Arguments Begin In the Supreme Court in the Ultimate Gay Marriage Case

The issue before the court is whether states even have the right to define marriage as "one man, one woman" at all.

If they decide "no" on that question, gay marriage is the law of the entire country.

Notice that the question presented isn’t whether the Constitution recognizes a right to same-sex marriage, per se. Instead, the question posed is whether there is a right to marriage between two people. And if marriage is defined as a union between two people, it is a foregone conclusion that the Court will conclude that it should be permitted between two people of the same gender. The counter-argument is that "marriage" isn't just a union of "two people," but inherently and necessarily a union of "one man and one woman."

On FoxNews, they reported that Anthony Kennedy, a big-time Swinger, had just made this statement in oral arguments: "The definition of marriage has been the same for millennia... it is hard to say, 'We know better.'"

That said, I think this big Swinger will wind up saying just that. This is just some rhetorical throat-clearing to show he's "really considered the issue."

More: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has of course already announced her vote.

Posted by: Ace at 10:55 AM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1
Don't confuce me with facts, my mind is already made up!

Posted by: Alexander The Mediocre at April 28, 2015 10:56 AM (755Id)

2 I'm going to marry my house, car, and clothes and claim them all as dependents.

Posted by: Insomniac at April 28, 2015 10:57 AM (mx5oN)

3 Next up, polygamy.

Posted by: brak at April 28, 2015 10:57 AM (Tj+s6)

4 I'm also going to marry my guns so any forensic evidence taken from them is inadmissible under spousal privilege.

Posted by: Insomniac at April 28, 2015 10:57 AM (mx5oN)

5 SC doesn't want to be labelled hatey haters.

Posted by: brak at April 28, 2015 10:57 AM (Tj+s6)

6 I feel like I have to say this preemptively... DAMN YOU DREAD JUSTICE ROBERTS!!!

Posted by: That Guy at April 28, 2015 10:58 AM (pS7Ne)

7 Anthony Kennedy, a big-time Swinger, had just made this statement in oral arguments

This is just some rhetorical throat-clearing to show he's "really considered the issue."

That's hot!

Posted by: Sandra Fluke at April 28, 2015 10:58 AM (BrQrN)

8 Lawyers need jobs, dammit! Law schools are churning out unemployable people that need to be able to work as gay divorce lawyers.

Posted by: Phil at April 28, 2015 10:59 AM (39FGM)

9 Kennedy will find a Constitutional "right" to "gay marriage".

He'll struggle because he knows intellectually that the argument is bogus but ultimately the appeal to his heart that the (supposed) "dignity" denied gay couples and their families by not getting state benefits will win.

Posted by: gwelf at April 28, 2015 10:59 AM (+7Usq)

10 Please stop calling Anthony Kennedy a "swinger". I don't need the image of him in a thong and gold chains, sipping jack and cokes.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 28, 2015 11:00 AM (OiH3z)

11 OT - Here's the video of that Mom wailing on her kid who was part of the protesters.. go Mom!

https://youtu.be/VRlmCf1Kj2o

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 28, 2015 11:00 AM (so+oy)

12 10 Please stop calling Anthony Kennedy a "swinger". I don't need the image of him in a thong and gold chains, sipping jack and cokes.
Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 28, 2015 11:00 AM (OiH3z)

One word: pornstache.

Posted by: Insomniac at April 28, 2015 11:00 AM (mx5oN)

13 You socons with your binary thinking! You are ruining America. There is absolutely no connection with the gay mafia, and lefty totalitarian mindset in general.

Posted by: Mr. Mau Mau at April 28, 2015 11:00 AM (gwDMH)

14 If they decide "no", doesn't that open the polygamy floodgates?

Posted by: Scott M at April 28, 2015 11:01 AM (AdBfq)

15 So no locally issued marriage licenses then? More Federal bureaucracy. Awesome. /s

Posted by: Y-not on the phone at April 28, 2015 11:01 AM (9BRsg)

16 Lawyers need jobs, dammit! Law schools are churning out unemployable
people that need to be able to work as gay divorce lawyers.

Those Double-Income No-Kids couples gots them lotsa disposable cash!

Posted by: Gay Divorce Lawyers at April 28, 2015 11:01 AM (BrQrN)

17 Justice Kennedy is a "swinger"? You don't say...

Posted by: Barney Fwank at April 28, 2015 11:01 AM (so+oy)

18 I'm also going to marry my guns so any forensic evidence taken from them is inadmissible under spousal privilege.Posted by: Insomniac at April 28, 2015 10:57 AM (mx5oN)Do you really think spousal privilege will still be honored? Expand marriage, especially to group marriages, and watch the argument appear that we can't have spousal privilege because it's too easy to abuse.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 28, 2015 11:01 AM (OiH3z)

19 If you believe that gays are mentally ill and require psychological validation and need to mimic heterosexuality to be genuine human beings...you might support gay marriage.

Posted by: AmishDude at April 28, 2015 11:01 AM (L2xDv)

20 No worries, peeps, I got this.

Posted by: John Tax Roberts, CJ at April 28, 2015 11:02 AM (hKyl0)

21 One word: pornstache. Posted by: Insomniac at April 28, 2015 11:00 AM (mx5oN)Brown chicken, brown cow.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 28, 2015 11:02 AM (OiH3z)

22 Saw a "study" where they said same sex couples are good or at least fine for the "Children." but polygamist Families are bad....

Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at April 28, 2015 11:02 AM (Bn6aD)

23 Nobody is stopping gays from marrying. A gay guy can marry any woman if they choose so, and a lesbian can marry a man. They're the ones that choose not to do so.

Easy squeezy.

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at April 28, 2015 11:03 AM (sH832)

24 Posted by: Gay Divorce Lawyers at April 28, 2015 11:01 AM (BrQrN

Lotsa disposable cash...and a lot of unstable relationships. *ka-ching*

They can set up subscription plans for the yearly to bi-yearly partner change.

Posted by: Phil at April 28, 2015 11:03 AM (39FGM)

25 Just more Kabuki Theatre. The Supremes could not care less what the Constitution says on the matter ... this is just another in a long line of pageantry designed to lend an air of legitimacy to this whimsical process.

Here's how shit really works here ... the entity willing to employ the most force makes the rules. The Fed cares much more than The States ... so Gay Marriage will be allowed.

Posted by: ScoggDog at April 28, 2015 11:03 AM (UZZHo)

26
Saw a "study" where they said same sex couples are good or at least fine for the "Children." but polygamist Families are bad....

And as soon as they win we'll start hearing about how wonderful having extra parents and all those siblings is for children.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 28, 2015 11:04 AM (OiH3z)

27 "The definition of marriage has been the same for millennia... it is hard to say, 'We know better.'"

But with enough lube and some mood music, Kennedy will do it.

Posted by: wooga at April 28, 2015 11:04 AM (Er2Gd)

28 I'm a big time SoCon and guy with kids who believes in traditional marriage and women and men being different and complementary and all that. But I could live with gay marriage if it weren't being shoved down my throat by my betters. You know that blog joke about not coming in your mouth? I resent the Supreme Court telling me that the Constitution decrees that nobody came in my mouth. That, uh, substance I'm feeling on my tongue is just my bigoted imagination.

I could live with gay marriage if it would stop there. Newsflash: it won't and hasn't.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecram at April 28, 2015 11:04 AM (ElEyp)

29 Next up, polygamy.

Posted by: brak at April 28, 2015 10:57 AM (Tj+s6)

Yeah given the nature of the law (as an enterprise, not a specific law) I'm not sure how you can say "we can't define the gender, but we can define the number."

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) rogue bioethicst at April 28, 2015 11:04 AM (HDwDg)

30 That's all well and good, but you know what the future is? Are you listening?

Plastics. There's a great future in plastics. Will you think 'pon it?

Posted by: Moo Moo, now with brains at April 28, 2015 11:04 AM (sCHw2)

31 Really isn't hard to say "the Constitution doesn't address this".

I know it kills these idiots in robes that they can't just make All Good Things mandatory and All Bad Things forbidden, but you can just leave it to the Republic to sort out.

We're actually smarter than the law school graduates on the bench. Even the rioters in Baltimore are.

Posted by: AmishDude at April 28, 2015 11:05 AM (L2xDv)

32 *checks name of poster*

*checks time*

*redoubles check on name of poster*

Mornin' Ace!

Since the three branches are all taking on the responsibilities of other branches now--executive branch doing legislation, judicial doing legislative, legislative doing executive since Obama wants to behave like a petulant child--I have no confidence for the supremes ruling in any manner that makes sense. Roberts kicked that trust out of me with Obamacare = tax. But we'll watch and see. The ruling in Kentucky surprised me.

To quote Young Frankenstein, aka Kennedy's mantra:

Destiny, destiny, no escaping that for me! Destiny, destiny, no escaping that for me!

Posted by: LizLem at April 28, 2015 11:05 AM (yRwC8)

33 No worries, Catholics. Soon you'll be forced to perform ghey marriages. First amendment and all that...

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at April 28, 2015 11:05 AM (gA69l)

34 Off-topic, but Drudge reports the Iranians have just fired upon andseized a US cargo ship with 34 sailors on board. Since I'm not a Navy guy, I'm not sure if 'cargo ship' means civilian merchant marine vessel in this context.

Don't know what the Iranians could possibly be thinking. Do they believe taking hostages is the key to every foreign policy problem, or what?

Posted by: troyriser at April 28, 2015 11:05 AM (S08gh)

35 OT...Iran Seizes US cargo ship with 34 sailors.
Drudge headline. Uh oh.

Posted by: dartist at April 28, 2015 11:05 AM (ahBY0)

36 Poof! went the thread.

Posted by: t-bird at April 28, 2015 11:06 AM (FcR7P)

37 I'm also going to marry my guns so any forensic evidence taken from them is inadmissible under spousal privilege.

That's fucking awesome.

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at April 28, 2015 11:07 AM (/kI1Q)

38 The interesting thing about the polygamy question is that whatever way it goes it reveals the truth about the "gay rights" movement.

If legalized polygamy doesn't follow then we all know that "marriage equality" is a complete lie. Polygamy is actually banned by the state (unlike gay relationships which are simply not formally recognized and granted benefits). All the same "equality" gospel applies to polygamists - the dignity of their families, who are you to say these people cannot love each other, equality before the law in accessing state "protections". All of it applies to polygamists. If you can't come up with a rational basis to conclude that straight relationships are different than gay ones then you can't construct a rational basis to exclude polygamy. I suspect this is what happens as judges throughout the land who previously found gay relationships fabulous will find polygamous ones icky and reproachful.

However, if polygamy is made legal and state recognition mandatory then the "gay rights" crowd will have been made into liars as they said this would never ever happen.

Posted by: gwelf at April 28, 2015 11:09 AM (+7Usq)

39 Don't worry; I'm sure the justices will find some penumbra to say marriage isn't just between a man and a woman, despite thousands of years of previous precedent.

Posted by: jim at April 28, 2015 11:12 AM (VwhRo)

40 What are the ramifications of this ruling in real terms?
Briefly reading yesterday, this ruling will likely send the matter back to a lower court (Michigan?), but where does it go from there? Does this then become a states-rights issue? If so, then the Feds can RRReally start ramping up the pressure to federalize it all.
Deja vu

Posted by: orange mule at April 28, 2015 11:12 AM (uXcD2)

41 How long until we reap the whirlwind?

Posted by: Barb the Evil Genius at April 28, 2015 11:17 AM (9Y7bY)

42
I'm marrying my dog.

Do.Not.Judge.Me.

H8ters.

Posted by: Bruce J. at April 28, 2015 12:12 PM (iQIUe)

43 Everyone knows how this is going to turn out. Why they're even bothering I don't know. The danger is that in their rush to find some way to force states to impose homosexual "marriage" on the voters who reject it, they'll mess something else up with catastrophic later consequences.

I don't mean the slippery slope polygamy etc line. That's inevitable. I mean creating some mythical "right" which people will seize to impose more ghastly evils on society to pander to a tiny sliver of a minority.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 28, 2015 12:12 PM (39g3+)

44 No worries, Catholics. Soon you'll be forced to perform ghey marriages. First amendment and all that...

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at April 28, 2015 11:05 AM (gA69l)

Which, as much as a certain Mr Malor might wish to deny it, has been the endgame all along.

And cringing lickspittles like Cardinal Dolan will host the first gay "marriage" in St. Patrick's Cathedral just to show how tolerant and inclusive he is.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at April 28, 2015 12:12 PM (zF6Iw)

45 At long last, my laptop and I can be united!

Posted by: joncelli at April 28, 2015 12:12 PM (RD7QR)

46 As one who can smell the ashes of Baltimore City, let me remind everyone that Martin Owe'Malley's number one legislative priority for his last year as guv was...drum roll....wait for it...gay marriage.

Working rather well for the city and state don't you think? Drudge should shut his pie hole on this douche being a reasonable candidate to challenge shrillery.

Posted by: Owe'Malleyisatool at April 28, 2015 12:12 PM (KBdOo)

47 Really isn't hard to say "the Constitution doesn't address this".

That's the obvious answer and its true, but they will pretend the 14th amendment does and impose homosexual "marriage" on all communities. But will they do it in such a way that expands the liability and legal threat to more areas? Will they decide in such a way that compels churches to perform these mockeries?

The 14th amendment is very poorly worded and is just now starting to creak open and let out the horrors within. Virtually no activity can be penalized by the state if you demand all be treated equally under law.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 28, 2015 12:14 PM (39g3+)

48 If marriage can be between two men or two women because they are consenting adults, then marriage can be allowed Incestuously if both are consenting adults. Hey, would the gay mafia be against to gay brothers marrying each other?

Posted by: jim at April 28, 2015 12:16 PM (VwhRo)

49 There's no compelling state interest for refusing incestual marriages. Only to their breeding - and that's easy enough to prevent. Its been well-established in culture and proven under law now that childbearing and marriage are totally separate issues. I should be able to marry my hot cousin.

Seriously, she's hot.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 28, 2015 12:17 PM (39g3+)

50 However, if polygamy is made legal and state recognition mandatory then the "gay rights" crowd will have been made into liars as they said this would never ever happen.
Posted by: gwelf at April 28, 2015 11:09 AM (+7Usq)Actually, plenty of gay marriage supporters have stated that they want polygamy legalized.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 28, 2015 12:17 PM (OiH3z)

51 #49

You can legally marry your cousin already in a number of states, including California.

Posted by: jim at April 28, 2015 12:20 PM (VwhRo)

52
No way are there 5 justices that will face the leftist mob, so it is over before it began.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 28, 2015 12:20 PM (ODxAs)

53 The question isn't if state have the right to define marriage. The question is do small groups of activists have the right to arbitrarily redefine words in self serving ways?

Posted by: Ruth "Mastur" Bader Ginsburg at April 28, 2015 12:20 PM (gwDMH)

54 Since the three branches are all taking on the responsibilities of other branches now--executive branch doing legislation, judicial doing legislative, legislative doing executive since Obama wants to behave like a petulant child--I have no confidence for the supremes ruling in any manner that makes sense. Roberts kicked that trust out of me with Obamacare = tax. But we'll watch and see. The ruling in Kentucky surprised me.

To quote Young Frankenstein, aka Kennedy's mantra:

Destiny, destiny, no escaping that for me! Destiny, destiny, no escaping that for me!

Posted by: LizLem at April 28, 2015 12:20 PM (yRwC8)

55 Actually, plenty of gay marriage supporters have stated that they want polygamy legalized.
Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 28, 2015 12:17 PM (OiH3z)

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

Not that I've seen. Not saying you're wrong but I simply have not seen this. All I've seen is the very rare libertarian legal scholar or whatever say it.

But 99.9999% of the time I've seen this debated whenever polygamy is brought up the pro-gay-marriage side says it's a non-sequitor and that of course "marriage equality" doesn't apply to those degenerate polygamists.

Maybe you've been paying attention to things I haven't.

Posted by: gwelf at April 28, 2015 12:21 PM (+7Usq)

56 I live for this kind of thread! Stop whining, socons! There is absolutely no connection between the lefts totalitarian mind set in general, and homo activists in particular.

Posted by: Mr. Shmoo Shmoo at April 28, 2015 12:22 PM (gwDMH)

57 >>> Working rather well for the city and state don't you think? Drudge should shut his pie hole on this douche being a reasonable candidate to challenge shrillery.

Reasonable + democrat? Bwahahaha!

Posted by: LizLem at April 28, 2015 12:22 PM (yRwC8)

58 You can legally marry your cousin already in a number of states, including California.

But not all states, its oppression, I tell you!!!

In all seriousness, geneticists and doctors have shown that even first cousins are separate enough for it to be safe for kids. But the point here is the government is preventing me from marrying someone in my family.

If I was somewhat crazy and wanted to really test these laws and the way culture is headed, I would marry my older brother. I live with him already, he provides for me largely because of my health, and it would be useful in terms of taxes and benefits. How can anyone say no to that, if homosexuals can "marry?" After all, we can't breed. If anyone refused to make us a cake, I'd sue!!!11!1!!

Seriously I'm surprised nobody has tried something like this yet.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 28, 2015 12:22 PM (39g3+)

59 There are plenty of TV shows attempting to normalize polygamy, like "Sister Wives."

Posted by: jim at April 28, 2015 12:24 PM (VwhRo)

60 I'll never accept gay marriage any more than I would if some crazy cult had a man with a bunch of women living with him and claimed they were his "wives."

But I will say I'll be glad to see this issue resolved and over. This is one of those dumb distractions that has been the obsession of Millenials over the last decade and has been a sort of "bread and circus" battle that has taken America's attention off of real issues.

If I was a Democrat, I would REALLY want the Supreme Court to back traditional marriage. I could easily see that issue alone putting Democrats back in power.

Posted by: McAdams at April 28, 2015 12:24 PM (IaFu0)

61 We've already seen the preview for this in the Scalia vs Kennedy in DOMA: Scalia excoriated Kennedy for claiming that animus motivated DOMA pointing out that DOMA was passed by a massive bipartisan majority in Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton. We're going to see the same thing here - Kennedy will let his heart convince his mind that government preferring straight marriages over gay marriages is ONLY motivated by animus.

Posted by: gwelf at April 28, 2015 12:25 PM (nyxv/)

62 The next president will win on the cultural wave of pro-homosexuality. The one who is the least opposed to homosexuals doing and getting whatever they want or in favor of punishing those who dare question or disagree wins. That's the wave.

Hillary is trying to ride it with her new rainbow logo.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 28, 2015 12:26 PM (39g3+)

63 Maybe you've been paying attention to things I haven't.
Posted by: gwelf at April 28, 2015 12:21 PM (+7Usq)NYTimes, Salon.com, Slate.com, etc.Most use a variation on following argument. "Gays aren't monogamous. Therefor, gay marriages can't be expected to be monogamous. Straights, then, should get over their expectation of fidelity and monogamy."

Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 28, 2015 12:26 PM (OiH3z)

64 If states have to issue marriage licenses to gay couples and each state has to recognize other state's marriage licences does this mean that concealed carry permits are also universally granted and applied?

Oh, of course not because the 14th amendment only applies when lefty grievance groups are targeted. Not tax payers. Not business owners. Not property owners. Not gun owners. Not anyone else among the millions of people who fit into the thousand and thousands of categories the government uses to treat citizens differently.

Posted by: gwelf at April 28, 2015 12:27 PM (+7Usq)

65 I don't know how it gets any clearer... The 10th Amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As far as I know, marriage is not defined, delegated or prohibited ANYWHERE in the Constitution, so this should be 100% a State-rights issue.

Personally, I'm against Gay marriage, but ultimately, if the majority of people in a given state want to legalize it, then great for them. I'll either deal with it or move to another State that better reflects my values.

The issue is the Federal Governments top-down dictate that all people everywhere must accept this behavior as normal, even celebrated, under the threat of force if you disagree. This is not freedom, and it runs directly contrary to the plain language of the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: Joshua at April 28, 2015 12:28 PM (AUZJW)

66 In all seriousness, geneticists and doctors have
shown that even first cousins are separate enough for it to be safe for
kids. But the point here is the government is preventing me from
marrying someone in my family.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor

The Courts have basically struck down the argument that marriage has anything to do with child rearing, so the argument against inbreeding goes out the window.

So if the Court was being consistent, it would basically have to allow any 2 individuals to marry, even brother and sister or Father and Son if we go down the path of gay marriage.

Personally, my only fix is the State should no longer be a part of marriages any more than it should be part of Baptisms.

Posted by: McAdams at April 28, 2015 12:28 PM (IaFu0)

67 #58

Ah, but marry in a state where marrying a cousin is legal, move to a state where it is not, and the marriage is still recognized. If not, then show unfairness, like the gays did. Rinse, repeat.

Posted by: jim at April 28, 2015 12:29 PM (VwhRo)

68 "uncharacteristically outspoken"

Oh yeah. Ginsburg is usually a wallflower, alright.

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at April 28, 2015 12:31 PM (W7SBW)

69 #68

I thought she normally slept through such proceeding...

Posted by: jim at April 28, 2015 12:33 PM (VwhRo)

70 Two dudes or dudettes on a wedding cake getting"married" is the equivalent of saying since the cat had kittens in the oven we must now call them biscuits.

Posted by: Old Guy at April 28, 2015 12:33 PM (hoeHY)

71 NYTimes, Salon.com, Slate.com, etc.Most use a
variation on following argument. "Gays aren't monogamous. Therefor, gay
marriages can't be expected to be monogamous. Straights, then, should
get over their expectation of fidelity and monogamy."

Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 28, 2015 12:26 PM (OiH3z)
-----------------------------------------So they basically admit that they don't want a gay marriage to be marriage? And they claim that gay marriages don't even meet the basic criteria for which marriage benefits are granted by the state? (e.g., long term coupling that will produce children and necessarily place the woman in an inferior economic situation as she devotes time and effort bearing and primarily rearing children)?
Because when they argue for gay marriage in the courts and in the wider media and culture they have made the exact opposite argument.

Posted by: gwelf at April 28, 2015 12:34 PM (Wy05x)

72 Just to remind everyone how this case ended up at the Supreme court.

Michigan has had a law in place for decades prohibiting unmarried couples from adopting children. Two lesbians (you are welcome to google their photos) get together and want to get married so that they can adopt the one lesbian's children, and therefore can access state benefits for the kids. They sued the state to allow them adopt, which they lost in court. Court judge told them they needed to sue the state to allow gay marriage, because that will then eliminate the roadblock to adoption.

So they started their lawfare, assisted by money from gay groups, to sue the state to allow gay marriage. They judge shopped (they were told by previous judge who to get their case in front of if possible because that judge was sympathetic to gays). They managed to somehow file in that selected judges court and said judge ruled the state's constitutional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman voted on by the electorate some years ago, was unconstitutional and overturned it.
Said judge came out a few days later and said his decision was based on his experience of having employed a lesbian law clerk who was not permitted by the state to adopt and he felt so sorry for her.
Ruling not based on law, etc. but on judges feelings.
State appealed and circuit judge stayed the overturning of state law.
But not before....several county clerks offices, including the one in Ann Arbor, opened on Saturday, in the evening, etc. immediately after the initial ruling to allow gays to get married IMMEDIATELY in Michigan. Something straight couples have never been able to do, nor have the clerks been opened to allow for gun permits, etc.
So where is the 14th amendment in this case?

Original lesbian couple got married during this special open arrangement. State AG has determined that those marriages were legal at the time, and are honored.

But couple is continuing to pursue this lawfare along with all the gaystapo groups.

The courts are as infested with idealogues like all the other institutions, as is exampled by this judge ruling on his feelings. And absolutely NOTHING has come of it in regards to him still sitting on the bench.

Posted by: Jen the original at April 28, 2015 12:34 PM (PfWwQ)

73 In all seriousness, geneticists and doctors have shown that even first cousins are separate enough for it to be safe for kids. But the point here is the government is preventing me from marrying someone in my family.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 28, 2015 12:22 PM (39g3+)Genetics has always been only one part of the argument against incest. Like polygamy, individual instances are probably not too threatening, but when you see it practiced on a wider scale, the effects are detrimental to society. Marriage among closely related kin over the course of several generations quickly reduces the gene pool, while encouraging insular attitudes and behaviors. Similarly, polygamy undermines social stability by setting wealthier men against younger men. Because an older man can continually add new and younger wives, he's continually in competition with younger poorer men looking to establish families. Hence the reason that you see so many teenaged boys expelled from polygamous families. When a woman takes multiple male partners, then the children produced often have much weaker bonds with their father's, who also have less incentive and social pressure to stay and support their families. Unfortunately there are certain behaviors that, while theoretically capable of working out, in reality are incompatible with a free society.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 28, 2015 12:34 PM (OiH3z)

74 On polygamy: it's legal in some parts of the world, especially Muslim countries. Could it be argued that disallow all of plural marriage is unfair to them if they come here? There's already a crack in the wall.

Posted by: jim at April 28, 2015 12:36 PM (VwhRo)

75 Colorado Alex, I'm not arguing for incest. I'm arguing that the same "logic" used by people for homosexual marriage necessarily allows incest as well and that their objections have no strength.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 28, 2015 12:36 PM (39g3+)

76 So they basically admit that they don't want a gay marriage to be marriage? And they claim that gay marriages don't even meet the basic criteria for which marriage benefits are granted by the state? (e.g., long term coupling that will produce children and necessarily place the woman in an inferior economic situation as she devotes time and effort bearing and primarily rearing children)?
Because when they argue for gay marriage in the courts and in the wider media and culture they have made the exact opposite argument.
Posted by: gwelf at April 28, 2015 12:34 PM (Wy05x)Pretty much. Remember, that gay marriage is a relatively new thing, because for damn near a century the progressive movement has sought to undermine family life and replace it with the state. The Free Love movement was basically a communist plot.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 28, 2015 12:37 PM (OiH3z)

77 My three dogs will make excellent tax deductions once I incorporate them into my marriage.

Don't you dare judge me.

Posted by: Jaws at April 28, 2015 12:38 PM (WKNX4)

78 Christopher, I know. I was just pointing out that the genetic argument is only one part of the argument against incest.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 28, 2015 12:38 PM (OiH3z)

79 20 years ago we said, "gay marriage? Naw, won't happen." Now today we are saying, " incestuous any polygamous marriage, I hope it won't happen."

Posted by: jim at April 28, 2015 12:40 PM (VwhRo)

80 And civilization continues its downward slide.

Great job, Progressives.

Posted by: Null at April 28, 2015 12:42 PM (xjpRj)

81 Meet the new Master Race.

Don't forget to avert your eyes, h8r.

Posted by: AsparagusTutemeExInfernis at April 28, 2015 12:42 PM (vmqBI)

82 Pretty much. Remember, that gay marriage is a
relatively new thing, because for damn near a century the progressive
movement has sought to undermine family life and replace it with the
state. The Free Love movement was basically a communist plot.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 28, 2015 12:37 PM (OiH3z)

-----------------------------------
Yeah, I find that irony amusing.For 60 years the left has attacked marriage and the family as oppressive, bourgeois, sexist, etc but 5 minutes ago they decided that gay marriage is sacred and that marriage can in this context must be spoken of as essential for human flourishing.It also puts modern day gay marriage agitators at odds with their precursors in the 70's and 80's who hated marriage and liked the "unique" gay identity and gay community and culture.

Posted by: gwelf at April 28, 2015 12:42 PM (nyxv/)

83 3
Next up, polygamy.

No, the next step will be legalized pedophilia.

Posted by: Null at April 28, 2015 12:43 PM (xjpRj)

84 Those Double-Income No-Kids couples gots them lotsa disposable cash!
Posted by: Gay Divorce Lawyers at April 28, 2015 11:01 AM

Jackpot, baby!

Posted by: Cordell & Cordell at April 28, 2015 12:43 PM (h4vJk)

85 However, if polygamy is made legal and state recognition mandatory then the "gay rights" crowd will have been made into liars as they said this would never ever happen.

They're already liars. They've been lying for decades.

We need to stop treating them as if they haven't already broken trust continuously and repeatedly.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at April 28, 2015 12:44 PM (+2//H)

86 No, the next step will be legalized pedophilia.
Posted by: Null at April 28, 2015 12:43 PM (xjpRj)It's not necessarily either/or.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 28, 2015 12:45 PM (OiH3z)

87 #83

legalized Pedophilia requires a larger wall to get over, namely age of consent, although that's been chipped at as well.

Posted by: jim at April 28, 2015 12:45 PM (VwhRo)

88
\legalized Pedophilia requires a larger wall to get over, namely age of consent, although that's been chipped at as well.

i'll say,15 year old girls can have abortions without parental consent

Posted by: kj at April 28, 2015 12:47 PM (lKyWE)

89 83
3

Next up, polygamy.

No, the next step will be legalized pedophilia.

Posted by: Null at April 28, 2015 12:43 PM (xjpRj)

----------------------------------------
I think that what's coming next is even more attacks on the religious in civic life and churches.The fascism of ruining people who refuse to "serve" gay marriages will spread. We'll see pushes to remove tax-exempt status from churches who will refuse to perform gay marriages ("Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment!")

Posted by: gwelf at April 28, 2015 12:48 PM (nyxv/)

90 i'll say,15 year old girls can have abortions without parental consent
Posted by: kj at April 28, 2015 12:47 PM (lKyWE)

And they can buy morning after pills at the drug store without parental consent, but they cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse.

Posted by: Jen the original at April 28, 2015 12:50 PM (PfWwQ)

91 Age of consent is just a legal structure as long as as a culture we pretend there is no overarching, absolute, objective moral standard or arbitrating force.

The cultural pressure is already there and building to reduce the age of consent, and the sexualization of little girls is increasing.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 28, 2015 12:50 PM (39g3+)

92 #89

Yes, but the attack on churches will be done selectively, e.g. against Christians and not against Muslims.

Posted by: jim at April 28, 2015 12:50 PM (VwhRo)

93 legalized Pedophilia requires a larger wall to get over, namely age of consent, although that's been chipped at as well.Posted by: jim at April 28, 2015 12:45 PM (VwhRo)Look at the way teacher-student sex is treated. The progressives and libertarians have already started the "it was consentual" arguments.The left in Europe was much more aggresive pushing for the sexualization of children. They've tried to argue for age of consent as young as seven or eight years old!

Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 28, 2015 12:50 PM (OiH3z)

94 There are plenty of TV shows attempting to normalize polygamy, like "Sister Wives."

Posted by: jim

I don't think those shows are an attempt at normalization so much as a "look at the weirdos" freak show.

Posted by: bonhomme at April 28, 2015 12:51 PM (jhqr1)

95
They're already liars. They've been lying for decades.

We need to stop treating them as if they haven't already broken trust continuously and repeatedly.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at April 28, 2015 12:44 PM (+2//H)

---------------------------------------------
Good point.That's why in my state - Utah - the lauded "compromise" between the LDS church and the gay activists won't last.While many if not most gay people are not that into agitating and suing others, too many are and the activists will bully the others to participate. Just like any other identity group the left gloms onto you only belong to the group if you have proper groupthink.

Posted by: gwelf at April 28, 2015 12:52 PM (+7Usq)

96 I've seen people ask why anybody can't just enter into any sort of partnership. Like in Christopher's example above, even if he won't do it, there are people who would enter a partnership with a family member to get them health benefits, for example.

Posted by: Barb the Evil Genius at April 28, 2015 12:52 PM (9Y7bY)

97
I don't think those shows are an attempt at normalization so much as a "look at the weirdos" freak show.
Posted by: bonhomme at April 28, 2015 12:51 PM (jhqr1)Some are, but some are very obviously an attempt to sympathetically portray those "families". Also, it gives a microphone to polygamy supporters to say, "look at us, we're normal just like you!"

Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 28, 2015 12:53 PM (OiH3z)

98 #94

The shows, what little I've watched, try to show polygamous families as having some of the same problems that monogamous families have, as well as showing their struggles against persecution and bias. Sounds like normalization to me.

Posted by: jim at April 28, 2015 12:54 PM (VwhRo)

99 The cultural pressure is already there and building to reduce the age of consent, and the sexualization of little girls is increasing.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 28, 2015 12:50 PM (39g3+)

Aided by teaching kindergarten student about transgenders, the girl scouts supporting planned parenthood and having abortion outreach as part of their educational matierials, the boy scouts being marginalized until they gave in to allowing openly gay members and leaders. Schools teaching PC all during the 8 hours your kid is there, and online when they leave.
Psychiatrists encouraging parents of 6 year old girls to allow them to claim to be boys and to begin the hormonal therapy to get them to growing beards.

Posted by: Jen the original at April 28, 2015 12:54 PM (PfWwQ)

100 This is a State issue. The Fed has no authority over marriage at all. The States need to tell the Supremes to ESAD.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 28, 2015 12:55 PM (wlDny)

101 I suppose so CA. I think I'm looking at the friction between the producers of Duck Dynasty and the Robertsons. The producers clearly want to make a "look at the hill-trash!" show, and have chafed at the loyal fans who love them for who they are.

Posted by: bonhomme at April 28, 2015 12:58 PM (jhqr1)

102 On polygamy: it's legal in some parts of the world, especially Muslim countries. Could it be argued that disallow all of plural marriage is unfair to them if they come here? There's already a crack in the wall.
Posted by: jim at April 28, 2015 12:36 PM (VwhRo)

I believe the UK already gives welfare benefits to multiple wives.

And U.S. immigration law does not allow a husband to immigrate with more than one wife. He has to divorce and choose which one he'll bring. Imagine the chain migration that would occur once that restriction is removed.

Posted by: Mainah at April 28, 2015 12:59 PM (659DL)

103 This is a State issue. The Fed has no authority over marriage at all. The States need to tell the Supremes to ESAD.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at April 28, 2015 12:55 PM (wlDny)

Agree, Vic, but the Feds have the 14th amendment that they will use to justify this.
Until this country comes completely apart or an article V convention is held, the Feds will continue to bludgeon everyone with "equal treatment under the law", regardless of how nonsensical that 'equal " treatment is.

Posted by: Jen the original at April 28, 2015 01:00 PM (PfWwQ)

104 Bonhomme, remember that the producers are libs. They hate Christians and southerners. They love "alternative lifestyles".

Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 28, 2015 01:00 PM (OiH3z)

105 I believe the UK already gives welfare benefits to multiple wives.

The policy is supposed to only apply to people who immigrate to the UK with already married multiple wives but in practice its more broad. Part of the retarded NuLabor multi-culti platform.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 28, 2015 01:01 PM (39g3+)

106 This country desperately needs to get the 14th amendment reworded or deleted. Its heart was in the right place but its so poorly and broadly worded as to be incredibly destructive.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 28, 2015 01:02 PM (39g3+)

107 The policy is supposed to only apply to people who immigrate to the UK with already married multiple wives but in practice its more broad. Part of the retarded NuLabor multi-culti platform.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 28, 2015 01:01 PM (39g3+)

Lemme guess, it was sold as not being a big deal because it's limited to immigrants already married, but given the levels of immigration to the U.K......

Posted by: Mainah at April 28, 2015 01:06 PM (659DL)

108 Sure, but they love only a particular subset of alternative lifestyles. Look at "My Cat From Hell" for example. The families are always lesbians, or Wiccans, or spiritualists, or white people who found Buddhism while on a pilgrimage to Tibet.

Posted by: bonhomme at April 28, 2015 01:06 PM (jhqr1)

109 106.

It would be a lot easier to just get better judges appointed.

It really doesn't matter what the Constitution says if you have left wing activists interpreting it.

Hell, in California, their judges struck down a Constitutional Amendment because they didn't like it.

Posted by: McAdams at April 28, 2015 01:07 PM (IaFu0)

110 >It would be a lot easier to just get better judges appointed

Assuming there are better judges. Law schools aren't exactly teaching impartiality and duty to uphold the Constitution. Comes back to education again.

Posted by: kartoffel at April 28, 2015 01:13 PM (uEmgg)

111 Assuming there are better judges. Law schools aren't
exactly teaching impartiality and duty to uphold the Constitution.
Comes back to education again.

Posted by: kartoffel

There's enough to get the Courts that matter stacked, the problem is electing Presidents that will appoint them.

We're always going to get a few that wander off the reservation on some issues, but had Obama and Clinton "lost" their elections and didn't get those appointments, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It would be considered an absurd argument that gay marriage is a Constitutional right.

Posted by: McAdams at April 28, 2015 01:22 PM (IaFu0)

112 The real problem is that congressmen are being advised and steered by hard left radicals and they would do everything to stop any such appointments.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 28, 2015 01:51 PM (39g3+)

113 Anyone can define their marriage as whatever they see fit. But that doesn't mean the state has to recognize it for the purposes of benefits or enforcement, especially relationships that were not contemplated as "deserving" that benefit.

So if the state doesn't define "marriage" for the purposes of govt. recognition, who does? The individual, since its an individual right. Not even a couple, but a individual.

Defining marriage doesn't just mean the sexes involved (although that's a big element change). It means "defining marriage". All of its elements. Number of people, age, sex, number of marriages, genetic relation, etc., etc. The whole she-bang-a-bang.

So the state is now open to recognizing subjective definitions of marriage per each individual. Since I have a right to marriage, then I will define it however I see fit, and the royal "YOU" will have to protect it, enforce it and benefit it.

So guess what - say I married my wife and then married my brother (since "same sex marriage" will be legal). Not for sexual reasons, mind you, just for legal benefit. Does my bro also take a percentage under my survivor's benefits of my municipal pension plan when I kick off like my wife/spouse does? The Plan Administrators never considered that, but they might want to know that, along with any others invested in that plan.

Just one of the many exciting results of the subjectification of marriage. When any relation can be called a marriage because "I say so", then yes, marriages are devalued. There is no shared societal meaning. And no point to it. So no reason for govt. to even be involved in to. The subjectification of marriage is the elimination of marriage.

Posted by: Saltyron at April 28, 2015 01:59 PM (i6shs)

114 58 Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 28, 2015 12:22 PM (39g3+)
----

Who says "same sex marriage" has to involve sexual relations? Anyone that has been married any length of time will tell ya the two can be mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Saltyron at April 28, 2015 02:07 PM (i6shs)

115 87 Posted by: jim at April 28, 2015 12:45 PM (VwhRo)
------

Not if you classify ped0s under the "protected class" of "sexual orientation". How ever can you criminalize what someone is "born as" (no evidence required)? More unintended "legal fun" yet to come.

Posted by: Saltyron at April 28, 2015 02:14 PM (i6shs)

116 "The issue before the court is whether states even have the right to define marriage as 'one man, one woman'at all.

If they decide 'no' on that question, gay marriage is the law of the entire country."

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

Kinda like 42 years ago. Abortion became the law of the entire country because 7 of 9 men in black robes decided that states had no right to define a baby as a baby.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at April 28, 2015 02:32 PM (AcTdG)

117 #115:

Yes, that along with all other avenues of attack are being pursued, all in an attempt to normalize the abnormal and bless the profane. And the Overton Window moves again...

Posted by: jim at April 28, 2015 02:32 PM (VwhRo)

118 #116

But they saw a Penumbra in the Bill of Rights somewhere...

Posted by: jim at April 28, 2015 02:34 PM (VwhRo)

119 Justice Kennedy was "concerned" about the children of same sex couples. Common argument that marriage is needed for "their children."

Me? I'd like to see a same sex couple in which any particular child results from their biological union. Hasn't yet happened.

Posted by: gospace at April 28, 2015 03:01 PM (bg2bv)

120 #119

Gay males are a growing market for Third-World surrogacy women. In France, there is a huge movement against gay marriage for this very reason. Surrogacy is, essentially, human trafficking, and the whole focus of the movement is in terms of children's rights. Of course, we hear nothing about this in our media. But the French are actually way ahead of us on this, and I think we should take a page out of their book. The advocates for The Gheys claim to be all about "human rights" -- but the real victims of human rights abuses are children.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at April 28, 2015 03:14 PM (AcTdG)

121
....and desperately poor Third World women.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at April 28, 2015 03:15 PM (AcTdG)

122 For sure, Sugar Cakes, you sexy thing (do lose the bangles tho' ~wink, wink~).

To paraphrase the (who I think is a tittle over done at times but still cute as a button in his own way) Christopher Walken:

What this country needs is more Gaybell!

Posted by: The Ghost of a Liberace Escort at April 28, 2015 03:15 PM (g1MTt)

123 at #47:
"The 14th amendment is very poorly worded and is just now starting to creak open and let out the horrors within. Virtually no activity can be penalized by the state if you demand all be treated equally under law."

Why not demand that CHILDREN be treated equally under the law? That they have a right to a biological father and mother (as opposed to their mother being some poor woman in India that they'll never meet)?

Even more radical (meaning more common-sense): Why not demand that babies still in the womb should be treated equally as babies out of the womb? (I've been saying this for 42 years....)

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at April 28, 2015 03:18 PM (AcTdG)

124 at #53:
The question isn't if state have the right to define marriage. The question is do small groups of activists have the right to arbitrarily redefine words in self serving ways?

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

THREAD WINNER.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at April 28, 2015 03:20 PM (AcTdG)

125 Why limit it to "two" people?
Why limit it to "people" at all?
What about that poor man on TLC with his five wives? Why should he be victimized by an intolerant society saying he can only have one?
What about someone who wants to marry their goat? They are victims, too.
BIGOTSSSSSS!

/sarc

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at April 28, 2015 06:47 PM (rldyO)

126 I have it on good authority that Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has the world's only complete collection of "Screw" magazine.

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at April 28, 2015 08:34 PM (QRz0C)

127 In conjunction with their heroic stand on what just what constitutes a tax, the Supreme Court is just a few days of becoming the latest governmental body to "evolve" into outright Fascism. Washington is the enemy. Separate....or die.

Posted by: Erik in Teaxas at April 28, 2015 08:48 PM (kE9Wc)

Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0247 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0091 seconds, 136 records returned.
Page size 89 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.