So how long until the SCOTUS hears the Cali Prop 8 case?

Breaking: Judge Vaughn Walker overturned the will of the California people by declaring the no-gay-marriage Proposition 8 unconstitutional.  This will make it’s way to the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, which will likely rubber stamp “yes, please” before the case makes its way to the Supreme Court.

The opinion:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that oppositesex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Professor Jacobson:

Throughout the opinion, the Judge goes into great detail regarding trial testimony and justifications for Prop. 8. The Judge then holds, in essence, that the justifications are irrational and have no legitimate societal basis.

The Judge even designated a section of the opinion “Credibility Determinations.” Many commentators think the Judge was trying to insulate the opinion from appeal since appeals courts do not normally overturn credibility determinations, since only the trial judge observed the witness.

In this case, the Judge seems to be trying too hard to insulate the opinion, and I doubt that on such a momentus finding of a new constitutional right for same sex marriage that an appeals court, much less the U.S. Supreme Court, will care much about the credibility of witnesses as a basis for a legal ruling.

Allahpundit:

The key line for legal purposes is “There is no rational justification for this unique pattern of discrimination.” In any equal protection case, there are three levels of scrutiny: (1) strict scrutiny, which applies to laws that discriminate based on race or religion; (2) intermediate scrutiny, which applies to laws that discriminate based on gender; and (3) rational-basis review, which applies to all other forms of discrimination, especially economic. Basically, a law that falls into the first category is always unconstitutional, a law that falls into the second is sometimes unconstitutional (it depends on the specifics), and a law that falls into the third is almost always constitutional. Because the Supreme Court has never held that gays are a “suspect class” and therefore deserving of the special protection of strict scrutiny, Olson had a choice of how to approach this. Either he could argue that they should be a suspect class, in which case Prop 8 would inevitably be struck down, or he could forget the suspect class stuff and argue that even under the lowest level of scrutiny — rational-basis review — Prop 8 should be struck down because denying marriage rights to gays serves no rational purpose. He apparently went the latter route, which is smart insofar as the Supremes will be reluctant to extend “suspect class” status any further than it already is and because Anthony Kennedy has already written two landmark decisions striking down anti-gay laws — one of which was explicitly based on rational-basis review. In other words, Olson already has his eye on this case landing in the high court and he’s playing for a 5-4 win with Kennedy as the deciding vote, figuring that if AK was willing to call discrimination against gays irrational once before, he’ll be willing to do so again.

Politically, what a hot potato in an election year.  Politically, will this reverse the course of the five Republicans who said they’d vote to confirm Kagan?

Newt, ever so quick:

Judge Walker’s ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they’ve affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy.  Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.

UPDATE:

K-Lo:

Actual quote from the ruling today: “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”

This is a court ruling, not an academic seminar at Berkeley.

This isn’t about equality. This is about recreating our fundamental institutions.

Agreed.

Advertisements

37 Responses

  1. […] So how long until the SCOTUS hears the Cali Prop 8 case? […]

  2. Did Manny make that clear when he stated “Two penises don’t intersect based on the geometry”…? Same-sex relationships are not solely comprised of “what we do in our bedrooms” anymore than straight relationships are. Is your marriage about sex and nothing else? Or is it more importantly about love, respect, and companionship? Same-sex marriages are no different.

    Your need to deflect and make a dig about what certain members of the gay community do at Pride parades only serves to highlight the hollow nature of your argument. I was talking about the natural element of gay relationships, and about love and commitment, not ass chaps.

    • I tried to lighten the tone as you attacked one of my buddies.

      Pride parades are fair game considering the gay community’s need to … flagrantly broadcast what they do when Manny and I could care less as long as it stays within the home.

      I have to put my toddler in a bath. Will finish commenting later.

      • I just finished my toddler’s bath and bedtime routine. We aren’t so different after all.

        I didn’t attack your buddy…I simply offered a counter to his assertion that same-sex relationships are “unnatural.” Taking the discussion to a complete tangent about gay pride celebrations and stating that you are just fine with gay and lesbian relationships “as long as it stays within the home”…well, it just reiterates your focus on the sexual component of same-sex marriages, rather than the sacred unions of love, respect and companionship that they are.

        Would you want to be told that society was just fine with your opposite-sex relationship, as long as you never acted like a married couple anywhere but in your home? My partner and I have never “flagrantly broadcast” our love for each other, unless you consider hand holding and doting over our toddler in public to fall in that category. Do you and your husband behave this flagrantly in public?

        And it’s a slippery slope to try and lump members of any group together into one neat ball of playdough. Many heterosexuals engage in polyamorous relationships, am I to assume you do as well, just because you’re heterosexual? It’s also a slippery slope to establish an individual’s worthiness of basic civil rights based on whether or not you are comfortable with how they conduct themselves at a parade or elsewhere.

    • Natalie, I can’t seem to respond to your comment above about thanking God for your family. If you are raising your child in a loving, caring way as it seems you are, I thank God for your family too, and I wish you the best. It doesn’t change my opinion. If you love your partner and your child, then God is there in your home. God is love afterall and homosexual love is love. I don’t dispute that and never have. But two people of the same gender is not marriage. Peace and God be with you.

      • Two people of the same gender is not marriage to YOU. It is most certainly marriage to me and many, many others – both gay and straight.

        Again, thank God the religious and moral beliefs of select individuals and groups do not constitute the basis for civil rights in this country. That’s a job left to our Constitution, which is why I find peace in knowing that my rights will eventually be restored and my family will have the same status and protections as any other family.

        And, yes, God is in our home. And God sees no difference between your marriage and mine…because God is indeed love and acceptance, not hate and judgment.

        I don’t need you or any other individual to approve of or agree with my family or my marriage. This is America, and you are free to think and feel however you wish about same-sex marriage, regardless of where it stands legally. I just need my marriage and my family to be equally protected and recognized by our government, as is our constitutional right.

  3. Gay marriage is an absurdity. People of the same gender do not make a married couple. Natural law requires that mates have opposite genitalia. Somehow we’ve turned common sense on it’s head. If people have some sort of predilection towards a same sex attraction, hey, that’s your business. To sanction it as normal is overturn natural human bonding characteristics. As far as I see it, homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else: they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they wish.

    • Manny, homosexuality has been well documented throughout human history and it occurs throughout the animal kingdom as well. It is natural. Your preoccupation with the private lives of others is not.

      • Um, Manny made the point that he could give a rat’s rear end regarding what you do in your bedroom. I agree. Though I’ve never seen straight guys marching in the street wearing ass chaps while holding signs demanding “equal rights,” either.

      • So even if homosexuality is documented throughout the animal kingdom (and I find it dubious to define animal behavior in terms of hetero/homo-sexuality, but so be it) what does that have to do with it being natural? There are lots of things in the human and animal worlds that occur that are not normal. People are born with one arm or born blind or a wealth of other possibilities. Given that homosexuality (if it’s a birth condition, and I’m somewhat skeptical that it is in all cases) amounts to 2-5% of the population and it has no biological reason, then one has to conclude it is not normal and that such relationships are not natural. Open homosexuality has only been in society for a generation or possibly two. We don’t have a clue as to the unintended consequences of open homosexuality.

        There are a wealth of predilections and I don’t see why once we have allowed exceptions to one unnatural predilection to be codefied as normal how that would stop others from justifying theirs. No civilization in the history of the human race has codefied homosexual marriages, and that goes for the classical Greek cultures.

        I don’t care what homosexuals do in their bedroom, who they love or bond with, but for society to sanction it as a marriage is an absurdity at best and possibly deleterious at worse.

    • nat·u·ral
      –adjective
      1. existing in or formed by nature (as opposed to artificial)

      So, to your example, blindness is indeed natural, as is homosexuality. I do not have a “condition”, this is simply who I am, exactly who God intended me to be.

      To your point about the “unintended consequences of open homosexuality”, just a few thoughts:
      – lower rates of suicide among gay young people
      – a kinder and more tolerant society
      – a happier and more peaceful life for all gay people and those who care about them

      Society changes and grows over time, just as we hopefully do as individuals throughout our lives. There was a time in the not-too-distant past that this country sanctioned owning black people as slaves and making married women the property of their husbands. Should we not have progressed and become kinder and more tolerant in these regards as well?

      If we had not, you better believe pjmom wouldn’t even have the right to create this blog and express her opinions, she would simply be the property of her husband.

      Kindness. Tolerance. Peace. The core teachings of Jesus. What’s so radical about that?

      (And if you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person.) 🙂

      • “And if you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person.”
        LOLOLOL! Touche. 🙂

        Listen Natalie, I believe in tolerence, and certainly kindness. Kindness is very important to me, and if I’ve come across harshly here then I apologize. I don’t want gays to be back in the closet. Over the years I’ve considered myself to be more progressive than most conservatives on gay issues. I’ll even support gays in the military if done properly and at the right time. But on gay marriage, I’m sorry, I am vehemently against it. And frankly the gay community pushing this has only caused me to resent all their issues. Marriage is between a man and a woman and anything other than that is cognitive dissonance. Peace be with you.

    • Since when does natural order dictate the structural ordering of society? This argument is pure hogwash.

      You are obviously insensitive to the struggles of the gay community, whether you are conscious of it or not.

      • Thank you AD!!! 🙂

        And Manny, thank God for me and my family, civil rights are not determined by the religious and/or moral beliefs of select individuals or groups (or at least we’re fighting to ensure they no longer are). Thus, regardless of your personal “definition” of marriage, I will soon have the tremendous joy of marrying the love of my life and having our relationship recognized and celebrated for what it is – a strong and beautiful lifelong commitment between two people…in other words, a marriage.

        (See everything AD said above for a quick history lesson on this front!)

      • Insensitivity? We are talking policy. When does policy ever take into account sensitivity? The government takes half my hard earned paycheck in taxes, does any one think about the insensitivity of that to me? Does anyone think about the sensitivity of the million plus aborted babies every year? Does anyone think about the insensitivity of limiting my freedom to choose whether I should contribute to social security, or medicare, or this revolting Obamacare?

        Insensitivity? Maybe you need to grow up and stop crying prejudicve when issues don’t go your way. If that’s further proof of my insensitivity, then so be it. I guess I won’t be receiving a Christmas card from you. Should I start crying?

      • “You need to go back to school.” -AD

        I need to go back to school? Anyone that considers homosexuality normal needs to go back to common sense. Two penises don’t intersect. At most you’re 2-5% of the population. By definition that isn’t normal. There are more people with diabetes than are homosexuals. Is diabetes normal? Of course not.

        If you’re so sensitive that you can’t accept people with differring views, then stop debating and go crawl under a rock because your skin isn’t hard enough to face a debate. Yes taking half my pay check without my consent is insensitive to say the least., Who are you to decide what is and isn’t sensitive to me?

    • Manny, that very comment highlights your insensitivity. How would you feel if someone equated your marriage with tax policy?

      Whether you like it or not, this issue is about people, not policy. Real people, with real hearts, who want nothing more than to have our love and commitment recognized and protected in the same manner as any other marriage.

      My desire to marry the love of my life has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with love – I just need the government to stop standing in my way and stop blocking my constitutional right to do so.

      • Wow. Public policy does not involve people’s feelings?

        You need to go back to school.

        Taxes is a very poor analogy to make since everyone gets taxed albeit at different rates with the progressive taxing system. As a back-2-school exercise I would like you to write out where your other two analogies fail. Do note that you will be marked on your critical thinking skills and not spelling and grammar.

      • AD: good thing you don’t worry about grammar considering you fail to conjugate a simple verb correctly.

  4. Is it also absurd that my partner and I have been together for six years and are the proud parents of a beautiful baby boy? Is it absurd that we are a family in every sense of the word and that we simply want the same legal protections as any other family? Why is my family less sacred or less worthy than yours?

    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Jesus taught tolerance and kindness, not fear and hate.

    My family is not absurd – discriminating against someone simply for who they are is absurd. Same-sex marriage is not a “special” right, it is an equal right, pure and simple.

    (If you post this comment, kudos to you for being open minded and fair.)

    • When you claim that you “simply want the same legal protections of any other family,” I’m inclined not to believe you since those “same legal protections” are already afforded in California. It’s called civil union. Yet somehow that isn’t enough.

      • Mr. Nielson then questioned Dr. Meyer on the presumed link between social stigma and domestic partnerships. “Do you believe that domestic partnerships stigmatize gay and lesbian relationships?” asked Mr. Nielson.

        “Yes,” said Dr. Meyer.

        Mr. Nielson then pointed out that the bill granting rights to domestic partnerships in California was sponsored by Equality California, the lead organization that opposed Proposition 8. “Do you believe Equality California would sponsor a bill that stigmatized gays and lesbians?” asked Mr. Nielson.

        Allowing gays and lesbians to have domestic partnerships while ruling out the option of marriage made “a clear statement of stigmatization, with a dual system,” said Dr. Meyer. “You could say that the message is more severe: you can only get to the back of the bus.”

        The creation of a “separate but equal” status often visits stigma and insult on those who partake in it, and civil unions are no exception. . . Second, couples who entered into civil unions encountered practical difficulties stemming from the newness and the scattered out-of-state recognition of the status.

        http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090413.html

        The commission held three public hearings last year at which the majority of the testimony came from people who were in civil unions and said they were still not being treated the way married couples are by government agencies, employers and others. . . [It found] that gay couples in Massachusetts, the only state that now allows same-sex marriage, do not experience some of the legal complications that those in New Jersey do.

        http://www.sunjournal.com/node/99192

        Homosexuality has a history of being discriminated against. The distinction, and the supposed need for this distinction, created solely because of the couples’ orientation, engenders an inferiority complex. Surely you concede this? This was the same line of reasoning in Brown vs Board of Education.

        It is interesting to see all this talk about whether same sex couples can raise well adjusted children. Same sex couples can already adopt in California.

      • Thank you AD for your thorough and eloquent reply to this issue. No, pjMom, domestic partnerships/civil unions are not enough. Because “separate but equal” is not equal.

        I was recently deposed as a witness for a court case. The deposing attorney was attempting to discredit me as a witness, as my testimony was a slam dunk against his client. I’m an articulate, well-educated, gainfully employed, upstanding citizen and mom, with a squeaky clean All-American girl look, so he had his work cut out for him. So he pulled the gay card – in asking about my personal details, he commented, “Partner? As in business partner? Oh, domestic partner, but you’re just partners, right? It’s not like you’re married or anything, right?”

        Yes, clearly domestic partnership serves to stigmatize gay and lesbian couples and relegates us to second-class citizenry. Again, separate but equal is not equal.

        I’m not asking for anyone to “approve” of who I am or how I live my life, my self-esteem is just fine thank you. I’m just asking you to stop standing in the way of my civil rights.

      • While I’m sorry a jackass lawyer treated you as he did, that doesn’t change my opinion.

        As soon as the definition of marriage changes, nothing will stop it from changing further. So in the footsteps of the Dutch and the Swedes, polyamorous unions will also become “marriages” and the children of such unions–wait, is Johnny the product of A and B or A and D or, who cares! Give the state control of the children. Polyamorists acknowledge they’ve patterened their struggle for “equal rights” after the gay fight–a la the “coming out” of polyamorists in Newsweek.

      • So we’re supposed to sit quietly and accept second-class citizenry just because you’re afraid of who else might step up and ask for equality? That’s not a very solid argument for withholding civil rights.

      • Marriage is not a civil right. And I find it worth noting that you have no problem with the idea of ten people “marrying” each other. Because that’s their “right,” right? What about a tree? What about minors? Hell, let the cousins marry–as long as they’re gay.

      • It’s also worth noting that you made that assumption when I made no mention of my feelings about polyamory one way or the other. And cousins already enjoy the right to marry in twenty states…I don’t see anyone putting up ballot measures to take away those rights.

        And trees? Really? A tree is not a consenting adult, so again, this simply serves to highlight the truly hollow nature of your argument. The gay community is not arguing for the right to marry trees, nor for the right to marry ten people. Should we take away the rights for interracial marriage as well, since that may be what started us gays on this path in the first place…?

        A slippery slope indeed. One mom to another – I want my child to grow up knowing that his family is recognized and protected equally. And that no child and no family is any less important nor any less worthy of equality and respect than any other child or any other family.

        Don’t you want the same for your child?

      • Object fetishists have the right to marry in Europe, as can gays and multi-partnered “units.” So why not a tree if it violates someone’s civil rights?

        I know we’re not so different. We are both mothers. And wives, I guess. But I’m Catholic. And I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Not two men. Not five men and four women. And polyamory by definition is the antithesis of a “sacred union of love, respect, and companionship.”

        I have gay friends and friends whose parents are gay (well, out of the closet after the kids were adults). I have seen successful gay relationships, and like any person, am happy that people have found their “other halves.” And if government wants to confer the benefits of coupledom upon you–that’s fine. Maybe the government should get the business of marriage and make mine a civil union, too. I am married in the Church, and maybe that’s what counts in the end.

        I know that the tide will turn on this within two generations–and if the public at large decrees the death of society and structure and sense, then fine. I will have to accept that. But to have a judge do it by fiat? No. I understand your need to protect your child and to redefine what’s normal for his sake. But it makes me sad for my daughter, that she will grow up in such a topsy-turvy world. Because the gender-ambiguity-craziness (cis-gendered, now? Seriously? We need a word for cis-gendered?!) has reached a point of absurdity.

        SSM will lead to the end of marriage–the end of it meaning a damn thing. Not that it will persuade you by any stretch, but history bears lessons:

        “What does it mean when a movement wants simultaneously to formalize gay marriage, equate marriage with mere registered partnerships, equate registered partnerships with mere cohabitation, and then abolish marriage itself? It seems contradictory, but it all makes perfect sense once you realize that Sweden’s social liberals don’t support either gay marriage or registered partnerships out of any affection for marriage itself. On the contrary, Sweden’s social left is simply using gay marriage as a lever to achieve the abolition of marriage itself.

        This is not how things were supposed to turn out according to the “conservative case” for gay marriage. Registered partnerships should have decreased cultural radicalism. Instead they’ve merely whetted the left’s appetite for more radical reforms.

        Once again, Sweden is showing us a possible future. The idea that we can and should abolish marriage and recognize multi-partner unions has its advocates in America, though they may seem too few to be bothered with. We ought not, however, mistake their chances for long-term success. Those radical advocates recognize something that even the moderate proponents of gay marriage overlook or deny: gay marriage changes the way that young people see and understand their social world. The slope from gay marriage to polyamory and ultimately to no marriage is not slippery by accident, but by design.

    • Again, I made no mention of my feelings on polyamory and I’m not fighting for the right to marry anyone but the one love of my life. For myself and my partner, and many friends in the same boat, the quote you cited is the antithesis of what we so desperately want for our families. We want our relationships recognized for the sacred unions that they are – and for them to be legally protected, on both a state and federal level, just like any other marriage. We are tired of the relegation to mere “partnerships” and “cohabitation.” We have made a life together, we brought a child into the world together, and we want him to grow up in a world that celebrates love and commitment without judgment.

      My partner and I are two people who are incredibly committed to each other, and who share enormous love for each other and our child. No different than you and your husband.

      To your statement that “gay marriage changes the way that young people see and understand their social world.” Your right, it does. It allows straight young people to learn that the world naturally thrives through diversity and that all love is beautiful and sacred. And it allows gay young people to see that they are not alone by providing crucial role models of happily married gay and lesbian couples.

      We are all God’s children. We are all exactly who God intended us to be. We are all beautiful. This is what I want my child to know, for all children to know, through this journey.

      Have you ever considered the fact that your own child may be gay? Would you consider her “abnormal” if she is? I was born to and raised by very straight parents. This is just who I am. Thank goodness I have never been made to feel less worthy of love and respect by my family and friends just for being who I am.

      I sincerely appreciate your openness and frankness in our exchanges, and I really value hearing your perspective. It’s much easier to sympathize with someone or with a group through calm conversation, versus the hateful protests I have encountered with people screaming that I am going to burn in hell for who I am.

      Bottom line, I just want equality. Neither I, nor my partner, nor any other gay couples we know, have ever entertained the idea of “forcing” a church to marry us. I agree that civil unions for everyone may be the best answer, and then individual churches could decide who they would and would not marry. We would go where we were accepted as equals, period.

      So, to come full circle – my marriage to another woman does not have to threaten your faith or your belief in what marriage is. This is America, you are free to think and believe whatever you want to. I just want the same freedom – and for me, marriage is a sacred union of two people who love, honor, and respect each other and who commit to each other for life. I look forward to the day when my country will recognize and celebrate my relationship for what it is, a strong and beautiful marriage, and to the day when it is as commonplace and accepted as interracial marriage.

      Thank you for listening and for talking openly.

      • Re: pjMom, on August 6, 2010 at 23:58

        So now we’re at the heart of the issue, aren’t we? Initially you felt that you weren’t sure that same sex couples may not be able to raise comparably adjusted children. Now it is lessened to the familiar slippery slope of leading to incestuous/polygamous marriages.

        Since 1888 SCOTUS has decided and made it clear (14 times) that the right to marry is a fundamental right. Marriage is, according to the SCOTUS, the most fundamental and important relationship in one’s life. The SCOTUS has further said that that choice of who you wish to marry is a part of liberty, privacy, association, and spirituality that is guaranteed to each person under the Constitution.

        Now, consider Lawrence V Texas, the ruling that it was unconstitutional for Texas to have an anti-sodomy law that was only applicable to homosexual men. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, said that consenting adults have the right to have sex based on how intimate and personal the conduct was to those involved, disregarding the conduct that is protected by society, conducted by married people, or for procreation. Scalia dissented because there becomes no Constitutional bedding to hold laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity.

        “If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘the liberty protected by the Constitution’? ”

        This is where Walker takes his cue.

        Summing up, it is unconstitutional to deny someone the right to choose who they marry (according to SCOTUS). But the definition of marriage remains a fickle issue. Sure, every gay has the right to marry anyone they want to – they just have to be the opposite sex. Is it unconstitutional to have a definition of marriage that specifically excludes one group of people which affords no discernible benefits? Walker said yes. Let’s be clear, marriage is a civil right for everyone. Not debatable. The definition of marriage is what is at heart here.

        “But it makes me sad for my daughter, that she will grow up in such a topsy-turvy world. Because the gender-ambiguity-craziness (cis-gendered, now? Seriously? We need a word for cis-gendered?!) has reached a point of absurdity.”

        This just screams intolerance. Wouldn’t the world just be a better place if girls were girls and boys were boys? My poor daughter. She would do so much better if she was protected from all of this.

        Your quote on polygamy is a good one. One wonders where you got it from. As you said, we have Sweden to look to. If it shows that it is to society’s detriment, then anti-polygamy laws will remain constitutional.

        Besides, you could always get Congress to put in a constitutional amendment that says marriage is between two humans. All your problems are solved and anything left is just pure intolerance.

      • Polygamy and polyamory are different. Suffixes and all.

        (And yes, the world would be a better place if girls were girls and boys were boys. )

        Since you confuse the right to marriage with a desire for marriage, here’s a good one for you:

        “If a man has a ‘right’ to marry, some woman must have the duty of marrying him; if a man has a ‘right’ to rest, some other person must have the duty of supporting him. If rights are confused thus with desires, the mass of men must feel always that some vast, intangible conspiracy thwarts their attainment of what they are told is their inalienable birthright.”

        — Russell Kirk

      • I apologize for not figuring out how to reply to specific posts directly.

        Your distinction does not matter and is irrelevant. For one thing, polyamory is not illegal nor is it a societal norm. It is indeed a slippery slope to tie in SSM with an increase in polyamorous relationships let alone those which beget children.

        Since you are so keen to point out my misunderstandings I will be delighted to point out yours. Kirk is making the case that the right to marry is not a NATURAL right (he calls them ‘true rights’ but that terminology is not common today). NATURAL rights, of course, do not depend on any particular laws, customs, or beliefs. These are your so called unalienable rights. Kirk says that there are two important conditions that must be met for a right to be a natural right and marriage fails on both counts.

        So heterosexual marriage is not a natural right (in Kirk’s myopic view) and by extension so is SSM. At the very least marriage is a civil right as I have said before. The issue at hand is whether the definition excluding homosexuals is unconstitutional. You have not presented any arguments making specific and concise points in support of yourself without reverting to your ‘feelings’.

      • The distinction doesn’t matter and is irrelevant?

        First, I find it laughable that you question my logic when state-sanctioned polyamory is not legal. Just like gay marriage. Neither is legal. Neither is a societal norm.

  5. I hope they hear it in the next term. They absolutely need to straighten this out and slap that judge. Unfortunately I’m not sure how they will rule. At best it will be a 5-4 decision and who knows if Kennedy will go with the conservatives. This whole gay marriage thing is absurd. Unfortunately I do think it will pass one day. The Libs will never stop until it’s law.

    • Those who oppose gay citizens being allowed to marry have no medical, psychiatric psychological or any other scientific evidence that backs up their claims. All independent studies confirm children raised by gays and lesbians are as well-adjusted in life as those raised by straight couples.
      That is why the judge ruled as he did. He had to.
      For the Supreme Court the choice will be to either support one’s own personal views from conservative religion and traditions or to accept that every science-based medical and psychological group in the word has acknowledged that some human beings have a lifelong attraction to members of their own gender, that they are not any more likely to molest than heterosexuals are, that they can parent as well as any other parent.

      • Maybe it’s just me, but after Climategate, I’m inclined not to believe “scientific evidence” that purports to be objective when there hasn’t been enough time to study the long-term effects of children raised in same-sex homes. Further, myriad studies have shown the drastic difference in children’s lives sans a father figure. If that’s the case, then what happens to a young boy with two mommies?

      • “Those who oppose gay citizens being allowed to marry have no medical, psychiatric psychological or any other scientific evidence that backs up their claims.”

        No, just common sense. Two penises don’t intersect based on the geometry.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: