Posted by: Weew at March 26, 2013 01:51 PM (HfKLk)

Go on...

I've long ago given up hope of ever seeing anything close to the right thing being done by the courts. They always seem to decide things in a way contrary to a plain reading of the Constitution.

It's all umbrellas and  nuance sandwiches, all the time with these fools.

Shut up, h8er.  That's how.

until every religious institution bends over and allows the holy sacrament of marriage to be performed on ghey unions.....the gheys will not be satisfied......

-

I would be interested to see how the court decides that my freedom is worth less than a homosexual's.

Just fucking legalize it all so we don't hurt children. Gay, Bi, Tri, Quadruple, man/boy, woman/ girl child, multiple wives, multiple husbands, incest, animals, plants, minerals, did I leave anything out? Really what the fuck... this country is just run by a bunch of shitweasel pervert motherfuckers. Oh, there's something I left out...

I just spoke with a lefty who told me that " Religious convictions that openly discriminate against an entire group of people. Yea, I think I'm OK with forcing them to violate that. "

This was in response to me saying that I oppose gay marriage only because it will force people to violate their religious convictions by providing services for the ceremony.

They don't even pretend to care about the constitution any more.

I guess he/she/it will be happy to go talk to the Muslims about the Jew stuff in the Koran, yes?

gay marriage ban hurts children

I am at a total loss here in understanding that thought.  I recognize the individual words well enough,  but strung in that order . . . it does not compute.

Posted by: andrew breitbart at March 26, 2013 01:52 PM (Yfnhv)

We  have  you  for  that  volcano  boy. 

You want to know the best way to piss off the gay marriage proponents?

Stop getting   married.

I mean, why the hell not?  The government has made marriage such a negative drain on people's finances, not to mention the negative repercussions suffered by men who go through a divorce,   that I say, have at   it, gays!   You    can    subsidize MY lifestyle for a while,  LGBTBBQ mafia!

Exactly.  Children are hurt by being shielded from paedophilia, STDs, and suicide later in life.

In their dueling opinions in Lawrence v Texas, didn't Scalia write something like "Well, in what way could states prohibit same-sex marriage, then?" to which Kenedy responded something like "Oh, don't be ridiculous! Nobody would propose something so outlandish."?

Nice to know that Kennedy can evolve so quickly when needed.

We are losing millions of dollars of compensation as high ranking civil servants and corporate officers because we're not married. So we buy judges and put in our own legislators to...

THE CHILDREN!

Two mincing fathers make up for the lack of a mother. Two diesel moms make up for the lack of a father. What kind of upbringing would children have without these family models?

Diesel moms:  consider that phrase stolen.

Also, Liberal  Math FTW!

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 26, 2013 02:01 PM (tqLft)

--------------

Perfect.

Posted by: Eric at March 26, 2013 02:01 PM (dMQ92)

Children, parental rights and responsibility, ensuring society continues. I think at one point the eugenicists where trying for racial improvement as well.

I call popcorn rights when gay marriage proponents meet a mosque.

Pretty sure you'll be otherwise occupied.

Posted by: rickb223 at March 26, 2013 02:03 PM (GFM2b)

----

That..... and..... the "discovery of the gay gene" meets a "womans right to choose."

The stupid is strong on Twitter today.  Some dufus keeps yapping to me about equal rights.  This case is not about equal rights.  California law gives same sex couples in civil unions completely equal rights with married straight couples.    The CU law was written by gay activists to do so.  Same sex couples just can't have a piece of paper that says "marriage license" and a preacher say "by the power vested in me by the State of California I pronounce you husband and husband."  That's the huge fucking civil rights issue being litigated here. 

Vaughn Walker's original ruling in this case is one of the biggest piles of crap I have ever read.  He says flat out that Prop 8 was mean and hateful and only passed to be mean to the homos.  He says the word "marriage" and the magic piece of paper confer some sort of mystical meta-status to straight couples that the h8ers want to deny to the nice homos, and shouldn't, because that is just mean and h8ful, and so that is illegal discrimination.  Seriously, this is the level of language he uses in this ruling.  It's a load of steaming bullshit.  I would think Scalia would have laughed his ass off when he read it.  Such an essay would have gotten an F in his law school class. 

Posted by: Your local bookie at March 26, 2013 02:02 PM (j3uk1)

----------

Yep, every show now has the cool gay couple. now we are 'invited' to all their weddings.

Hey, ergie!  *whistling*  Come here, boy!   Fetch!

*tosses stick into    boiling pit of molten lava*

If worst comes to worst, and pastors are forced to perform gay marriages, then they should take the opportunity to preach about the evils of homosexuality in the homily.

"Today we have here Steve and Bob, who, being of perverse disposition,, have decided to add to the sin of sodomy by also making a mockery of the holy institution of marriage, Let us turn now to Romans 1..."

once SCOTUS finds for gay marriage how long before the first group of polygamists bring a lawsuit?

The line forms at the rear (?), buddy.

Kennedy tipped his hand quite a bit by saying the gay marriage ban "hurts children."

It hurts SO good.

Kennedy tipped his hand quite a bit by saying the gay marriage ban "hurts children."

But nothing about its impact on polar bears? Then we've still got a chance.

You will never achieve equality. Deal with it.

Posted by: mugiwara at March 26, 2013 02:09 PM (W7ffl)

They've already got equality. What they want is deference, by changing the law to take into account their preferences.

The right to an abortion and the right to gay marriage - plainly found in the Constitution for all to see.

2A The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.   10A  All other rights are reserved to the states and the people. - These clauses are ambiguous and open to many varied interpretations, all of which are wrong except the most progressive version, or are just flat out ignored.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Posted by: Lauren at March 26, 2013 02:13 PM (wsGWu)

Ditto.

Marriage is a religious concept

No it isn't. It's nothing of the kind. Marriage of a kind exists in all societies, and for the same reasons. First, it provides for children, and second, it lends stability to society.

Marriage has become enshrined in religious thinking because of its ubiquity and fundamental importance to society, but to say it is a religious concept is misleading. It's like saying prohibitions against theft and murder are a religious concept.

171 My old buisiness partner and I used to joke about how awe inspiring our gun collection would be if we were gay.

Adavies: Best argument I've heard yet for gay marriage but then there's the pre-nup. Could get ugly.

Several Justices seriously doubt whether the petitioners defending Proposition 8 have “standing” to appeal the district court ruling invalidating the measure.

-\

And yet, the district court judge cooperated with the plaintiffs, and had an    obvious bias in his ruling, but that is somehow irrelevant.

Oh lord, now they are making the "separate but equal" argument against civil union laws.  This is so stupid I just don't even know where to start. 

I actually know five gay couples who are married.  None of them have a "marriage license"  I went to two of the weddings.  They had ceremonies, they exchanged vows of fidelity and rings, they had parties afterward, they got wedding gifts, and they call themselves married.  One of these couples got the civil union because one was going to graduate school in Great Britain and the other one could not join her long-term unless they had a legal union.  The UK recognizes a civil union as equivalent to a marriage in the US.  There isn't any "separate but equal" argument here.  These ladies do not care that they don't have a freaking piece of paper that says "marriage license." They think this whole thing is stupid and juvenile.

I have a friend who is actually a fairly famous gay person and has been married in California for almost 15 years.  He and his partner have adopted three children.  They call themselves married.  Everyone who knows them calls themselves married.  Prop 8 didn't change that.  They never gave a damn about the marriage license and they still don't.

Posted by: 1.3 million aborted children per year at March 26, 2013 02:14 PM (GGCsk)

No   no.   You're     just clumps of cells.       Please try to keep up.

One more comment on the "science" of evolution and I'll leave it alone.

Ace continues to misrepresent my point.  I am not introducing "magic" or the "supernatural" into science.

The question instead is:  DESIGN vs. RANDOMNESS.   And even if we assume 600 trillion worlds, it still doesn't change the equation as to the chances of forming life on this one.

And there are significant problems with the theory, i.e., natural observations THAT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AND CONTRADICT the theory.

Yes, I can posit no alternative other than DESIGN.  And that is based not only on mathematics, but on rational observations of the natural world (not "magic").  Was it aliens who kickstarted things?  Maybe, who knows. 

The entire point of this argument is to stand up and point this out.  Our being has some purpose or design.  Period.  One can attribute it to religion, to aliens, whatever.  But that's the starting point of all introspection.

The problem that I have is that in this community of incredibly smart commenters, the immediate recoil, condescension, sneering, idiocy, when one dares question evolutionary theory. 

Is that what we are about?  I did not once bully people into my worldview or my thoughts.  Yes, I called evolution laughable, but the reasons I give are purely scientific and/or mathematical.  I have not relied on "belief" or "magic" one time.  Instead, using logic and science, it becomes clear that evolutionary theory is very wrong.

But most disturbing is the fact that we should be able to argue.  The screams of "heresy" and derision are very unbecoming.  When one begins to be incapable of considering others thoughts on the other side of the debate, one ceases to be a thinking, rational person.  Same way with all political or scientific arguments.  If you have closed your mind to a point of view/a differing theory, how do you know your own thoughts are correct without testing the waters in somebody's else's position.

Such "thinking" or lack thereof, and given the hyper informed nature of commenters here, is it any wonder that if we can't have a rational discussion on such matters, then how in the fuck can we expect the average LIV to keep an open mind and consider all points?? 

The right to gay marriage is right there in an emanation of a penumbra hidden under some BBQ sauce at the end of the Fourth Amendment.

H8rs.

Well, if it hurts children, presumably he'd be against that.

Nope, youre wrong. I love it when children are hurting. Would do it myself if I could.

we should just put children on the court then.

tiebreaker goes to the peanut gallery

He was deeply concerned with the wisdom of acting now when in his view the social science of the effects of same-sex marriage is uncertain because it is so new. 

Sweet Jesus, he's looking to "social science" (I love oxymorons) for a basis? "Social science" is a joke. The Reds will gin up whatever they need to push their views, and call it "science."

I'm a real (physical) scientist, and we're surprised all the time by the results of experiments. Yet "social scientists" invariably confirm their hypotheses. Are they that much brighter than we are? Were they just sandbagging when we took the same courses in college? Because I remember the future "social science" types getting their asses kicked pretty thoroughly then.

Posted by: Jones in CO at March 26, 2013 02:20 PM (8sCoq)

A gay couple from Wyoming might decide to get married in California.

BOOM.   Interstate commerce.

Posted by: BSR at March 26, 2013 02:21 PM (CBCxo)

-----

Wut..... you think that was an accident????

I'm sure our esteemed SCOTUS will find that anal intercourse is in fact, commerce

And  allow a tax on you for  not intercoursing.

Posted by: rockmom at March 26, 2013 02:16 PM (NYnoe)

This issue has nothing to do with having a 'marriage license' and everything to do with sticking it to the church....specifically the Catholic church.  Always has...always will. 

A modest proposal: we allow homosexual marriages, and ban protease inhibitors. Viruses have a right to live!

"Kennedy tipped his hand quite a bit by saying the gay marriage ban "hurts children." Well, if it hurts children, presumably he'd be against that."

But, he's ok with abortion hurting children?

The court is a fraud. It is just a tool to the corrupt elites.

The Socons botched this one. Instead of focusing on the anti-religion agenda behind Gay Marriage, the Socons ranted and raved about Leviticus. This created the backlash that has made this country pro Gay Marraige.

My thoughts.  This is just one of many cases that will be either attempted or actually brought before the SCOTUS to push Americans further toward what they hope will be violence.

My other thought?  The conservative judges in the SCOTUS are the ones that really need the food tasters.

Posted by: Food for Thought at March 26, 2013 02:25 PM (TVbdM)

the country is so pro gay marriage...it loses every time at the voting booth

Exactly. Remember there was no such thing as divorce until Henry VIII decided he wanted one and invented a new Church to get one. And even after that, he didn't have the balls to do it again,and instead executed the rest of his wives or invented a reason to declare the marriage legally void. People were killed later over the question of which of his children were legitimate.

Whatever they may have called it, it existed long before Henry VIII. The Merovingians and early Carolingians divorced quite often; Eleanor of Aquitaine was divorced from her forst husband, to name a few examples.

Not to mention Greek, Roman, and Jewist society...

Posted by: Ook? at March 26, 2013 02:25 PM (OQpzc)

Those aren't children! They're just clumps of cells.

--Anthony Kennedy's really great logic.

(I'm too lazy to sock, this isn't me saying that it's Kennedy.)

Posted by: Lezbian Avenger! at March 26, 2013 02:26 PM (2U4NN)

Yeah, I adopted one of your cast off mini-dogs. It is tough on living fashion accessories to the soulless leftists.

Posted by: qualia at March 26, 2013 02:23 PM (XYSwB)

---

My favorite "social science" paper purported to show that boys raised by lesbians were A-OK, hell, even better off than those raised by normal couples.

If you read the fine print, however, you found out that the "researchers" had made this determination by asking the lesbians how they thought their kids were doing. Surprisingly, they thought they were doing just fine. Rock hard scientific research, baby. Amazing.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 26, 2013 02:28 PM (4df7R)

-----

Food for Thought goes hungry.... alot.

Posted by: Food for Thought at March 26, 2013 02:25 PM (TVbdM)

"Food" in this case being bad mushrooms.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at March 26, 2013 02:25 PM (yYjdV)

-----------------------------------------------

True.  But they'll have to have a national shutdown of all elevators  because of all the burrito farts.

The only constitutional rights that might be implicated are property rights, i.e., a state must allow visitation in hospitals, the ability to pass property via estates.

Essentially, under concerns of equal protection a state, whether by contract or otherwise (civil unions), has to create a system for same sex couples whereby they are entitled to the same status as married couples.

That I would support.  However, I would not support allowing homosexual couples the ability in stepping in line ahead of heterosexual couples for adoption purposes.  I don't know if I would necessarily oppose homosexual adoption of children, but if there was a heterosexual couple willing to adopt, they would be accorded primacy between the two.

Other than that, that's all I've got.  There's no constituional right for marriage for everyone.  So it's only under equal protection and only goes to property rights/relationship rights (i.e., hospital visitation/shit like that).

Posted by: Modern Liberalism at March 26, 2013 02:28 PM (B/VB5)

Except they've already given a handwave     of    permission to the idea of      gender-based abortions, which means they are literally   all right with     killing future     women.    I doubt they'll care much about killing future homos,     many of whom would just be stinky men.

Justice Kennedy.... please think about what you just said...

You are willing to Over Ride the electorate.. and the Religious Rights of the entire populace...

Because it hurts the Children of Gays.... you know.... Gays.... who CANNOT as a COUPLE HAVE CHILDREN???

/FACEPALM

265  J.J. Sefton

Thatw as in 2008. If it went to a vote now, Gat Marriage would win handidly in California.

I meant to say "anyone."  There is no consitutional right to marriage FOR ANYONE.

Hence, they must proceed on an equal protection argument and it must be with regard to property rights.  That's if the words of the constitution mean anything anymore.

Indeed. The truth (that Prop 8 was carried by African-American Obama voters) hurts.

So was Amendment 1 in NC last year.

273 JohnIscariotRoberts

Socons have been their own worse enemy. Every issue they jump on backfires.

This created the backlash that has made this country pro Gay Marraige.



Posted by: Food for Thought at March 26, 2013 02:25 PM (TVbdM)

-------------------------------------------------

If that's true, then why is this case up before the SCOTUS?

We all scream how liberty is more important than public safety = gun should be legal

We all scream how culture needs to be protected from gay marriage = liberty not that important after all

Except that the right to bear arms is in the constitution whereas gay marriage is not.

I keep hoping there *is* a gay gene for exactly this reason.

I doubt it, very much. I think it's more likely a matter of pre-natal development gone awry, rather like cleft palate.

302 Eaton Cox

What is now called Conservatism is nothing more than Christian Socialism. Barry Goldwater warned about the Theocrats back in the 80's. I wish the Republicans had heeded him

If it went to a vote now, Gat Marriage would win handidly in California.

And so would Romney. Gee, I love speculating without data.

Btw, what is "gat marriage?" You marry your gun? Interesting ...

296 BSR

Socons are really Leftists. They deal with emotions and dream of utopia. You can point all the facts to them and they will deny it.

Posted by: Prescient11 at March 26, 2013 02:31 PM (tVTLU)

Property Rights can be fixed via a Contract...

Hospital visitation is a HOSPITAL POLICY... not law.... so just get the Hospitals to change their visitation policy...

Everything else can be done via Powers of Attorney.

One thing that needs fixing is Tax Policy.... but that is fixed by not giving Married people an Advantage... make all exemptioins perosnal...

Only other issue, is Spouse Rights for Military Dependents... which I will say as a Ret Vet... is antiquated and has lived out its usefullness anyway...

331 Jay Guevara

Yes I married by 9 MM!

I meant Gay Marriage

Reaching way back in this thread @#5:

>> So the wishes of the voters will be overturned? Democracy, how does that work?<<

The actual point of the SCOTUS is to protect us from democracy. 

Posted by: rockmom at March 26, 2013 02:35 PM (NYnoe)

Yup.... if not... there IS no avenue for Petition for Redress... which IS in the Constitution.

335 JDP

I am thinking of running for officee but only after the Republicans Party is obliberated by Hillary Clinton in 2016. WIth the Socon/Neocon Axis discredited, Libertarians and Fiscons will take over the Party. Then there will be room for people like me again in the Republican party.

>>>Whatever they may have called it, it existed long before Henry VIII. The Merovingians and early Carolingians divorced quite often; Eleanor of Aquitaine was divorced from her forst husband, to name a few examples.

Now THAT would be cool. You divorce your wife and send her to a nunnery for life!

You often see that touted as a middle ground, but it's actually a more radical idea.

Estate law, custody law, family law--isn't that all dependent on the state recognizing marriage?

Also the state benefits from marriage and strong family units--from the beginning of civilization societies that have marriage as an institution have faired well.

Don't forget the record-keeping aspect of marriage. This is the basis for non-cousin-humping laws. Inbreeding is  a bad thing.

352 zsasz

I oppose Gay Marriage and view Homosexuality as a perversion. That said, I do not hate Gays. If society wants Gay Marriage, what can I do? My concern will be when Gays start suing Churches.

Posted by: sandy burger at March 26, 2013 02:39 PM (+yb/5)

Its part of Tax Law.... and another case of the Government micromanaging our lives through the Tax code....

Why should it matter to my Inheritence, 'IF' I marry my Girlfriend or not?  Why should my kids be out more of my Money in Taxes because of a Piece of Paper in a County Courthouse?

Romeo:

That is exactly correct.  I think the hospital thing might be law in some states.  But look, if two people are homos all the power to them.  Create it by contract or a civil union, I don't care.  If you do that, the equal protection argument is out the door, especially when it comes to tax benefits, etc., as you suggest.

The tricky questions get to when it affects other people.  Children that want to be adopted.  People who don't want to serve or deal with homosexuals.

That's the touchy issue.  And I think that the states (and individuals on religious grounds) can surely refuse service or to deal with homosexuals.  It may not be pretty, but that's where the individual freedoms lock horns.  Like a bed and breakfast, for example.  Run by religious people.  What if they don't want to serve a homosexual couple??

I think they have that right.  But that gets into the libertarian argument against the civil rights laws.  I think that a person or business should be able to, on religious grounds, refuse service to pretty much anyone.

Kind of a can of worms, but that's where you have to go.  Free speech to nazis isn't comfy either.

Posted by: Food for Thought at March 26, 2013 02:38 PM (TVbdM)

-------------------------------------

Help me, somebody!  Pleeeeeezzze.  I'm dyin' in here.

It's either a perversion or a mental disorder. Neither in my view does a political movement make. But who the hell am I?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 26, 2013 02:38 PM (tqLft)

Here's my reasoning. We know that all fetuses effectively start out female, and that male fetuses become masculinized by exposure to testosterone in utero. I suspect that a deficit of such testosterone results in male homosexuals. Part of my reason for thinking this is the feminine qualities and interests that often (not invariably, of course) characterize male homosexuals and lead to the stereotypes.

With female homosexuals I think the situation is less clear, and that lesbianism has a greater cognitive component (i.e., a learned behavior), owing to the more plastic nature of female sexuality. I think most males' sexuality is pretty hard-wired, and not amenable to much change.

That kinda reckless talk will get you sent to the camps in the not too distant future...

I was gonna ask where all the normal people went, but   now I know where we'll all be soon.

In the camps.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at March 26, 2013 02:44 PM (+z4pE)

Exactly how far back did you trace your family tree?

Despite growing up in a reasonably large city the wife and I grew up mere miles from each other (we even shared a pediatrician.) And we had a common ethnic background of German/Czech.

Yet I don't recall any in depth record searches.  We may have asked her grandparents for their parent's names but that was pretty much it. (And that was more out of unrelated curiosity than anything.)

That's much farther back than any law requires you to go.

>>>>The Merovingians? Holy Shit. You know what happened to them don't you?

They starred in gay movies like The Matrix?

Posted by: rockmom at March 26, 2013 02:35 PM (NYnoe)

Courts have been overturning the will of the voters in California for decades. The voters did try to save themselves a few times. The courts overruled them, and cons started leaving.

We all scream how liberty is more important than public safety = gun should be legal

Um,    that's not the argument.   "Public safety," if you measure it in terms of crime rates,  is BETTER in areas where gun ownership is legal   than in areas where gun ownership is strictly curtailed.     

The argument the anti-gun idiots use is "Guns make it easier for people to commit crimes!"   First off, if you're going to commit a crime, what makes you think a law saying "you can't own a gun" is going to stop you from getting a gun?    Secondly, you can do as much damage with a can of gasoline and a match.   Thirdly,  in the absence of a gun, people have been known to use knives, bludgeons, chains, bare hands, and just about anything else they can lay their mitts on in order to commit some kind of villainy.   Guess what -- bad people have done bad things since long before gunpowder was even invented.  

So    far as the anti-gun kooks are concerned, the second amendment doesn't really count    (for some reason    they can never explain),     so we should just ignore it.

Fuck that.

We all scream how culture needs to be protected from gay marriage = liberty not that important after all

And here on the other hand we have another straw man argument.

Marriage is a religious-based union between a man and a woman.  That's my belief.       My opposition to gay marriage, however, is strictly a 10th amendment position.    Marriage, like abortion, has jack shit to do with the federal government.  It is a state issue, period.   This push for some kind of federal mandate on gay marriage is just    further    encroachment of the federal government on the rights and responsibilities of the individual states.

 The people of CA voted in favor of Prop 8    by a solid margin.    Now the feds     are poised to overturn the will of    the    people      based on some   "emanations and penumbras" bullshit that has nothing to do with the Constitution,      despite the sole purpose of     SCOTUS being to    judge the     Constitutionality of    laws.   

You want to talk about fucking over liberty?   There you go.

This is the basis for non-cousin-humping laws. Inbreeding is a bad thing.

According to a paper in PubMed, something like 30% of all marriages in Saudi Arabia would be considered consanguineous under Western law, as it is normal there for first cousins to marry.

Explains a lot, doesn't it?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 26, 2013 02:51 PM (no95k)

Absolutely!  This world needs more radioactive       polyamorous     nymphs    of negotiable gender.    It would seem to fit the zeitgeist.

So aborting homo fetuses would be cool with the libs?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 26, 2013 02:50 PM (tqLft)

They'd probably be in a quandary. While they likes them some abortion, the idea of aborting a fetus because it was suspected of being a future homosexual would doubtless stick in their craws. The irony is that a future show tune fan might be safer in utero than a future normal kid.

The good news is that if my hypothesis has anything to it, it might be possible to cheer up the intrauterine testosterone concentrations on male fetuses at risk, and thereby obviate the problem.

@8: "Still, it's insane that 9 people can subvert the will of the people."

*gentle pat on the head*

Ahh, my dear peasant, those nine are illustrious *Persons of Quality*.  They are wise, learned, of proper breeding and mindset, and represent all that is finest in the species Homo Sapiens.  "The people," as you call them, are insignificant little insects.  Their only purpose is to toil for their betters.  Now be a good little drone, and go pay your taxes.

Posted by: Prescient11 at March 26, 2013 02:45 PM (tVTLU)

I'll even go a step further....

ALL Rights, carry their antithesis within them... the Right to Speak, encompasses the Right to remain silent...

The Right to Bear arms, holds the right NOT to....

And Freedom of Association, which DOES have the RIGHT not to associate.

Its one of our Rights that the Courts ignore... and is IMO one of the root causes of what is wrong in society.  We have taken the ability to NOT do business with those we think are wrong, out of the equation... and thus there is no 'reward' for good behaviour either.... we cannot shun, nor caste out, those who wish to destroy our way of life....

Exactly how far back did you trace your family tree?Despite growing up in a reasonably large city the wife and I grew up mere miles from each other (we even shared a pediatrician.) And we had a common ethnic background of German/Czech.
Yet I don't recall any in depth record searches. We may have asked her grandparents for their parent's names but that was pretty much it. (And that was more out of unrelated curiosity than anything.)That's much farther back than any law requires you to go.

Back to the 1750's.

But what I was referring to was more or less a backup to the common method of keeping track of  marriages  via the family Bible. Fires regularly destroyed those, so I don't see any harm in having a second set of records,      particularly stored in a secure location.

What it has grown into is another matter  altogether. Hence this thread.

The Kennedy "hurts children" angle is a classic flaw of liberal logic.   Of course if you are one of the thousands of children being raised in households by same sex parents you are "hurt" by your parents not being formally accepted as such under the law.   That hurt is direct and visible.

But if you are one of the millions of children being raised in households by a single mother, because your biological parents didn't think waiting to have children until they were married was a good idea, or who didn't think getting married after becoming pregnant or having children was a good idea for their children's sake, you are also "hurt" when marriage is devalued in the culture.   That hurt is more indirect and invisible, but it's no less a hurt, and it affects hundreds or even thousands of times as many kids.

Liberals do this all the time.   They opt for a remedy to the visible and direct harm, without taking into account that there are invisible and indirect harms that will result.  

There's only one "factor": Terrorism works.

Not a single mind has been changed. Not one.

Not a lawyer, so maybe a moron smarter than I can explain it, but I'm surprised no one has looked at it from the perspective of marriage not being a right. I mean even if you are doing a religious ceremony you still need to pay a fee and get a marriage license from the state. So really, is it a right if the state can deny it via paperwork and taxes?

I think we should replace the Supreme Court with a Magic Eight Ball.

Now that's just silly. The deep philosophical considerations before the Supreme Court are much to complex for a Magic Eight Ball.

That's why we should use a ouija board. For conflicts between Constitutional provisions, we could use a dowsing stick to see which one supercedes the other.

@18: "The moment I heard that Chief Justice Roberts' lesbian cousin was attending, I assumed that this was going to go in favor of the gay marriage proponents. I can't imagine she showed up uninvited, and I can't imagine he invited her to see the ban upheld."

It would be an awesome "Fuck you!" though.

Miss Marple:

Good post.  It's not really a question of the right of two individuals to associate with who they like and it should be very easy to order that.

The tough part comes from the gheys effect on other people.  Of course no church should be forced to do anything.  no one should.  Your business either accepts or does not accept gay couples.

You can refuse to serve heterosexuals just like homosexuals.  As long as they don't get their own "protected class" and they are second in line regarding any adoption, I think I am ok with it.

Just no gay "marriage".  Words have meaning and "gay marriage" is an impossibility.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 26, 2013 02:50 PM (tqLft)

Ah, that is the slipperiest of slopes.  After all, considering the very high costs and physical discomforts of in vitro family planning, once they truly to identify the "Lady Gaga Born Different" gene, are parents going to blithely select a gay embryo over a straight one?  Tell me that Sue and John are going to turn to each other and say, "Yeah, let's spend 100k-200k, have Sue gain 30-80 pounds just from the preggo drugs--not to mention taking on the full on crazy from said drugs, and go through all of that to get a gay child rather than a straight child."  Hell, people worry that embryos will be discarded for eye color or being a girl and yet, no one worries about the gay discard pile?  Puhleeze, bitch.

They are wise, learned, of proper breeding and mindset,and represent all that is finest in the species Homo Sapiens.

See? SEE?

Homo. It's even in our biological name.

Posted by: John Roberts at March 26, 2013 02:56 PM (j3uk1)

Yeah, but so is "sapiens," and I don't see much evidence of wisdom.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 26, 2013 02:56 PM (no95k)

Ooooh, I LIKE this idea.   Sort of like a pulpier    version of the genesis of the    Cthulu mythos.   The world is the world, with certain things established -- like the existence of radioactive, polyamorous nymphs of negotiable gender -- but there can be stories based in that world that    are     otherwise completely unrelated to one another.  

Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 26, 2013 02:53 PM (IDSI7)

Yeah, you need to do some reading on Alice Dreger and her response to FetalDex to understand why they're going to throw a fit over that as well. (foreshadowing)

Posted by: BSR at March 26, 2013 02:55 PM (CBCxo)

-----------------------------------------

I've  always thought two chicks sucking each others' cooters as disgusting as two gay men sucking each others' cocks.  Perversion is perversion.

Posted by: The Regular Guy at March 26, 2013 02:56 PM (qHCyt)

I still think the best part of that.... is the idea that we will over ride the will, and Rights, of the many.... in the name of the NON EXISTANT....

Because there ARE no biological children of a GAY couple...

Posted by: soothsayer at March 26, 2013 03:00 PM (9Q7Nu)

And don't even THINK of foregoing a traditional church to hold Bible studies or small services in your own home.  The gubmint finds out about that and BAMMO!  You're on the hook for all the taxes and fines associated with holding such gatherings.   Already happens with stunning frequency.

Posted by: Miss Marple at March 26, 2013 02:54 PM (GoIUi)

The only problem is the gays already have this, and its not enough. The gay activists want to destroy the concept of marriage, and they want to criminalize the Church. This fulfills a major liberal goal; destroy the institutions of society so that they can be replaced by the liberal versions of those institutions. Libs don't give a damn about gays, except how to make gay prison jokes.

Posted by: RiverC at March 26, 2013 02:53 PM (El+h4)

Yeah, there ought to be a ratio, you can watch 2 hours of pretty girls having sex with each other ONLY after watching 2 hours of gals that look like Kagan and Janet Reno having sex with each other....

Posted by: soothsayer at March 26, 2013 03:00 PM (9Q7Nu)

Than go nuclear and get rid of the income tax. Replace with Fair Tax.

Many States allow first cousins to marry. It's the Bible that forbids it.

Posted by: Al at March 26, 2013 02:57 PM (V70Uh)

Wow, you're right. I hadn't known that. It turns out that the states that allow it are largely the libtard ones (CA, NY, NJ, MA, CT, CO, NM), and some Southern ones (VA, TN, AB, GA, SC, FL), according to Wikipedia ("cousin marriage law")

In all fairness, lesbians are hot
Posted by: BSR at March 26, 2013 02:55 PM (CBCxo)

You've obviously not seen many no-shit lesbians. Most of them look like Dick Butkus.

Posted by: Dick Morris at March 26, 2013 03:03 PM (j3uk1)

Coming Soon: Dubs Goes to Court.

Romeo13:

That is a brilliant point.  I would exactly agree with it.  Such as the KKK has the right to exclude black members.  Pro-life groups have the ability to stop Sanger from joining.

The problem I see is that as far as businesses go.  I don't want to go back to the days of colored/white drinking fountains.

But that's really the issue isn't.  Do we police ourselves, or does the state compel us to do things.  Just like antitrust problems.

I prefer policing ourselves, but admittedly there are some close calls as to whether the civil rights act is even constitutional.

Well it argues for dual causes. 20% is a hell of a lot higher than 4%. So one would conclude that genetics make up no more than 25% with environmental factors being the other 75%.

It's easy to believe that there's a genetic predisposition that only becomes apparent under certain developmental circumstances.

For example, suppose genetically the fetus has lower than normal sensitivity to testosterone. In a mother with normal intrauterine testosterone concentrations, that might not matter, but in one with low testosterone levels, the fetus fails to masculinize properly.

I suspect that some set of phenomena like that explains a lot of at least male homosexuality.

@423: "It's not gay marriage I object to, it's all the cocksucking that bothers me."

Why do all these homosexuals keep sucking my cock?

If one is an honest evolutionist, then the notion that a genetic component that ensures its self-destruction, since it obviously cannot be passed
on, is to the benefit of the perpetuation of the species should cause such cognitive dissonance as to render them speechless.

What about hemophilia? Albinism? Juvenile onset diabetes? Down's syndrome?

Michael: You have some contacts in the newspapers. They might love a good story like this, right?

Tom Hagen: Yeah.. They just might at that..

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at March 26, 2013 03:20 PM (f9c2L)

Give this to a Jew congressman in another district.  Who else is on the list?

Posted by: JohnIscariotRoberts at March 26, 2013 04:08 PM (7ObY1)

So you turned a girl gay. Hmm, not sure you want to be bragging about that.

hemophilia 0.005 in 100.
albinism 0.005 in 100.
Type 1 Diabetes 0.05 in 100
Downs Syndrome 0.12 in 100.

Homosexuality 4-5 per 100.

Yeah not making a good argument for parity.

You missed the point, which was that pathologies that you'd think would be self-extinguishing in the population actually continue to exist.

Second, notice that incidences run over almost two orders of magnitude. Conclusion: incidence is no indicator of genetic origin.

Third, there is no way 4-5% of the population is homosexual. Try maybe 1%.

Oh and albinism, hemophilia, downs, and type 1 diabetes are not necessarily self extinguishing.

Precisely my point.

My sister has type 1 diabetes and two kids. Since homosexuals almost always go on to have no children of their own

Type 1 diabetes is not lethal now, but it used to be in the pre-insulin era. And homosexuals have kids all the time. I'm not just talking about turkey basters as Dads, but guys like Jim McGreevey, former governor of New Jersey, father of two. Guys batting for both teams were, with IV drug abusers, a major route of transmission of AIDS to women in the West.

Still lower than occurrence of homosexuality. ]/i]

Which incidence is highly debatable. Homosexuals claim 10%, for obvious reasons, although that is clearly way way too high.

The idea that homosexuality is defined strictly by genetics, simply doesn't hold water with genetic science. Environmental factors have to have a significant impact in order to maintain an occurrence rate as high as observed in the population;

I said above genetic predisposition in conjunction with environmental factors (in utero) seems the most likely explanation. No one is saying homosexuality is Mendelian.

Such that a significant number of individuals fully genetically inclined to homosexuality manifest sexuality as heterosexuals for whatever unknown environmental reasons.

This makes homosexuality the norm, which it obviously is not. I'd put it the other way around, that a significant number of individuals fully largely genetically inclined to heterosexuality manifest sexuality as homosexuals for whatever unknown environmental reasons, but possibly because of intrauterine development gone awry. Again, much like cleft palate.

Genetic self extinguishing pathologies have a reoccurance mutation tied to them. Otherwise it would extinguish.

By prepending "self-extinguishing" you're begging the question. No one has asserted that the pathology is self-extinguishing, and it was pointed out that other lethal pathologies have existed in the population for a long time. There is no need to posit a back mutation for the continued incidence of those pathologies.

Appreciate the various informed comments on process above, but ......

For the most part, how can any intelligent, literate person take the SCOTUS (or the structure atop which it rests), seriously?  Oh sure, they can impose absurd decisions as law, legislate wildly from the bench, shred the constitution, and beclown themselves (and all this most of them do, regularly).  Even the "smart" "conservatives" justices, at their best, generally make absolutely obvious, even trite observations and arguments (sound, dispositive, but ..... obvious common sense).

But the institution is such a farce on major issues.  It's not alone, of course.  The rot is pervasive - close to universal in breadth, if not depth (the military still has some common sense and integrity at various levels, though at senior levels it seems the great national degradation is bearing fruit even there, finally). 

So an intelligent American (that is someone who substantively in terms of mindset and understanding bears any relation to what has made America distinctively good in its history - in other words, a minority of the general populace and a dwindling minority of the elites) is forced to live with the nonsense and lawlessness, sort of like you have to smile at the Soviet customs officer and border guard as they glower at you and decide what sort of BS they're going to put you through.  And that analogy is carefully chosen.  I had the pleasure and privilege of "making nice" to Soviet scum, er, officials and functionaries over the years, and the precise combo of utter contempt for illegitimate power and a practical, deceptive show of happy compliance is close to what I now feel for "the law" in the US.

Irony, along with common sense, is an extinct concept in today's dumbed-down, degraded America (and western world).  But oh the irony of the SCOTUS quibbling about "standing".  Ha!  Look at the subjects they rule on, listen to the jaw-droppingly illiterate and tendentious oral arguments, marvel at the absurd "rulings" and opinions - so much of it on topics they have absolutely no "standing" to be even discussing.  As I've said many times, if you want to avoid cleaning out the garage and have a masochistic streak, listen to much of the oral arguments from the Obamacare atrocity.  All parties (advocates on both sides, all justices) make fools of themselves, and display a shocking ignorance of modern economies, medicine, insurance (real insurance, a simple and gigantic foundation of modern economic prosperity). 

So, meh.  The issue is defining marriage (civil union laws obviously, immediately, and completely resolve/avoid ANY serious civil rights or constitutional issues, period), not "equal rights".  Courts don't define fundamental social concepts - they have no "standing" whatsoever.  No single institution does.  A vote of voters is about as close as you'll ever get to a sensible or legitimate way of defining basic social and cultural concepts and institutions.  So once again, we have an insanely lawless and rogue "judicial" system completely outside its legitimate ambit, dragged there by the usual cast of idiot narcissist soft-fascist authoritarian bigots, in a public square swamped with ridiculous propaganda and intimidation by one side, pondering whether to once again issue a dictatorial, arbitrary edict.