive.

    The sharp rise is due to a number of factors – poverty, migratory workers, high levels of rape linked to the very low status of women, rising sexually transmitted disease and civil war. Along with ineffective leadership and the unwillingness of governments to accept the problem when the virus was at its most rampant, all these factors taken together mean that HIV in Southern Africa is way out of control.

    Heterosexual transmission is by far the most common way of getting infected with the virus in this region. African women are being infected at a much younger age and in some countries outnumber infected men by two to one.

  368. HIV/AIDS in Asia
    http://www.guide4living.com/hiv-aids/asia.htm

    Excerpt:
    Asia is home to the fastest growing HIV/AIDS epidemic in the world. If current trends continue within the next five years, Asia is set to take over from Africa as the continent with the most infections.

    India alone, where the infection is spiralling out of control, is projected to overtake South Africa as the country with the largest HIV infected population worldwide.

    There are more than eight million people living with HIV in Asia. In 2004 there were1.2million new cases and a further 540,000 people died of AIDS. The main causes are heterosexual sex, gay sex and injecting drug use (IDU).

    The figures are largely due a very sharp increase in cases in China, Indonesia and Vietnam which alone make up 50% of the continent’s population. The lack of anti HIV drugs doesn’t help matters.

    China and India in particular are suffering from very serious local epidemics. In China nearly one million people were infected in 2004 and experts predict this could rise to 10 million by 2010 unless urgent action is taken.

    In India 5.1 million people are infected. The majority of infections result from heterosexual sex but injecting drug use dominates in the north east of the country bordering the famous drugs Golden Triangle. Here 75% of injecting drug users are HIV positive.

  369. HIV/AIDS in North Africa and the Middle East
    http://www.guide4living.com/hiv-aids/africa-middle-east.htm

    Excerpt:
    For many years it was thought that the Middle East and North Africa had managed to avoid the HIV/AIDS epidemic that had gripped so many of their neighboring countries. Religion and its strict rules in governing sexual relationships played an important part in this.

    However the latest figures show that the pandemic sweeping the world has managed to draw this region into its clutches.

    It’s estimated that there are currently 540,000 people living with HIV/AIDS in the Middle East and North Africa. In 2004, 92,000 new cases were diagnosed (20,000 up on the previous year). AIDS claimed the lives of a further 28,000 in 2004.

    The figures could be much higher – the United Nations believes there may be as many as 1.4 million affected. Unfortunately the region doesn’t have adequate monitoring particularly among high risks groups such as prostitutes, homosexuals and injecting drug users (IDU), so the true extent of the problem remains unknown.

    Not surprisingly the worst country affected is Sudan, particularly in the south where a massive heterosexual epidemic has a strong grip. More than 7% of people there are believed to be HIV positive. Poverty and civil war are to blame. Villages have been razed to the ground in the bitter conflict and women and young girls are systematically gang raped by so called soldiers. The spread of infection through mass rape is reflected in the figures which show that more women are infected than men. Infection among pregnant women is eight times higher in the south of Sudan (where the civil war is raging) than in the north.

  370. Max

    BTW my faith doesn’t limit you. The reality of coming face to face with a Holy God is all that is necessary for those who live immoral lifestyles. Yes, Gay marriage is immoral. They can’t pro-create together. Together they are not naturally made for sex and the whole idea of that lifestyle has been condemned for thousands of years.

  371. Timmy,

    “Where’s my freedom to not have secularism reduce our country to a level of no moral character?”

    Got any proof that secularism would reduce our country to a level of no moral character?

  372. Timmy,
    Let me ask you, how are you reaching out to the HIV community?
    Or are you more invested in shaming the HIV community?

    Shame has a lot to do with how diseases become prevalent within communities. Example: Tribal states in Africa. HIV is still stigmatized through the religiously based fears around HIV, drugs and sex. Without support and education, shame and guilt drive people underground to seek their vices. The wife who shoots up, or the husband on the DL or the belief a child raped will cure the rapist’s HIV curse… Only through education and support can people come forth and seek the needed help to change behavior patterns that the shame and guilt enforces.

    The shame of the likes of Anita Bryant and the evangelical community as a whole, bent on cursing and damning the gay community, played a large part in why Ronald Reagan took so long to even say aids and why ACTUP was such a force to counter them. Neither she or the evangelicals were interested in helping, just shaming in contradiction to what their Christ commanded of them. A pie in the face, indeed.

  373. Timmy
    1, March 29, 2013 at 4:45 pm
    Max
    BTW my faith doesn’t limit you.

    Then why are you bringing faith up on a legal blog as a reason to be opposed to gay marriage?

    I smell ulterior motives supported by religiously based dogmas.

  374. Timmeh,

    Your assumption is once again that the valid state interest in marriage is procreation. It isn’t. That’s a religiously based interest and this is a secular country by the terms of the 1st Amendment. Unless, of course, you think infertile couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry either.

    Polygamy and bestiality are false equivalences and, yes, I can say why those are illegal and homosexual marriage isn’t.

    There are some valid reason polygamy should be illegal from the contractual aspect standpoint based on conflict of interest. It’s a bad idea for lots of reasons. It is illegal primarily because of the SCOTUS decision in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 (1878) which held that a religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment. The counter argument – which you advance – that prohibiting polygamy violates Free Exercise was rejected by the Court. The Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits Free Exercise. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy (which is requisite to practice polygamy) did not meet that standard. U.S. law is based on English Common Law and since the times of King James I, bigamy has been against the law. This precedent is far older than the Mormon religion. When considering the history of religious freedom in the U.S., the Court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson where he wrote that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. A religious belief “lies solely between man and his God” so consequently “the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions.” The Court, based upon this jurisprudence and the intent of the Founders as expressed by Jefferson came to the following conclusion:

    “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

    So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. ” Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145, 166 (1878).

    Got that? Religious beliefs cannot be legislated. Religious practices? Can be legislated. By asserting the religious definition of marriage argument, you are asserting the flip side of that coin – you seek to ban marriage between same sex couples because it conflicts with your religion and you seek to do so using the power of the state to enforce it and that is a violation of their Right of Free Exercise and their Right of Free Association.

    And despite your fascination with bestiality, I’ve already explained why that is illegal: animals cannot grant valid consent. They cannot contract ergo they cannot marry.

    Run along.

  375. Timmy
    “Bron

    Don’t blame heterosexuals for messing up marriage. Blame “free will!””

    How, exactly, did humans get “free will”?
    Didn’t this deity that you grovel before, fawn over, and whose butt you kiss, bestow “free will,” on some poor, dumb hominids, who never requested it, in the first place?
    If not, who did?
    So, you’re blaming this invisible sky-daddy for messing up marriage?
    Are you second-guessing the judgement of your invisible patron?
    Perhaps you’d like to assume the job, and get it done right?

    I fear that it shall frown upon thy uppitiness, and smite thee.
    But I’d sure as hell love to watch the video.

    I’m sure that your invisible friend spends its time reading this blog. It’s obvious that it does precious little else.

  376. Oh, and while we’re at it, Timmeh, this is not a “Christian Nation” by the clear terms of the 1st Amendment.

  377. Max-1

    First, you fail to realize that people are free to make choices and sadly some make poor ones like shooting up with heroin. I absolutely love people but that doesn’t mean I have to condone their behavior. I have no reason to reach out to the HIV community unless I know them or they are part of my community in which I invest and give money.
    Also, the only way one truly changes is when they come face to face with their sin and recognize a need for a savior. I can do nothing of myself but with Christ all things are possible. This is why there will never be a cure for immoral behavior outside the realm of God himself. That is not bringing Religion into it but rather telling it like it is.

  378. OK, now I’ve given attention to two desperately lonely trolls. I’ve done my part.

    If daily affirmation is needed, try Stuart Smalley’s blog.

    I don’t provide daily custodial care.

  379. “Where’s my freedom to not have secularism reduce our country to a level of no moral character?”

    Quite simply, you don’t have one. This is a secular country and it was from the start. There is much evidence, presented elsewhere on this blog in the form of the writings of Madison and Jefferson, that the Separation of Church and State which creates our secular government was done intentionally and with much forethought because the Founders had seen first hand the mess theocracy and state sponsored religion had created in the Europe of their day.

    Hey, since Karen can’t/won’t answer the question, maybe you can, Timmeh?

    Can you give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”? One that does not rely upon logical fallacy, distortion of law, an implicitly religious definition of marriage or an outright lie?

  380. Gene H.

    It was founded by people who feared God. The 1st amendment has Religion in it for a reason. You can fool yourself all day long and it doesn’t change anything.

  381. Gene H.

    When a child asks a Homosexual about pro-creation, he can’t say I do it with my partner. That in of itself goes against traditional marriage. Providing the same rights as heterosexual couples reduces the sacredness of marriage as if it has no real value. Why? Because then polygamy can exist or even marrying your dog. You can’t say that government should legislate that because that is wrong without using the same reasoning why two men marrying is wrong.
    Finally, No one has addressed this: Why would those of you who agree with Gay marriage believe that Polygamy is wrong?

  382. Gene H.

    There is no such thing as Separation of Church and state. Where are these words written exactly as stated in the constitution? It only says Congress shall make no law…….. I don’t care about what interpretation people come up with. The words Congress shall make no law speak for themself.

  383. Gene H.

    Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

    [T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. [8]

  384. The only person fooling themselves is the one who does not think the Separation of Church and State is real and purposeful and that this isn’t a secular government by the terms of the Constitution, Timmeh. “It was founded by people who feared God.” Psychic are you, Timmeh? Where’s your proof and better yet where’s your proof that would be relevant if true? There is a lot of evidence concerning the validity and existence of the Separation of Church and State and that it was intended by the Founders to make this a secular government. Fearing “God” or whatever doesn’t have crap to do with what the Founders actually did.

    Religion is mentioned in the 1st Amendment in the form of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” – this means government cannot endorse or favor one religious tradition over another – “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” – meaning you’re free to believe what you want, but hey, so is the guy down the road who thinks storms are his god Poseidon being angry.

    And none of this is relevant to the topic here which is equal rights for homosexuals under the law regarding the benefits and obligations married couples receive under the law.

    Can you answer the question, Timmeh?

    Can you give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”? One that does not rely upon logical fallacy, distortion of law, an implicitly religious definition of marriage or an outright lie?

  385. Gene H.

    Two men getting it on is not “pure” like a man and a woman. Traditional marriage is a man and woman and anything other than that undermines it. Secondly, If we give the same rights to gays then we must do the same to polygamists because they are people too!

  386. Timmeh,

    If you want to see all the arguments about whether or not the Separation of Church and State is real, I suggest you read this thread:

    http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/12/brava-jessica-ahlquist-rhode-island-high-school-student-wins-separation-lawsuit/#comments

    as well as reading Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists . . .

    “To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

    Gentlemen

    The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

    I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

    Th Jefferson
    Jan. 1. 1802.”

    So as far as history, law and jurisprudence goes you’re talking bullshit, Timmeh, but I won’t let it distract from the point at hand:

    Can you give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”? One that does not rely upon logical fallacy, distortion of law, an implicitly religious definition of marriage or an outright lie?

    I know you trolls like to play the distraction game, but do try to stay focused.

    Can you answer the question that Karen can’t/won’t?

    Or can’t you?

  387. Gene H.

    John Adams said:

    The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1

    The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation.2

    Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.3

    The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.4

    Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!5

  388. “Two men getting it on is not “pure” like a man and a woman. Traditional marriage is a man and woman and anything other than that undermines it. Secondly, If we give the same rights to gays then we must do the same to polygamists because they are people too!”

    Again, your answer relies upon a religious definition of marriage, Timmeh.

    Try again.

    Can you give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”? One that does not rely upon logical fallacy, distortion of law, an implicitly (in your case, explicitly) religious definition of marriage or an outright lie?

  389. John Adams didn’t write the Constitution. James Madison did.

    Speaking of which:

    “Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov’ & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov’ of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together”. – James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822.

    You can continue down this road, but any belief our country was founded as a Christian nation is simply delusional. Let’s stick to the homosexual marriage issue, shall we?

    Now, again . . .

    Can you give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”? One that does not rely upon logical fallacy, distortion of law, an implicitly religious definition of marriage or an outright lie?

    I know you trolls like to play the distraction game, but do try to stay focused.

    Can you answer the question that Karen can’t/won’t?

    Or can’t you?

  390. Gene H

    Jefferson did not write the Constitution. He wasn’t even there. He was the third president and his letter as President is irrelevant even if it does show his agreement with the Danbury Baptists which gets often misinterpreted. What matters is what the Constitution actually says.

    I do not believe that our Founders considered Gays in their thinking nor did those who drafted the 14th amendment.

  391. Gene H.

    I did not give a religious definition. Marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman until the “queer” movement who has sought to change it.

  392. Timmy,
    As I said, even Jesus knew the importance of the separation of Church and State. Why is following Him so difficult for you? Judge or Judge NOT? Render unto Caesar what is God’s?

  393. Beat you to the punch, Timmeh.

    I don’t care what you believe, Timmeh, only what you can prove.

    I’ve been down the whole “the Separation of Church and State doesn’t exist” argument before. You’ll lose it like everyone else who tries it. Why? Because it’s bullshit based on wishful thinking by fundamentalists and other would be theocrats.

    Now, again . . .

    Can you give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”? One that does not rely upon logical fallacy, distortion of law, an implicitly religious definition of marriage or an outright lie?

    Can you answer the question that Karen can’t/won’t?

    Or can’t you?

  394. Gene H.

    Explain why Polygamists should not have the same rights as Gays? Under your thinking are they not being also denied basic human rights?

  395. Gene H.

    I answered your question? If I didn’t, then when did the definition of traditional marriage change and by whom?

  396. “I did not give a religious definition. Marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman until the “queer” movement who has sought to change it.”

    Yeah you did. Many other religious traditions, many much older than Christianity, recognized same sex marriages. Funny thing too, homosexuals have been around a lot longer than Christianity too.

    Why do you hate the 1st Amendment, Timmeh? Why do seek to deny others freedom to enjoy the benefits of secular civil law that you do?

    Can you give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”? One that does not rely upon logical fallacy, distortion of law, an implicitly religious definition of marriage or an outright lie?

    Can you answer the question that Karen can’t/won’t?

    Or can’t you?

  397. MAX-1

    I agree with you. My whole point is what the 1st amendment actually says not what people want tit to say. I also believe that a nation can come under judgement if it doesn’t obey God. Simply look at nations in debt crisis and it isn’t hard to recognize. Also, America looks a whole lot like the Roman Empire which doesn’t exist anymore.

  398. Timmy,
    How many wives did King Solomon have? A man and how many women?
    Traditional like that?

    Remember when Abraham took his slave and impregnated her?
    Traditional like that?

    Brigham Young and his wives?
    Traditional like that?

    p.s.
    Would that “queer” movement be the LGBTQ community you libel against?

  399. As an aside, you went Biblical the instant you brought procreation into the definition. Ironically see 1 Timothy 2:15. Don’t know your own book very well, do you, Timmeh?

  400. Gene H

    What happened to those nations that condoned Homosexuality like Sodom and Gomorrah? Marriage has always been between a man and a woman otherwise these Gays would not be wanting to change it.

  401. MAX-1

    Jesus Condemned the practice of polygamy
    Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

  402. Timmeh,

    Thanks for admitting you’re using a religious definition of marriage.

    As for childbearing?

    Answer my earlier question:

    Do you think infertile heterosexual couples should be banned from marriage? If you put procreate as primate in the definition of marriage, then logically, you must.

    As for those other nations? Many of them went on to have histories much longer than our piddling 237 years.

    Again . . .

    Can you give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”? One that does not rely upon logical fallacy, distortion of law, an implicitly religious definition of marriage or an outright lie?

    Can you answer the question that Karen can’t/won’t?

    Or can’t you?

  403. Gene H

    Infertile Heterosexual couples are still naturally made to have sex. They are male and female which qualifies them. It undermines traditional marriage by elevating them to an equal status. It is not natural and therefore unacceptable. The larger question deals with whom has the right to deny them. If it is the state, then California spoke on Prop 8. If it is the Federal government then the Supreme Court must answer it. I believe it falls under the 10th amendment. For example, Marriage age is mostly 18 but different for Mississippi and Nebraska.

  404. Gene, et al,
    There may be deeper, more troublesome origins for the belief systems people such as timmy and Karen are expressing.

    Did you know there were studies reported in Scientific American last year about the underpinnings of homophobic behavior? We are not talking about people who are uncomfortable due to culture, but those who seem to be obsessed with it and just won’t shut up. Turns out there is a high percentage of same sex attraction among these folks, but they are not accepting of their own libidinal attraction to their own gender.

    From the report:

    Those participants who reported their heterosexuality despite having hidden same-sex desires were also the most likely to show hostility toward gay individuals, including self-reported anti-gay attitudes, endorsement of anti-gay policies and discrimination such as supporting harsher punishments for homosexuals.

    Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals

  405. timmy sez: “Infertile Heterosexual couples are still naturally made to have sex.”

    *************************************
    So? Are you saying gay people don’t have sexual intimacy? You seem to be awfully concerned abut how they “do it” for someone professing to be straight. What or how sexual intimacy is achieved is absolutely none of anyone’s business except the couple. Some couples don’t have sex at all for a variety of reasons, ranging from medical problems to lack of interest. Should marriage be denied to them as well?

  406. Timmy
    1, March 29, 2013 at 5:50 pm
    I also believe that a nation can come under judgement if it doesn’t obey God.

    Who’s God and why must America be subject to their God and religious laws? I thought I’m free, in America, to believe in what ever Faith I want as long as it doesn’t cause harm to others, NO? And when theocrats subjugate others to their dogmas, traditionally it causes harm to others, i.e. the evangelical movement and HIV example I mentioned above. More people died due to the evangelical movement to shame and shun those in need of help. They failed that Good Samaritan test and that is why I asked you, HOW are you reaching out to those with HIV? Your answer was to turn a blind eye and walk on down that path… “nope, not mine.”

  407. Timmy,

    “Traditional marriage is a man and woman and anything other than that undermines it.”

    Explain how “anything other than that” undermines traditional marriage.

  408. Timmeh,

    You stated beliefs, not explicit, concrete ways giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”. How does a homosexual couple being able to visit their mate in the hospital and make medical decisions for them should the be incapacitated weaken your heterosexual marriage? Not in the slightest. How does having the same tax schedule and laws for homosexual couples weaken your heterosexual marriage? How does having the same intestate succession rights for a homosexual couple weaken your heterosexual marriage? Not in the slightest.

    And you are still relying upon a religious definition to define “unnatural”. Homosexual behavior is a perfectly normal and natural sexual orientation for a small but significant part of the human population. It’s actually that way for a great number of species. That’s the science of it. To deny that is to deny the facts and to imply that your “God” made a mistake on a huge collective scale. You aren’t a blasphemer, are you Timmeh? You’re the one who brought procreation into question as part of the definition of a valid marriage, but now you want to change it to heterosexual being the salient quality by insisting that it’s okay for infertile hetero couples to marry but not procreate. Because they have a parts list you and your “God” approve of.

    That’s called hypocrisy, Timmeh.

    And what OS said.

  409. Max-1

    No I don’t turn a blind eye. However, you reap what you sow. Take Obamacare for example. We said it was too expensive and costs would rise. Now Obama’s own administration is admitting it. Throughout History, Immoral behavior has always resulted in judgement. It may not be immediate like smokers developing cancer. If a smoker gets cancer I do not believe in any form of government funding to help him/her. You reap what you sow. This business of aiding ones immoral behavior will never work. This is why I am against Gay marriage. What is next? Marrying your pet. Oh yeah it can happen because there is always a slippery slope.

  410. Timmy
    1, March 29, 2013 at 5:46 pm
    What happened to those nations that condoned Homosexuality like Sodom and Gomorrah?
    Nice… why do you abjectly forget that the people of S&G refused to let the Angels sent by God, into their homes? You also abjectly forget that the people also offered their daughters to the Angels for their pleasures… Instead, placing the blame on homosexuality. Short of calling you a rube, I would suggest you not follow what misguided and perverted teachings you have been following. Teachings that fail you at pulling that mote out of your eye FIRST. Teaching that fail you on helping the least of your brother. Teachings that fail you in your judgement of others.

  411. Can ANYONE give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”? One that does not rely upon logical fallacy, distortion of law, an implicitly religious definition of marriage or an outright lie?

  412. Cop out answer, Timmeh.

    Equal rights and equal protection are Federal matters by the very nature of the 14th Amendment.

    Try again.

  413. Max-1

    They were sent by God to get Lot and his family out then destroy the place. The people there were so wicked and perverted they wanted intercourse with them. Lot knew that and would rather give up his own. Why don’t you actually study what obviously don’t know.

  414. Gene,

    “Can ANYONE give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”?”

    Don’t you think the opponents of same-sex marriage would have if they could have? Yes, it’s a rhetorical question!

  415. Gene,

    “Can ANYONE give one, explicit, concrete way of NOT giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”?

  416. Why, yes. Yes it is, Elaine. :mrgreen:

    ************

    It’s not a gay issue, Timmeh. It’s an equal rights and equal protection issue. If the drafters of the 14th had meant to exclude homosexuals? They could have. But they didn’t. It applies to everyone. The 14th says in relevant part:

    “14th Amendment
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [Emphasis added for the hard of understanding.]

    Not . . .

    “14th Amendment
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside except for those filthy homo heathens!.

    The 14th Amendment even applies to you, Timmeh, but you better not touch it! You don’t want to get any of “teh Gay” on you. Then again, touching something through a closet door is hard.

    Try again.

  417. Timmy
    1, March 29, 2013 at 5:50 pm
    Jesus Condemned the practice of polygamy
    He condemned divorce…

    MATT 19:8-9
    Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

    I would say the Evangelical movement has their house out of order. However, the passage you quote from was MATT 19:4-6

    And in MATT 19:11-12 he addresses the homosexual
    But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.

    Why aren’t you focusing on the divorce rate, instead of condemning those Jesus said, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

    Later on he condemned the faith leaders for closing the Gates of the Kingdom on those they’ve lead astray. Why assist them with locking it shut?

  418. Gene H.

    I have to agree!! Don’t celebrate yet. According to your thinking then Women can’t be President because the word “he” is only used and we all know that the founders never even thought about a woman President.

  419. Timmeh,

    ““Can ANYONE give one, explicit, concrete way of NOT giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”?”

    Why would you care that not giving homosexuals equal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”? That’s the state of thing currently – homosexuals DO NOT have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. That’s what you’re fighin’ for, genius. You just drove off the road and into the brush.

  420. Gene,

    I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but he refers to people who are gay as “gays.” I’m sure you’ve heard those old school racists talk about “blacks”

    Same things, bigots are going to make the subjects of their prejudice something as other then human at every chance they get, otherwise they might have to feel bad about how they treat them.

    Timmy’s a much better case study then he is a conversational partner.

  421. Without question, Gyges.

    It’s a lot like talking to a half empty vending machine.

    And I’m trying to dumb it down as much as possible, raff. :D

  422. “Persons” is a collective noun, Timmeh. BTW, the 14th applies to the rest of the Constitution via the Incorporation Doctrine. Women can be President and any challenge to that would get laughed out of court.

  423. Karen says: Heterosexuals need monogamy so that the husband doesn’t have children with other women.

    How about if the man or woman are sterile, either naturally or by choice? Should they be prohibited from getting married? What if they don’t know that when they get married? Should they be required to undergo testing as a requirement for getting married? What if they use birth control? Should they be prohibited from that?

    If a man has had a vasectomy, he can commit adultery without generating children. A woman will naturally go through menopause; should she be allowed adultery once she can no longer get pregnant?

    Karen says: Yes, gay people can have childen but they have to go to a heck of a lot of trouble.

    Adoption would not be a lot of trouble if it weren’t for homophobic bigots, and it would be a community service as well; there are many an orphan that was either abandoned or orphaned by some combination of accidents and disease. However, that said, homosexuals are frequently not interested in marriage for the purpose of raising children, and the same can be said of many heterosexuals. Many people (including several of the heterosexual couples I know) are married for the purpose of intimate adult company and spending their lives together as partners, it is the #1 reason for people over 40 getting married, to have somebody they love and trust in their corner with the legal right to act on their behalf should they need the help. That is the reason most homosexuals want to get married, too, and the reason they don’t want it called anything else is so that it cannot be selectively diluted or crippled by homophobic discrimination.

    Karen says: Monogamy evolved into a high value in traditional marriage because getting another woman pregnant was likely going to happen with ANY extramarital relationship.

    Actually not true. Historically, the evolutionary psychology arguments (which is what you are making) are pretty convincing that monogamy evolved because it increases the chances of a man having offspring. When the baddest warrior dude was hogging all the wives, that left a large majority of men without any women at all. The DNA evidence is a little strange (read Roy Baumeister’s book, “Is There Anything Good About Men?”), it shows that about 2/3 of your ancestors are women, and only 1/3 are men! That is because for a very long time in pre-history (and recorded history) it was nearly “winner take all” when it came to reproduction; men like Genghis Kahn fathered thousands of children, and as a result denied thousands of men those women as mothers of their children. Less than 50% of men reproduced, but over 90% of women reproduced.

    Monogamy was an invention of MEN, not women, that was a minimax social solution to their problem: If you backed monogamy as a limit on wives, it increased your chances of going from zero wives to one wife. When the majority of men get zero wives, getting one, even if it is JUST one, becomes something worth fighting over.

    Karen says: So, a very strong stricture about monogamy evolved out of that very practical concern.

    No it didn’t. A very strong stricture on monogamy was enforced by men, when they could, out of a sense of fairness and MEN wanting children. Women did not care that much, when kings and emperors had harems of hundreds or thousands, or even the richest man had dozens of wives, the women did not have to worry much about their care or the family resources, because only the rich HAD wives, and on top of that, the wives had no political power to insist upon anything different anyway.

    You argue as if women had a choice, and historically, they did not. MEN had choices in politics, because it was men that fought and died. Why? Because men are expendable with regard to the next generation; it only takes one man to impregnate hundreds of women in a year, but it takes hundreds of women to bear hundreds of children in a year. If the king owns all the women, the women don’t have to worry about whether their children will be taken care of.

    It was men that invented and enforced monogamy, not women.

    Karen says: Not being monogamous is bad because it will inevitably lead to poverty for women and children

    INEVITABLY? On the contrary, monogamy itself leads to greater poverty for women and children! Without monogamy, a women has a chance to be in the harem of a rich man that can support her and her children without effort. How many children could Bill Gates support? Or Larry Ellison? Or Warren Buffett? Tens of thousands without even noticing the dent in their wallet.

    Perfectly enforced monogamy restricts their choices to just one women, and a handful of children (for most of them, but a woman can seldom have more than about a dozen).

    Perfectly enforced monogamy means all those women that might have been in the harems of the rich must now find a less-rich husband, and that means the average wealth of a husband decreases dramatically; because the choices for women have been restricted. If women are looking for wealth and family security (as you imply in your argument) then the wealthiest and most secure husbands are going to pick, for their one wife, the best of the lot still available to them, but because of monogamy that bachelor is “used up” and an ever-so-slightly less-desirable woman, that he might have been happy to also marry, must pursue a less rich, less secure bachelor. That has a domino effect to the bottom of the economic ladder, so women that want to be married must marry into poverty.

    That is precisely the motivation for monogamy; so the economically unlucky or unskilled or imperfect men could still marry and have children. To break the monopoly on women of the rich and privileged. Which in turn made it MORE likely that women, and their children, would risk poverty, not LESS likely.

  424. Timmy,
    As I said before, I would prefer to leave your faith teaching out of the discussions. I’ve been goaded along by you long enough about your Christian beliefs. If you can’t relate on a secular level, I’m inclined to turn you off.

  425. Gene sez: “It’s a lot like talking to a half empty vending machine.”

    I disagree, not in principle, but degree. More like one of those vending machines that take your money and won’t give you anything in return, no matter how much you yell at it and kick it.

  426. Otteray Scribe
    1, March 29, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    I tried pointing that out with Karen a bit further up. They’re suffering from an extremely bad case of self projection…

  427. Gyges
    1, March 29, 2013 at 6:48 pm
    I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but he refers to people who are gay as “gays.”
    Earlier he referenced “queers” too. However I don’t think he understands that queer is but a subset of the entire LGBTQ community.

  428. Aahh, Timmy, another christian pervert.

    And thanks Gene H. for covering for me while I was gone. Ironically, I was at the atheist convention in Austin…a refreshing change of debating skills…

    At least Timmy isn’t hiding his religious undertones.

  429. You know all this discussion and I have to go back to the beginning (for me, anyway): What civilized and peaceful society wants the GOVERNMENT intruding into the personal and intimately private lives of consenting adults? Regardless of what effect Timmy and Karen think the recognition of a gay person’s right to marry will be, I just can’t get myself un-distracted from the bigger concern that the Supreme Court, nor any court or legislature, has any authority to intrude upon and curtail the rights of its citizens IN THIS MANNER.

  430. I mean, its so obvious that any “injury” argument is based in religious “theory” and dogma, and the government just should not be allowed to intrude if that’s the ONLY “concern”.

  431. wow! you’re still at it. Has anyone yet defined what “traditional” marriage is? Or which “traditional” marriage is in play here? I’m heading for the grocery store. May check in later. Maybe not.

  432. Bron reflects, “people should just live and let live.”

    Karen in NJ, when I start agreeing with Bron your arguments are now in hospice care.

  433. Timmy fantasizes, “They were sent by God to get Lot and his family out then destroy the place.”

    The bible is not relevant to this discussion.Those who do not care what the bible says are not going to be moved by these types of arguments, nor have they any place in our shared public square.

    Timmy, you cannot keep insulting gay people in 2013 without insulting their friends, family, co-workerts and teammates, pretty much immediately. What is changing is people are no longer afraid of you or your awful bronze-age holy book. That power us waning, and fast.

    And that push-back is growing, because for CENTURIES it has been just fine to persecute gay people up to the point of death (see: Matthew Shepard).

    It’s over, Timmy. If your world is ending, so be it. Those rapture goggles belong to you and no one else.

    Deal.

  434. Meanwhile, the actual harm to straight people’s marriages from gay marriage is…. ?

  435. James: I guess the harm is their hurt feelings, and the fact that we don’t think they are special, and their anger at not being able to control us by threats from their imaginary friend. The harm they feel is, ironically, that we don’t accept them, that we consider them a minority we can safely dismiss.

    Maybe Karmic Justice does exist once in a while.

  436. bk,

    It’s pretty much over except for the tears and rending of garments from the implicitly/explicitly religious crowd. They seem to have run away because the facts got their tongue.

    I hope you got some butternut squash at the store. I’ve recently discovered the versatile and tasty nature of that oft neglected vegetable. It might be love. Who knows? If homosexuals have their equal rights recognized, I might even be able to marry that tender golden squashy goodness. *sniff**sniff* Or perhaps the Lord may smote me for my heathen vegesexual ways. Oh woe is me! Perhaps I should repent. Besides . . . I think she’s cheating on me with the zucchini.

  437. James Knauer (formerly in LA)

    Strait is the gate and narrow is the way but only few will find it. The problem with you and all of your progressives who have no regard for Biblical truth or Godliness is that one day you will be judged and as the Bible clearly states: Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord! Satan has blinded you and your crowd and when your eyes are finally opened to real truth then it will be too late. I pray that it would not be true but I doubt it.

  438. Tony,

    That karmic justice is fickle, but it is sweet when she finally shows up at the party.

    BTW, I presented my position strictly from the natural selection POV earlier. I’d never heard the evolutionary psychology version of it played out. Very nice.

  439. James Knauer (formerly in LA)

    BTW wait until the 2014 elections and see what happens. The NRA along with Tea Party and Christians, I would not be surprised if the Senate is taken back by the Republicans.

  440. Timmeh!

    You’ve returned!

    I’ve got some bad news for you, sunshine. Just because you believe in a God that has all the attributes of a neighborhood kid who likes to pet puppies and then set them on fire doesn’t mean everyone else does. The beauty of that is the 1st Amendment guarantees that no one has to agree with your religion or subject themselves to the yoke of fear and guilt it provides. And you cannot use the force of law to make me. Phhhhhfffbbtttt!

    Personally, I vacillate between atheist and Deist agnostic, but on those days I do think that a supernatural force may be possible, He/She/It is nothing like the monster movie villain you chose to worship.

    God is Love.

    Or He isn’t.

    If you’re willing to torture and kill those you allegedly love because of some arbitrary factor, your love is conditional, not absolute and unconditional.

    Are you one of those “God Hates Fags” nitwits, Timmeh?

    If God is Love, by definition, He cannot hate.

    I love my homosexual brothers and sisters as much as my heterosexual brothers and sisters, Timmeh. And when I don’t? It’s because they are bad people who hurt others, not because of their sexual orientation. Even then, I rarely – almost never – hate them or want to see them harmed by others.

    There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.

    It’s probably hard to tell that from way out in the brush where you’ve driven.

  441. Gene H

    God is Love! He loves the person but hates the sin. I have children. I do not allow smoking or drinking in my home. If one of them chose to drink or smoke they would have to do it outside. My love for them doesn’t change but my word doesn’t change either. Homosexuals will not and can not be allowed into heaven. It is their choice plain and simple.

  442. And lest I forget, you are most welcome, Fedup.

    I really hate straw men, especially when the speaker being misrepresented isn’t present to defend against the fallacy.

  443. Timmeh,

    People are the sum total of their actions. If God hates the sin, he by definition hates the sinner since it is the sinner he allegedly punishes instead of simply removing the sin from the universe. He’s allegedly a god, Timmeh. That means He could simply do away with sin instead of torturing humanity like a deranged kid with an ant farm. BTW, it’s cute that you think you’re a god to your children. Delusional, but cute.

  444. timmeh sez: “It is their choice plain and simple.”

    *************************************
    What choice, sport? What cave have you been hiding in? This was discussed way upstream. It’s a matter of fetal development. Some fetuses have brains that develop like females, and others like males. There are measurable differences. The only problem is, some female brains happen to be in male skulls and male brains in female skulls. Since, in your view, God does not make mistakes, how come some boy babies are born with female brains and little girls are born with male brains?

    For that matter, based on your logic, how come some babies choose (your word, based on your previous post quoted above) to be born with Trisomy 21, also known as Down’s syndrome?

    When did you make the conscious choice to be heterosexual timmy? If you believe homosexuality to be a choice, why do you think people would choose a life that guarantees persecution and second class citizenship at the hands of people like you? Even to the point of torture and murder? See: Shepard, Matthew.

    Please explain, I am eager to hear how and why that “choice” is made.

  445. OS
    “If you believe homosexuality to be a choice, why do you think people would choose a life that guarantees persecution and second class citizenship at the hands of people like you?”

    It is a choice! How could God create that which he considers to be an abomination? That is always an excuse they try and use to justify their sinful actions. The blame someone else excuse doesn’t work.

  446. Gene H.

    God gave us Free will because of his love for us. It is our problem that we choose to do wrong. What would be the point to live if we were forced to live a certain way. As a parent, I don’t want my kids to be forced into loving me but rather because they want to. What is wrong with you? Are you that ignorant?

  447. Gene, acorn squash is goooood. I like mine baked with a bit of brown sugar and butter. I eat a lot of it in the fall. Any veggie but rutabaga.

  448. Otteray Scribe

    1.)Dr. Dean Hamer who failed to find a “gay gene”:

    “Homosexuality is not purely genetic. Environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. I don’t think that we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.”

    2.) Dr. Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

    “Absolutely not. From twin studies we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not negate the psychosocial factors.”

    (“New Evidence of a “Gay Gene,” by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, Vol. 146. Issue 20, p.95)

    3.) British researchers generated comparable results in an identical-twin study. Their conclusion? The suprisingly low odds that both twins were homosexual.

    The study by them: “confirmed that genetic factors are insufficient explanation for the development of sexual orientation.”

    (King, M and McDonald, E. Homosexuals Who Are Twins: A Study of 46 Probands. British Journal of Psychiatry. 160: 407-409 (1992).

    4a.)Homosexual researcher Simon Levay, who studied the hypothalamic differences between the brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals:

    “I didn’t show that gay men are born that way the msot common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”

    4b.)Dr. Simon Levay: The most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role.

    Levay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press.

    5.) Dr. J. Satinover:

    “Research studies on homosexuality by Dr’s Dean Hamer, Michael Bailey, Richard Dillard, Simon Levay. Laura Allen and Roger Gorski have failed to show proof of a gay gene. There is no scientific evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic. The media has sensationalized and perpetuated the myth of a homosexual gene.”

  449. Timmy, your studies are from the mid-1990s, before new brain scanning technology was available, and some of which had not been invented before the Swedish researchers did their studies. Ten years is a lifetime in modern scientific technology. Link takes you to a report from 2008. Reserach continues all over the world, even as I write this. Everything published to date supports the studies by Dr. Ivanka Savic and Dr. Per Lindström.

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111663.php

    It is so much fun when a copy-and-paste person tries to argue science with a scientist.

    Your turn, timmeh.

  450. Otteray Scribe

    The study of twins and homosexuality was touted in a press release as “the largest in the world so far.” The authors said that “more than 7,600 Swedish twins….responded to a 2005-2006 survey of health, behaviour, and sexuality.” I

    In their analysis:

    Only 7 pairs of male identical twins were found where both had any same-sex partner in their lifetime;
    Only 26 pairs of female identical twins were found where both had any same-sex partner in their lifetime;
    Only 64 pairs of identical male twins were found where only 1 of the pair had any same-sex partners;
    And only 188 pairs of identical female twins were found where only 1 of the pair had any same-sex partners. (10)

    Significantly, their data show a very low number of identical twin pairs who had both engaged in same-sex behaviors. The data also show a very low concordance rate (where both twins show the same trait) – less then 10% for the males and slightly over 12% for the females. Again, the study points to what we already know: there is a low concordance rate for homosexuality among identical twins, and the main factors in homosexuality are not genetic.
    In general, twin studies show that when one male identical twin is gay-identified, the other will be gay-identified one time in nine, or only 11% of the time. The percentages are similar for female homosexuality. If homosexual behavior, attractions and identity were completely genetic, the similarity would be closer to 100%. What this tells us is that same-sex attracted twins are not born that way. Thus, within a pair of identical twins – where one twin has same-sex attractions – the other will have opposite-sex attractions eight out of nine times.

  451. Otteray Scribe

    And what about the 2005 male and 2006 female pheromone studies from Sweden that gay activists claimed were more evidence of a biological basis to homosexuality? (Pheromones are chemicals that can be smelled and are known to influence animal behavior. However, their role in humans is unknown.) Here, it is significant that Ivanka Savic, the lead researcher, said that the 2005 study had nothing to do with proving homosexuality to be biological. And regarding the 2006 study, she said “it is very important to make clear that the study has no implications for possible dynamics in sexual orientation.”6

    More recently, Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, summed up the research on homosexuality saying that “sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations” (italics added).7

    As a comparison, Collins indicates that the potential genetic component for homosexuality is much less than the genetic contribution that has been found for common personality traits such as general cognitive ability, extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness, aggression and traditionalism.8

    Clearly, the case for a “gay gene” has not been made.

  452. Timmeh,

    You have a funny way of expressing your free will in that you do what others tell you without question because some imaginary being told them what they wanted them to tell you to do. The Bible was written by men to control other men. The Gospels are all written way after the fact and the Gospels in the Bible are not all of the Gospels. They were hand picked by the Council of Nicea. There was quite a debate about whether or not to even include Revelations because it is so contrary to what Jesus taught, but it was deemed useful by the powers that were because a threat of destruction by a vengeful God was a good tool to scare the crap out of the peasants and make them do what those very Earthly powers wanted. What are you? Ignorant about the history of your own book?

    If you truly had free will, you’d do the ethical calculus yourself (it’s called independent critical thinking) and live by the dictate of your conscience instead of hating on others because some ignorant sheep herder 1700 years ago was a homophobe.

    Carry on.

    BTW, you are about to lose another argument with OS. He has scientific fact on his side. Because he is, you know, not just like an actual scientist but an actual scientist.

  453. Gene H.

    Everything you said is exactly what Satan wants men to believe. Sorry, not happening here.
    The Jewish people would be scattered worldwide; yet Israel would become a nation again-ref Isa 66:8; Mic 5:3. Prophecy fulfilled. This happened exactly as predicted on May 14, 1948.
    Israel shall be brought forth in one day, at once-ref Isa 66:8. Prophecy fulfilled-May 14, 1948.
    Israel must regain the city of Jerusalem-Joel 2:32; Isa 28:14; Ezek 22:19. This happened just as predicted in 1967.
    There would be a nation to the far east of Israel, to the end of the earth. This nation would have an army of 200 million. This is absolutely astounding. It is estimated by some that the population of the entire world at the time of Christ was only about 200,000,000. How then could the Bible have ever told the location of a nation and given such a figure as the size of its army nearly 2000 years ago? China has boasted that they could field an army of this exact figure.
    The currency in Israel at the time of the end would be the shekel. The currency had been the Israeli pound until June 1980, when it was changed to the shekel.
    There would be an economic alliance of the nations of the Old Roman Empire. It would have a military capability. The EEC and the EURO.
    Finally, The Bible also states at the last days men will be lovers of themselves and women lovers of themselves which is what this blog is about.

  454. Gene H.

    The Old Testament, written over a 1,000 year period, contains over 300 references to the coming Messiah. All of these were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and they established a solid confirmation of His credentials as the Messiah; the Anointed One (King; Priest; Saint); Intercessor (to release or deliver; help; meet; seek; accompany).

    Many of the prophecies concerning the messiah were totally beyond human control:

    Birth: Place, time, manner of.

    Death: Peoples reactions, piercing of side, burial

    Resurrection: Where did His body go?

    By using the modern science of probability in reference to just eight of these prophecies — the chance that any man might have lived to fulfill all eight prophecies is one in one hundred trillion!

    To illustrate this: If we take 100 trillion silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas, they would be two feet deep. Now we mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly — all over the state. Now blindfold a man and let him travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick only one silver dollar. What chance would he have of picking the right one? The same chance that the prophets would have of writing just eight of these prophecies and having them all come true for any one man — if they had written them without God’s inspiration!

    The chance of any one man fulfilling all of 48 prophecies is one in 10 to the 157 power. The electron is about as small an object as we can imagine. if we had a cubic inch of these electrons and tried to count them, it would take us (at 250 per minute) 19,000 time 19,000 time 19,000 years to count them. Now mark one of them, and thoroughly stir it into the whole mass. What chance does our blindfolded man have of finding the right electron? — The same chance as one man of fulfilling 48 of the prophecies about Christ, without being the Son of God!

    Jesus Christ fulfilled every prophecy written about the coming Messiah — over three hundred of them! Would that have been possible had He not been the Son of God?

    Here is a short listing of some of the hundreds of prophecies concerning Christ:

    Linage Genesis 3:15; 9:26: 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10; 2 & Samual 7:12-16

    Son of God Psalm 2:6-7

    Virgin birth Isaiah 7:14

    Birthplace Micah 5:2

    Piercing of side Zechariah 12:10

    Darkness Psalm 22:2

    Vinegar Psalm 69:21

    Mocking Psalm 22:6-8

    Nakedness Psalm 22:17

    Gambling for clothes Psalm 22:18

    Unbroken bones Psalm 34:20

    Burial Isaiah 53:9

    Resurrection Psalm 16:10; Hosea 6:2; Psalm 30:3,9; Isaiah 53:10

    Assention to right hand of God Psalm 110:1; 68:18; Proverbs 30:4; 24:3-10

  455. Timmy claims, “BTW wait until the 2014 elections and see what happens. The NRA along with Tea Party and Christians, I would not be surprised if the Senate is taken back by the Republicans.”

    I have stated no political affiliation in this discussion. You are making assumptions based on facts you do not have. Moreover, this is not relevant to the claim that somehow your straight marriage, if you have one or want one, is threatened by such a tiny minority, and reveals a deep insecurity.

    That you come on so strong with the scripture… well… let’s just say I remain unconvinced it’s not satire. See that? That’s me trying to turn the other cheek at your horrendous attacks. You have no clue of the teachings of jesus the way you have acted here. If it’s satire, mozel-tov! Dude! You had us going there!

    Your fixation on gay people is telling No adult male comfortable in their sexuality speaks the way you do. Is there, you know, something you’d like to tell us? TIde’s a turnin, Brother Timothy.

    I will play a Bach fugue in your honor tonight. Closest we get to “prayer” in this wave-front of the Multiverse.

  456. James Knauer (formerly in LA)

    Religious opinion on Gay marriage will no doubt bring out the Christian coalition in 2014, Couple that with the gun issue and the NRA will be out in full force. Add those to the TEA Party and what you get is another Republican wave.

  457. Timmy,
    You seem to be in constant communication with Satan. You know everything he’s thinking. Coincidence? I think not. Has anyone ever seen the two of you in a room, at the same time?

    You’ve told us extensively what your sky-daddy says.
    What does your mommy say?

    The Israeli prophecy specified May 14, 1948? Extraordinary!

    The entire 1967 Arab/Israeli war occurred while I was on a ship in the Atlantic Ocean. Coincidence? No, Timmy, I directed it the whole thing from there.
    Thou shalt have no other gods before me. On your knees, boy!

  458. James Knauer (formerly in LA)

    As far as Jesus is concerned, He said to love all people but he never condoned loving the sin. I having nothing personal against them but do not accept their lifestyle. I have provided scientific evidence to prove Gay people are not born that way but rather it is a choice. I have also stated very clearly that the issue is a states right issue. I have conceded that the 14th amendment applies though it is hard for me to do so. Admittedly, the 14th amendment also applies to polygamy and marrying your pet if you desire because it is your pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, our country is gone astray and now only a miracle can save us.

  459. Timmy irrelevantly states, “Religious opinion on Gay marriage will no doubt bring out the Christian coalition in 2014, Couple that with the gun issue and the NRA will be out in full force. Add those to the TEA Party and what you get is another Republican wave.”

    I do not care.

  460. Timmy,
    Read the dates on the studies. The studies published in 2008 by Savic and Lindström are considered definitive, and have been replicated numerous times. And yes, I know what pheromones are.

    FYI, Strong homophobia is associated with homosexual arousal. Of course, we knew that sixteen years ago, thanks to research by Adams, Wright and Lohr. Fancy that. Look in the mirror, dearie. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

    Here is a summary report of the latest from Science Daily, dated 2012.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120406234458.htm

  461. Bob Kauten

    All of the above prophecies prove the Bible to be true. Even your most uneducated person would have to admit that Israel being able to stand strong in the area of the world where all want them wiped out is truly God’s provision. The 1967 war in of itself was God at work.

  462. Otteray Scribe

    Their research can not and does not decrease the validity of the research I provided. It only shows that we are at a stand still. If just one Gay person has turned and many have, then it proves they are not born that way. Why? Because many gay people who have since turned strait admit it was a choice.

  463. Timmy stubs his toe on, “As far as Jesus is concerned, He said to love all people but he never condoned loving the sin.”

    Only a child would accept this. Adults realize that hate has no discrimination. You cannot give yourself permission to hate and expect it not to creep into every other aspect of your existence. Hate does not care about sin. It does not care about you.Once you drink of hate, even of the sin, you become hateful.

    Which is reflected today in every single one of your vile, hurtful comments.

    I invite you to grow up.

    As for your political analyses, *yawn…..

  464. James Knauer (formerly in LA)

    Wrong! As I said earlier. If my children want to smoke then they will do it outside. I will not love them any less but I will hate what they do. The Bible says God which includes Christ, hates sin but he sent his only son to die because of the love he has for all of us. This is a fact that will widely celebrated this Sunday.

  465. Timmy- you are such a redundant hack. One of the biggest reasons most of the people in America (which I’m sure you consider a Christian nation) affected by HIV/AIDS and DIED because of it were homosexual men was initially: because of risky behavior and because government chose to ignore it as a disease. Government, the Reagan administration specifically, didn’t want to be perceived as catering to gays or ‘liking’ gays (which they did not) by pouring money into education about AIDS prevention and spending money to find the cause, treatments or possible cures. Those good Christians wrote saving gay lives off as unimportant and impolitic policy.

    Good Christian Americans preached from pulpits that HIV/AIDS was gods judgement against homosexuality and that gays SHOULD die. You’re either too young to have lived through those times so don’t remember what was going on or you’re illiterate and haven’t read anything about the history of HIV/AIDS in America. For Christ’s sake read a book. “And the Band Played On” was the first virtually contemporaneous history and an astonishingly good work of journalism. Randy Shilts was the author.

    And you’re back to dogs, marrying dogs. Maybe our one lonely animal fetishist will talk to you about that but I suggest you re-read your earlier postings wherein Gene (I believe it was) explained why you can’t marry dogs. (Why are you fixated on marrying dogs anyway? What’s going on in your mind with the dog thing?) The same legal rationale covers having sex with children and passed out/drugged women or men: no capacity for consent. Stop thinking so much about beast f***ing, it’s not an issue to anyone on this thread but you, if you get my drift.

    Before I get jumped on: actually “redundant hack” is not an ad hominem attack. Read his earlier posts. His later posts make the same points, ask the same questions and lack credibility or a factual basis. Redundant hack is appropriate.

  466. lottakatz

    I lived through all of it. HIV is a punishment. Pull the scales from your eyes. Why should I as a taxpayer be responsible to pay for a cure for a disease that began out of sinful behavior? Since when is government the answer for everything? I am glad Reagan did not put money into HIV research. I also believe if you smoke and get lung cancer then you should die because that is the consequence of that action. Stop trying to have no consequence.

  467. Timmy turns toward the dark side with, “…but I will hate what they do.”

    This is why heaven is denied to you.

  468. lottakatz

    BTW if you are gay and get aids then you should die with it. It is people like you that are bankrupting our country because you want taxpayers to pay for cures from immoral behavior. We would be better off if the west and east coast went out into the ocean or better yet let all of those liberal bankrupt states go under.

  469. James Knauer (formerly in LA)

    Nothing wrong with hating what one does. DO you LIKE the killing people do? You obviously don’t hate it.

  470. Timmy, yes it does. A recent study (2011) by Dr. Michael Benibgui at the Concordia University Department of Psychology and Centre for Research in Human Development shows that homosexual pheromones patterns are disrupted by stress. Dr. Benibgui concluded that, “…the stress of being rejected or victimized because of sexual orientation may disrupt hormonal responses in lesbians, gays and bisexuals.”

    That is not all Dr. Benibgui found. He found homophobes (not mentioning any names, of course) who had internalized homosexual conflicts to be at high risk for increased cortisol levels. He found that LGB youth who showed more internalized homophobia and abnormal cortisol activity also experienced increased symptoms of depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts. Dr, Benibgui says, “This study is among the first to clearly link the experience of homophobia with abnormal cortisol activity,” .

    What the means in plain English is, pheromone studies cannot be relied upon due to environmental stressors caused by bullying, rejection and fear. Now we have to ask ourselves, where did that bullying, rejection and fear originate?

    Oh my, it came from the physiological impact of homophobic social environments on this group of otherwise healthy young LGB adults. In other words, homophobia, bigotry, religious self-righteousness, and hate have a strong negative impact on the mental health of otherwise healthy young adults. Sometimes it even kills them. Think: Shepard, Matthew. Just what Jesus wants, eh timmy?

    More proof that the Westboro crowd are right: God hates fags and wants them to die. Go it!

  471. Timmeh,

    Jesus may not be real either. There is no historical proof of his existence.

    BTW, Nostradamus had a much better track record at predicting the future than the Bible.

    How come you aren’t worshiping him? He was a least a real person.

    Even better, political scientist Bruce Bueno de Mesquita beats them both using game theory. He’s not only real, he’s still alive and he can proof his work mathematically. How come you aren’t worshiping him?

    BTW, you still have answered the pertinent question to this thread:

    Can you give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”? One that does not rely upon logical fallacy, distortion of law, an implicitly religious definition of marriage or an outright lie?

    Our country is not a Christian nation. Our laws are not based on the Bible. Any argument that is based on religious dogma is doomed to failure here. You might fare better on a Regents Law site or Oral Roberts, but here in a blog concerned with the real world and actual jurisprudence, you don’t stand a chance.

    But it sure is funny to watch you work yourself up into a lather over a book of bronze age and stone age fairy tales. You’re free to believe what you like. That’s a 1st Amendment guarantee. We’re free to laugh at you. That’s also a 1st Amendment right. We’re free to believe something totally contrary to what you believe. That is also a 1st Amendment right. We are also free from having your religious dogma forced on us by the power of law. That is also a 1st Amendment guarantee.

    Get as pissed off and righteously indignant as you like that us bunch of heathens think you’re a pantload and your interpretation of Christianity is gibberish used to justify hate and exclusion in society.

    It’s really funny.

  472. Timmy,

    “to Gene:

    Everything you said is exactly what Satan wants men to believe.”

    You sure about that, Timmy? I mean, “everything,” and “exactly,” seem strange bedfellows.

    Oh, right, I forgot Satan was involved.

    Satan is perpetually out there, isn’t, “he?” Creeping into our manly thoughts and tempting us with aggravations of influence.

    And what about women, Timmy? Or does Satan only try to befuddle men? Does “he” only, “want men to believe,” or would Satan be happy if women also believed — in whatever it is you’re talking about?

  473. bk,

    Try adding a little real maple syrup to that way of cooking the butternut squash. About 1/4 cup. It’ll rock your world. :D

  474. Timmy,
    Thank you so much for coming out of the closet. You’re not just delusional, you’re sick and hateful. BTW.
    You have created your ugly, vengeful, stupid god in your own image. This is what you worship.

    “lottakatz

    BTW if you are gay and get aids then you should die with it. It is people like you that are bankrupting our country because you want taxpayers to pay for cures from immoral behavior. We would be better off if the west and east coast went out into the ocean or better yet let all of those liberal bankrupt states go under.”

    This is the way you show your love? By telling people that they should die? By drowning all of the population of the educated states?
    You managed to describe all of the evil in your pathetic being, in one short paragraph.
    No reason to wish damnation upon you. You’re already there. I pity your children.

  475. Satan?

    That dude owes me money. And for supposedly being the Prince of Liars, he sucks a poker. Flames shoot out his nostrils every time he has a good hand. It’s the tell of the century.

  476. Gene H.

    Your question is problematic because it clearly shows a difference between Gay marriage and “traditional marriage.” Your acknowledgement of that proves that traditional marriage can only refer to one man and one woman which has been around a long time.

  477. Bob Kauten

    I said they should pay the consequence of their action which is death. That is reaping what you sow. Nothing wrong with that.

  478. Timmeh,

    In the case of arguing with bigots such as yourself, it’s synonymous with heterosexual marriages performed in the Christian tradition. A tradition you are trying to force on everyone else by force of law: a Constitutional no-no.

  479. Bob Kauten

    If California and Massachusetts are educated then why are they so broke? I want no part of that education.

  480. Timmy wants me to enable his hate with, “DO you LIKE the killing people do? You obviously don’t hate it.”

    I do not hate. I acknowledge we as a society have decided through our representation that we are not going to be a nation of killers.

    No hate of killers or killing is required. Only some common sense. Killing tends to spill over if not contained, and that’s bad for a lot of things.

    So, no, I will not support your hate, even when you try to project it onto me.

    Timmy hails from junior high school with, “You just got burned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    The invitation to grow up stands so long as you need to grow up.

  481. Gene H.

    No bigotry in stating one reaps what he sows. I agreed with you above that the 14th amendment does apply and therefore constitutionally they should be able to marry and have the rights as everybody else. I just do not agree with that.

  482. Can you give one, explicit, concrete way giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples undermines “traditional marriage”? One that does not rely upon logical fallacy, distortion of law, an implicitly religious definition of marriage or an outright lie?

    How does what a homosexual couple does negatively impact a heterosexual marriage they are not party to? How does a homosexual couple getting the same rights vis a vis their partner as you enjoy under secular civil law negatively affect a heterosexual marriage?

    Not a bit or in the slightest is the one and only correct answer.

  483. James Knauer (formerly in LA)

    I guess you don’t hate killing. How about stealing? How about taking advantage of the defenseless. Oh I know How about identity theft?

  484. Gene

    I agreed with you on the constitutionality of the issue but I do believe a constitutional amendment is in order to change the 14th amendment.

  485. “I agreed with you above that the 14th amendment does apply and therefore constitutionally they should be able to marry and have the rights as everybody else. I just do not agree with that.”

    You cannot agree the 14th applies and still say you do not agree.

    That’s called a contradiction, Timmeh.

    It’s like saying “I believe the 1st Amendment protects the right to political free speech except for liberals.” It’s nonsense logically and linguistically and as a matter of law. It’s a perfect statement of your religious beliefs though, which you are not free to force on others via the rule of law and governmental action. If you don’t think marrying homosexuals is right? Don’t marry one.

    Try again.

  486. ” I do believe a constitutional amendment is in order to change the 14th amendment.”

    To what end exactly? Make homosexuals formally 2nd class citizens? The last person who did that made them wear pink triangles on their clothes and sent them to concentration camps.

    And good luck with that particular Constitutional amendment.

    You have no leg to stand on legally, Timmeh, and your religious arguments are flatly inapplicable to making a legal argument on the merits by the terms of the Constitution itself.

  487. Gene H

    In 2014 congress will be controlled by the Republicans. A constitutional amendment does not need Presidential approval. At some point 38 state legislatures will be controlled by the conservatives and thus it can become a reality. When that happens, you will have to defend it because it is constitutional.

  488. A prime facie discriminatory Constitutional amendment would not pass judicial scrutiny even with the right-wing bozos we currently have on the Court. It would be political suicide. Every day, the paper is filled with stories of “yet another Republican comes out in favor of gay marriage”. They’re idiots but they are finally starting to realize that pandering to religious fundamentalists is a losing game.

  489. 28th amendment: Marriage shall be between one man and one woman and shall be the law of the land and any marriage before the passing of this amendment that contradicts that is hereby annulled. 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states is needed.


  490. Gay marriage fraught with danger for 2016 Republican presidential field
    By Alexandra Jaffe – 03/20/13 05:00 AM ET
    Tweet

    Republican presidential hopefuls are facing a delicate dance on gay marriage going into 2016 — even as their potential Democratic opponents embrace an issue once fraught with political danger.

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s declaration this week that she favors gay marriage highlighted the new practical reality for Democrats with White House ambitions — that after President Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage in 2012, it’s no longer safe in the party’s primary to waffle.