5 states doesn't amount to sweeping the nation

how about the 25+ states that have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman?

The egg is unbroken. Gays can marry!

This is gay.

I don't have a view one way or another on gay marriage, but I really can't believe you went to Harvard Law School with statements like these:

"isn't California's Proposition 8 starting to look suspiciously like the Dred Scott decision?"

Are you really comparing a referendum at the polls to a judicial decision?

"The defeat at the polls seems to have electrified the pro-gay rights movement"

Given that the 3 judicial decisions upholding gay marriage were all brought well before Prop 8 was voted on, how does the "defeat at the polls" have anything to do with those outcomes? (The only one that might have any connection is the legislative decision in Vermont, which is widely known as perhaps the most liberal state in the nation and likely was not affected in the least by the Prop 8 vote.)

Jesus, you made some silly statements.

This is why New England is the place to be. 8% of the nation... 50% of New England... or 67% if you count Rhode Island recognizing same sex marriages.

Uhh, except the Dred Scott decision was an act of the judicial branch and prop. 8 was a referendum. . . Kinda apples and oranges there, no?

Gay as Easter.

*strives to become the first divorce lawyer exclusively for gays...writes law review article on who gets to keep the leather assless chaps*

-nervous T-10 1L
soon to be nervous 1L sa

Wow, Mystical.

That's really, really bad. Judicial legislation isn't the same as, well, democratic legislation.

...and gay marriage gets votepwned wherever it comes up. We know what your politics are. Most of us agree with them.

Still no excuse to be a moron.

All your gays are belong to Mass.

In all honest - Just live and let live !

As a great Canadian Prime Minster once said: " "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."

In all honest - Just live and let live !

As a great Canadian Prime Minster once said: "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."

Is Elie the dumbest human being on the planet? Every time he writes it devalues my HLS degree. He possesses all of the intellectual lazieness of a Yalie coupled with the grievance-mongering of a Boalt Hall retard.

[Fuck - third time's a charm!]

In all honesty - Just live and let live !

As a great Canadian Prime Minster once said: "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."

"Federalist paper #10 is in the house."

Da-waaa?

Federalist #10 argues that a republican federal government is beneficial because it will control the deleterious effects of factions.

Please explain how in the world this in any way supports whatever argument you are trying to make.

Seriously, I want to know. I'm just confounded. Anyone out there have any ideas?

I see no reason why gays should not be allowed to be as miserable as the heteros.

Marriage is for suckers.

Signed,
One of the suckers

The Dred Scott decision galvanized the anti-slavery movement. Not just among true believers, but among people who before Dred Scott hadn't really paid attention or thought deeply about slavery. A basic understanding of antebellum history reveals this clear fact.

It's still way too early to know how history will view Prop 8. But instead of being viewed as a severe blow to the pro-gay marriage movement, it could be the event (or one of the events) the electrifies the marriage movement. Ordinary people, who before could remain non-committal on the issue are kind of being forced to choose a side.

In that way, the two events could be similar.
--Elie

This is great.

I'm glad a legislature had the foresight to do this democratically.

Now if only we could stop judges everywhere from doing this from the bench...

18 - Oh, I see. You're very smart, but your mind works in odd or at least non-conventional ways.

Elie is not a great writer. But he is clearly a decent human being, which is much more than can be said for most of you miserable fucks. This is also probably one of the reasons he didn't make it as a lawyer.

Ordinary people don't give a rats ass what gays do, as long as they keep putting on girl-on-girl stripper shows and releasing new fashion trends each year.

Yankee fans have known for a while that everyone in New England is gay.

F*** the Red Sox!

I'm pretty sure what Elie was getting at was that through the lens of history Prop. 8 will be viewed as every bit as bigoted and narrow minded as the Dred Scott decision. Sure, one form of bigotry was created through judicial fiat and the other through constitutional amendment, but both will likely go down in history as creating state-approved bigotry and history will condemn both accordingly. The processes through which the state-approved bigotries were created were different, but the outcome is the same—irrational discrimination that the annals of history will condemn.

Yay for the gays! I have no idea why I moved out of New England. What was I thinking?

-- Lawyer gay

It's unlikely that history will condemn Prop 8 in the same manner that we condemn Dred Scot. The infamous opinion held that a slave was property. This is not true. The proposition posited that marriage is limited by nature to a man and a woman. This is true.

It is more likely that history will view the "gay marriage" movement in a similar manner as we view the ancient Romans for their vomitoriums and orgies: excess writ large.

Actually, Elie, Goodridge was much closer to Dred Scott: i.e., judges usurping legislative power to pervert the meaning of the constitution to invent a new "right" never democratically consented to by the people. Your equation of mandatory state recognition of what's effectively sodomy with the evils of slavery shows just how intellectually bankrupt the pro-gay marriage movement is. There is no cogent or underlying principle other than an obsession with cramming homosexuality down the throats of the rest of society and shouting down opponents as bigots.

And by the way, why the hell is this crap on a blog devoted to the legal profession. People come here to read about developments in law firms, etc., not to be exposed to your asinine theories of law and social morality.

Gays are the new Slaves.

I'm saying hi to your mother.

10,

I don't think you can say gay marriage gets "votepwned" wherever it comes up anymore. Vermont legalized gay marriage by VOTE of the legislature.

Shearman's not paying a deferral stipend for those not taking the 1 year deferral.

19- Even the governator wanted to sign the gay marriage bill in CA (both times it passed the legislature mind you) but was held up from the uber conservative lobbyists that run Sacramento. Wonder why he hasn't spoken out about it? Why he didn't throw fit when the AG decided to not support the prop?

It only takes a small group to keep a bad law on the books. And that applies to bad liberal and conservative laws.

Lastly, Ellie, come on. I disagree with Prop H8 as well, but comparing it to Dred Scott? Bad form.

VREMONT ROCKS! Those legislators realize that gay marriage did not kill the dinosaurs, and that if you don't like gay marriage, don't get one and shut the &^%$ up!

Wait. I'm confused. Does this mean I can or cannot pound some dude in the ass on a chairlift at Killington?

Elie, I'm with 16. Please explain before I post this to my FB page.

"Why the hell is this crap on a blog devoted to the legal profession"

"[People do not come here to be exposed to] your asinine theories of law".

Yes, how dare you talk about your theories of law on your own blog. And how dare you do it on your own blog on the legal profession.

Comment removed by moderator.

I thought it was obvious that Mystal meant the two were alike only with respect to the the stupidity of their respective legacies, not the mechanics by which each came to pass. Are you nerds so steeped in process and procedure that you can't grasp that analogy?

Lawyers who oppose gay rights are funny....
Way to go whatever law school 27 went to on turning out such a finely refined legal mind

From a con law perspective -- which, judging from Elie's puzzling post and implausible explanatory comment, obviously is not where he is coming from -- Prop 8 is actually far more analogous to the Fourteenth Amendment than the Dred Scott decision.

Dred Scott was a judicial decision that caused a great deal of controversy and was criticized by many for reading into the Constitution what many thought was not there. Subsequently, the Constitution was modified by the Fourteenth Amendment to explicitly say the opposite of what the Dred Scott decision said.

In California, the In re Marriage Cases caused a great deal of controversy and were criticized by many for reading into the Constitution what many thought was not there. Subsequently, the California Constitution was modified by Proposition 8 to explicitly say the opposite of what the In re Marriage Cases said.

Elie's post-hoc "explanation" of his statement was best captured by comment 20.

"Your equation of mandatory state recognition of what's effectively sodomy "

The state already recognizes sodomy. It is called marriage. Sodomy is oral or anal copulation. And, I have never met a married couple deny both of the two. And, as USSC has noted, "marriage is a fundamental right." You should get off your high moral horse and be honest. Gays did not come up with sodomy.

Vermonter here.

Prop 8 had much to do with the level of energy behind this legislative action. We deeply felt the pain of Prop 8 and we determined that now was the time for Vermont to retake a leadership position on the equal rights for all people. Elie is not so off in his comparison - LGBT people were shocked and hurt by the prop 8 vote in CA and we WILL keep fighting until we are NO LONGER TREATED AS SECOND CLASS CITIZENS IN THIS NATION.

DOMA is currently being challenged in federal district court in Massachusetts. When that law is found to be unconstitutional, the floodgates will open and states will be required to recognize marriages from other states, regardless of the gender of the couple.

Federalist #10 in the house = Publius for Editor in Chief!

I would like #33's question to be answered as I frequent Killington often an would like to know if I will (hopefully never) see such a thing.

Rod Pampers

Good for Vermont for doing it in the legislature and not the courtroom.

Hard to argue with a majority vote by elected representatives.

Iowa, this is how it's done.

My favorite part of this entire debate (other than the great outcome) was the judiciary committee's refusal to let non-Vermonters testify at the hearings. While there's plenty of homophobia here, there's nothing Vermonters hate worse than holier-than-thou interlopers with their own agendas telling us what to do. California should learn from our example.

33 - it's called Lawrence v. Texas, pound away.

My favorite part of this entire debate (other than the great outcome) was the judiciary committee's refusal to let non-Vermonters testify at the hearings. While there's plenty of homophobia here, there's nothing Vermonters hate worse than holier-than-thou interlopers with their own agendas telling us what to do. California should learn from our example.

What should I have for lunch today?

27--are you so f*cking moronic that you can actually say without your head instantly exploding that gay marriage is "effectively sodomy"? That is has nothing to do with love? While I'm sure for the hilarity of it, you might agree that heterosexual marriage was "effectively vaginal intercourse," you otherwise would probably not make that statement (plus, you'd be wrong, as marriage is effectively the death of vaginal intercourse by most counts).

In any event, if you do in fact believe gay marriage is about nothing more than sodomy, it is you who have revealed how truly "intellectually bankrupt"--or at least unimaginative--the anti-gay marriage movement is.

Also, good word choice on your part:

"cramming homosexuality down the throats..."

NO HOMO?

32 -

How do you know that gay marriage didn't kill the dinosaurs? And your theory that people who don't approve of gay marriage should simply not get a gay marriage is simply stupid. "If you don't like states banning gay marriage, you should move to Europe." Please...

Are you people really so stupid that you couldn't see the connection Elie was making between Dred Scott and prop 8 without him explaining it, or are you just so used to criticizing him that you do it reflexively?

To those of you complaining about the subject matter, here's a thought - if you don't like what ATL posts, find another blog to troll, or better yet, start your own. Because guess what - Elie doesn't owe you a goddamn thing.

Honestly, the elie-bashing on this board gets really tucking old. As 21 said, at least elie appears to be a decent human being, which is far more than can be said for most of the posters here.

27 - I too cringe when people try to equate the magnitude of slavery and racial discrimination to what the LGBT community faces. It does nothing but turn people away from our cause. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't apply the same principles.

You say there is no cogent or underlying principle to allowing gay marriage. Well, there is. Marriage is a fundamental right and the government has attached multiple monetary interests to that right. By limiting it to "man and woman" you exclude a discrete population simply by nature of their birth. Because this is a fundamental right, the Constitution allows us to take direct action without waiting for the people to come around. This is why we have the Equal Protection Clause.

Marriage is (ideally) an expression of love and there is no proof that people of the same sex cannot love each other the same way as a hetero couple. In other words, you don't have any cogent or underlying principle justifying that exclusion. Tradition is a meaningless justification if you don't analyze why we must adhere to that tradition in some ways but not others. I hardly see how Vegas shotgun weddings uphold the ideals of traditional marriage.

Final point, how does a secular gay marriage license offend your notions of marriage? Did it alter your relationships when Brittany Spears had her Vegas wedding? Does the 50% divorce rate lessen you? No. It did not. Prove to me how me marrying another guy hurts you.

50 -- um, I think 32 is simply quoting the titles of three well-traveled facebook groups. but thanks for responding to the flame...

The only people who have a problem with gay marriage are the people who occassionally fantasize about sex with other members of the same sex and are ashamed of it.

From Ted Haggart to Larry Craig, the most outspoken gay rights opponents inevitably turn out to have a penchant for gay sex with strangers and/or crystal meth.

GO METS

try again #10:

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/elections/local/A_Constitutional_Convention_Will_Not_Happen.html

52 -- From your misspelling of Britney, I conclude you are not as in touch with the gay community as you purport to be. I further conclude that you are a hard-right wolf masquerading in GLBT-friendly sheep's clothing.

52 -- From your misspelling of Britney, I conclude you are not as in touch with the gay community as you purport to be. I further conclude that you are a hard-right wolf masquerading in GLBT-friendly sheep's clothing.

52 -- From your misspelling of Britney, I conclude you are not as in touch with the gay community as you purport to be. I further conclude that you are a hard-right wolf masquerading in GLBT-friendly sheep's clothing.

37 -- hush, you are, dear I say, grounded.

Seriously, some of these people may make (or are) great lawyers but I am not sure how they will (or do) function with other 99% of the population.

Quit invoking this "Prop 8 is the will of the people" bullshit. Sometimes the will of the people is wrong, which is why we have a COUNTERMAJORITARIAN branch of government called the judiciary. Jim Crow was also the will of the people, and it was struck down by a court, just like Prop 8 will be.

I second 54 - if you oppose gay rights you are probably gay yourself, and maybe into meth. You will get methmouth unless you change your ways.

3500 sq.ft. husband and a lexis, bitches!

Quit invoking this "Prop 8 is the will of the people" bullshit. Sometimes the will of the people is wrong, which is why we have a COUNTERMAJORITARIAN branch of government called the judiciary. Jim Crow was also the will of the people, and it was struck down by a court, just like Prop 8 will be.

I second 54 - if you oppose gay rights you are probably gay yourself, and maybe into meth. You will get methmouth unless you change your ways.

If this law allows me to pound anything in the ass in Vermont then I am a happy man.

Twinky Bear

60--grounded? WTF for?!

Hating gay marriage is so lame.

Mystal, this is a terrible post.

what the hell is this line?

"Vermont has become the latest state to legalize same sex marriages. And just in time for Passover/Easter."

You seem to be characterizing this as a thumb in the eye of the religious. However, your post is approving in overall tone. Are you approving of sticking it to religious people? Are you engaging in bigotry of a kind acceptable to the obese, black, Harvard-educated and underemployed?

you then suggest that marriage is a miserable institution, but that all gay marriages are somehow events from which we can "feel the love." What the hell?

This is the most schizophrenic thing I've ever read.

The reason that opponents of gay marriage get called “bigots” is that they have been unable to advance a rational argument as to why it should be forbidden. It always comes down to a matter of personal distaste or disgust, unsupported by logic. The two attempts at rationalization have been 1, “Leviticus” which fails because many of the other commands of that book are not enforced in modern society and 2, “Democracy”, which is no proof of what should be allowed, merely a mechanism of implementing what the majority at a given time thinks should be done. Honest anti-gay-marriage activists admit that it comes down to an icky feeling about homosexuality. As understandable as that is given our culture, history, and perhaps even biochemistry, it is irrational intolerance of difference, which is one definition of bigotry.

51: "Are you people really so stupid that you couldn't see the connection Elie was making between Dred Scott and prop 8 without him explaining it, or are you just so used to criticizing him that you do it reflexively?"

See, here's the crazy thing. The people reading this blog are -- get ready for it -- lawyers and law students. We got into this field because we like to make arguments, and we're trained to recognize bad arguments when we see them -- especially bad legal arguments.

Elie makes a lot of bad arguments. He makes a lot of bad legal arguments. He makes a lot of statements that are logical non sequiturs or that have no basis in whatever analogies he tries to make (Prop 8) or sources he tries to rely on (Federalist #10). These are not things that lawyers and law students tend to let slide. And it tends to happen in at least 50% of his posts.

When you write for an audience of lawyers and law students, you should be prepared to take some flak from an audience that is predisposed to scrutinizing writing and arguments. And Elie's writing and arguments are just not very good. And that's why he catches flak in the comments -- all the time.

67, I'm with you. Sometimes I don't get jokes, either.

Welcome to civilization, Vermont.

Marriage law SUCKS if you are a man. Hopefully, gay marriage will straighten (ha) this out when the first gay divorces really get underway.

Imagine marriage as an LP/LLC rather than a pure partnership. That's change I can believe in!

56 - One example of people voting not to have a constitutional convention where gay marriage would have been one issue considered. A fair point, but the overall sentiment that gay marriage generally loses at the ballot box is still accurate.

Of course, today's decision by the VT legislative branch is also the will of the people. I never thought I would be prouder of a bunch of Northeastern, maple syrup drinking pinkos than I am of good cornfed Iowans.

61/63: "Sometimes the will of the people is wrong, which is why we have a COUNTERMAJORITARIAN branch of government called the judiciary. Jim Crow was also the will of the people, and it was struck down by a court, just like Prop 8 will be."

More proof that bad lawyers exist. Jim Crow laws were passed by legislatures and struck down on constitutional grounds. But Prop 8 was a constitutional modification. It's now doing the striking down.

Apples and oranges, my friend. But hang in there -- the world needs transactional lawyers.

Hey 71, 47 here. You may remember a little "civil union" thing we did back in 2000? You know, leading the national charge for recognition of the rights of gay families well before the rest of you Johnny-come-latelys? Welcome to civilization, my ass. We've been there for a decade.

52---

How do you respond to the argument that if we let gays marry then we might as well let polygamists and people engaged in incestuous relationships marry as well?

61 is right-on. I'm so sick of all this "it's good because the public votes for it" crap. You're lawyers. You KNOW how many people out there are essentially morons. You also know the whole POINT of the judicial branch was to be countermajoritarian, and, to the extent that wasn't made explicit at the Founding, it has been a dead-center aspect of American jurisprudence since Marbury v. Madison. Period. Wanna change this? Overturn Marbury. I believe it has been at the center of American law since 1802. When El Rushbo spouts idiocy about the will of the people, I get it. But lawyers? Really? If the Founders had cared so absolutely about the will of the people, they would have required jury trials for civil as well as for criminal trials, or they wouldn't have even had a judicial branch that could check the legislative branch, an idea that had a lot of currency at the time. In fact, enough of the Founders were so scared of the 'people' that originally Senators were not even elected directly by the people; they represented the states and were elected by state legislatures. The Founders understood there needs to be a balance. At one point or another the "will of the people" was for there to be slavery, Jim Crowe, and the Chinese Exclusion laws of California and other states. The will of the people means jack-a-doodle-all as an objective good. Sometimes it is right, sometimes wrong. Moo-moo-ing about "judicial activism" is particularly annoying when, as in Iowa, there in fact is an opportunity for the people of Iowa to overturn this decision if they like. The REAL reason you homophobic twits hate the Iowa decision so much, is that you know that by the time that public vote happens in two or three years, tons of gay people will have gotten married, and Christianity will not have collapsed, and the world will be going on, the utter inanity of your position will be that much more clear, and the Iowans may even ratify the decision of their "activist" court. (Ironically, given that it is now Conservative twits going on about the will of the people, it was Progressive morons who fought for such idiotic popular-will measures as the California ballot iniatiative process, which, more than anything else in America today, is a lesson in the perils of too much popular participation in government.) Or how about this; wanna know why the Federal Reserve was created?....how would you feel about the public, or even the geniuses in Congress, voting on when to increase the money supply? Know what happens when you have somebody other than a long-term appointed expert deciding THAT? -- you get Zimbabwe.

76: the basis for the EP argument is that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic.

To date, I have read no evidence indicating that anything about polygamy or incestuousness is an immutable characteristic. Absent a substantive contrary showing from you, or anyone else, that humans are predisposed to incestuousness, for example, your analogy fails.

Homosexuality = Texasexuality

Dred Scott was a judicial decision that led to a popular backlash and a constitutional amendment (14th Amendment) overturning the case.

The analogy to Dred Scott is the JUDICIAL DECISION of In re Marriage Cases (2008) (where the California court recognized gay marriage), which led to a popular backlash and...wait for it....a constitutional amendment (Proposition 8) overturning the case.

MysTTTal = total analogy failure.

76--I too would be interested in hearing a logical argument against polygamy. I have lived in West Virginia, however, so I don't need to hear argument against incest...

77, I agree that majority rule is bad, that's why the Vermont judiciary needs to overturn the "will of the people" in recognizing gay marriage. The popular will is just like Mugabe's dictatorship in Zimbabwe. I am glad to see that you are so principled in your views on the democratic process.

76, polygamy and incest are purely lifestyle choices. You can choose to be a polygamist, for religious reasons or otherwise. You cannot choose to be gay, no matter how many Christian conversion camps you get sent to.

57-59, fuck Britney (figuratively, of course). Lady Gaga all the way.

82 -- I didn't say it's bad, you moron. In fact, I explicitly said the popular will is not an objective good, and is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Learn to read, or shut up.

81, read 78.

I get the Dred Scott analogy. But I'm still waiting for Elie to explain the Federalist 10 relevance.

-34

The sweet, sweet irony here is that after all the bitching and moaning about activist judges un-doing the will of the people as represented by the legislature, here it was the governor trying to un-do the will of the people as represented by the legislature. Suck on THAT.

69,

It appears that the people who generally read this blog are law students with over-inflated egos who think that because they've dabbled in this or that, they are scholars. It's sad that rather than legitimately engage in dialogue, smaller people feel the need to criticize Elie. It doesn't make you look intellectually superior; it makes you look like self-conscious and petty.

On another note, I'm still amazed that people like 26 and 27 continue to argue their nonsense. Please keep your morality to yourselves. Our constitutional system was created so minorities didn't have to kowtow to the whims of a capricious--and oft bigoted--majority.

26, there is no "natural" marriage. It's a man-made institution. 27, the gay rights movement often analogizes to the Civil Rights movement, because that's our primary example in this country. You're a lawyer (or hope to be one), you should understand analogy. We litigators get paid big dollars to analogize.

The tide has changed, my friends. Elie is right. Prop 8 was a watershed event, and it mobilized the movement. We could see Texas or Georgia or Oklahoma, but California? Like it or not, in a scant few years, your views will be considered anachronistic.

But my real question is always this: why does it matter to you? I just don't get it. It does not and cannot affect your life. Let people live theirs without your intrusion.

My understanding of 77 was that it was sensitive to the failure of the democratic process, and aware of the distinctions between true democracy (majority rule) vs. American democracy (checks and balances). One can be true to American democracy, without being for Zimbabwe.

Hey liberals, please come up with a better example than Mugabe-ruled-for-29-years Zimbabwe for "too much popular participation" and a "true democracy (majority rule)."

88, why does polygamy or incest matter to you? I just don't get it. Even if you distinguish them from gay marriage as "lifestyle choices," they do not and cannot affect your life. Let people live theirs without your intrusion.

26 -- vomitoria are not what i think you think they are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomitorium

90, well, I think slavery for one. No women's suffrage was another. Segregation. Internment of Japanese during the civil war.

90, well, I think slavery for one. No women's suffrage was another. Segregation. Internment of Japanese during the [correction - second world] war

How do you know if its incest or just gay and kinky?

Funny, what happened to the "activist judges" screed (aka pretext for ignorance) that was rampant in these comments? Apparently they've just changed to reveal the flat out ignorance underlying it the entire time.

Keep on hatin'; the times, they are a-changin'.

93/94, the first three were because of not enough popular participation because voting was restricted. The Japanese internment was upheld by the Supreme Court so not a great example on how the courts are supposed to be counter-majoritarian and better than the popular will.

I can think of plenty of bad decisions by the judiciary against the majority. Dred Scott, for one. Or the entire Lochner era.

93/94: Japanese internment is a bad example. That was a result of Roosevelt's executive order, not a legislative act or voter proposition. Segregation, slavery, and suffrage are ok, though.

Not all gay people are born gay. Some choose to be gay. Some people, gay and straight, masturbate. Others do all kinds of things to get themselves going, including public displays, vouyerism, beastiality, etc. Many of those methods are perveted and disgusting. Not all of them are.

Who gets to decide?

Who do we let decide with incest?

Should, most certainly not, be the minority.

Don't bother with the argument that all gay people are born that way with no choice whatsoever. It isn't true and there are far, far too many examples of people willfully changing their sexual activity and preference to believe it.

Are some people born gay? Probably. Doesn't mean we should restructure a critical institution that will do far more for the welfare of society than anything else to accomodate that tiny minority. We should give them rights, and certainly not criminalize what they can't control, but we shouldn't force everyone else to change their perception of the family and marriage.

97, Voting was restricted by the majority.

Nevertheless, I don't think anyone is arguing that the judiciary is not flawed, or that frankly any system involved flawed humans is not going to be flawed. At least my problem is an ideological obsession with "will of the people" without any recognition that the will of the people has been, and could still be, wrong.

Just because the legislature says something, doesn't make it right; and just because a judge says something, doesn't make it right either. But just because the judge says something, and that contravenes what the majority of the people happen to be saying at a particular time, doesn't mean that the decision is wrong, that democracy will fail, that the constitution is useless, and that chicken little was right all along.

78-

What if it's discovered that there are genetic factors behind the decision to be polygamous?

76 and 81,

The logical argument is that by and large polygamous marriages have such a deleterious impact on the women involved in them that they should not be sanctioned by the government. (Personally, I think religious freedom should trump, but that's neither here nor there). Similar to that, an argument against incestuous marriages is that the fruits of those relationships (i.e., the children) have such a higher rate of birth defects, that those relationships should not be condoned by the government.

I know that counterarguments. No need to make them. The difference with gay marriage is that there is no unequal negative impact on the participants and there is no quantifiable danger to the children of those relationships. Clearly you can make a moral argument here--a similar argument that some backward folk would lodge against interracial marriage--that it harms the children, but there is no quantifiable evidence for this. Moreover, there is substantial disagreement on the issue. Neither moral argument should trump.

Sarcasm aside, there is no justifiable reason to preclude same sex marriage except for moral objection. Sure, you can posit a legal argument against "judicial fiat." I disagree with it, but I understand it. However, you have to acknowledge that there is plenty of precedent for this. Most cultural change we've seen in this country has been accelerated by court intervention. That said, our system vests our courts of last resort with the power to do exactly what they do--pass on the ultimate meaning of our constitution(s). That authority alone allows them to "find" rights that were not previously articulated. We don't have a civil law system; we have a system that intends that result. We can change the system, but it doesn't seem likely to happen.

so when the judiciary makes blacks property its legislating from the bench, and when it undoes prop 8 it's countermajoritarian?

what am i missing - oh right - you're a bunch of propogandized libtards.

Is comparing something to Dred Scott the legal equivalent of comparing someone to Hitler?

99, was not born straight. S/he suffers from attraction to same-sex persons every day, it is a daily struggle, and s/he makes a conscious choice to interact with members of the opposite sex.

83 -- why figuratively? She might not be what she once was, but once cleaned up she's perfectly presentable and can even be taken home to one's parents, assuming one' s parents are Michael Bay.

91, by that logic anything that people do that does not directly impact you should not matter to you. So I guess ALL victimless crimes (I'm not saying that gay marriage is a crime) should be legalized? Why can't the government let me run by business the way I want? If I screw someone out of their pension why does that matter to you, we are both consenting adults that formed a binding contract. There are better arguments in support of gay marriage than, well why do you care? Instead of telling people that they shouldn't care how about telling them that they should. Equal protection under the law is a fundamental principle of our society. Everyone should care.

elie-

stupidest post I've ever seen you write. congrats

102, so you're saying that recognition of the various types of marriages is a matter of policy, where the costs and benefits are weighed. Well it happens that in our democratic society, the legislature, not the judiciary, makes policy decisions. You are free to vote your belief that gay marriage produces no harm. QED, get the judiciary out of it.

101, then we cross that bridge when we get to it. But we don't make laws now, on the basis of arguments that have no evidentiary basis whatsoever. And, if we do come to that point in the future, I hope we will come up with a better argument that "that's the way it's always been."

54 -

You are a retard. So everyone opposed to same sex marriage is a closet homosexual? How about the majority of the people in California? How about me? I am vehemently opposed to it and have zero attraction to members of the same sex.

People like you demean the debate for BOTH SIDES. There are reasonable people arguing both for and against same sex marriage, and plenty of issues at stake which apparently are too much for your middle school intellect to understand.

Try for once to appreciate that you don't actually have a clue why people are opposed to it (as evidenced by your juvenile arguments). There are plenty of complex issues entangled in the debate, from freedom of religious expression to freedom of speech. These need to be discussed frankly and debated respectfully, and people like you do NOTHING for your own cause but make people like me more vehement in my own.

Grow up.

91 - The issues with polygamy and incest are the issues of consent and sexual abuse. Traditionally, and historically, and even today, polygamist marriages involve girls under the age of consent, or vulnerable women who marry under duress. In incest situations, it is usually a girl under the age of consent being abused by an older relative.

I tire of the academic liberals who say that these activities should be legalized because it doesn't harm anyone and it's just an alternative lifestyle. And I tire of the slippery-slope conservatives who equate the very real evils of incest and polygamy to same sex marriage.

Non-consensual sex should be illegal everywhere in every situation. And laws to protect potential victims and to prosecute offenders should be based on what happens in incestuous and polygamous situations in the real world -- not based on a thought experiment in con law class or an HBO show.

In the real world, these "relationships" have real victims.

Elie,

HLS called. You've been recalled.

112, there are already laws against non-consensual sex, statutory rape, and sexual abuse. No need to make broader laws that illegalize situations beyond those. Furthermore, people can live in polygamous or incestuous situations without getting married, so denying them marriage isn't really making much of an affect.

107, there is no such thing as victimless crime. All crime either directly or derivatively impacts individual or property rights. We should all care about crime, because we may be affected by it. Similarly, we should care about individuals rights, because we, too, may be impacted.

88, your argument is just silly. Look at my simple response at 102. If you think gay sex is gross or immoral and that's why you object, say so. At least we can have an open dialogue on that issue.

So is comparing something to Dred Scott the legal equivalent of comparing someone to Hitler?

116, yes. Dred Scott is to the Supreme Court as Mystal is to this blog. They both ruined the latter's reputations.

78, is lindsay lohan making a lifestyle choice or is her gayness really an immutable characteristic like skin color?

Dred Scott was the correct legal decision based on a flawed Constitution that permitted personal ownership of other human beings. Thank goodness the 13th Amendment cleared that up for us.

The Dred Scott decision also did not have the 14th Amendment at its disposal, which subsequent courts have used to institutionalize whatever personal freedoms are in vogue.

So Dred Scott is a poor analogy in the current debate.

109,

Seriously? In all fundamental rights/EP analyses, courts evaluate whether the policy interests asserted by legislatures outweigh the rights of individuals affected by the laws in question. That's how courts reach their decisions. There is logic to it.

Your friend,
102

99, was not born straight. S/he suffers from attraction to same-sex persons every day, it is a daily struggle, and s/he makes a conscious choice to interact with members of the opposite sex.

118 given that I don't know Lindsay, I have no ability to comment one way or another.

Am I gay if, when I walk down the street, people consistently yell "QUEER" at me when they drive by?

78/122, then how can you comment that no polygamists are polygamous as an immutable characteristic? Do you know all the polygamists in the country?
Given early human civilization, it's highly likely that men are innately polygamous.

Maybe we should limit gay marriage to only those who can prove that they're not gay merely as a lifestyle choice.

-- not 118.

111,

This debate has nothing to do with religious expression. (I'm tired of that argument. It was fabricated by scared preachers who wanted to mobilize their parishioners). It has everything to do with individual liberties. You will continue to have the right to choose to practice your religion as you see fit. You will never be forced to perform gay marriages.

Sure, if you choose to do things such as open up church-owned property for unfettered public use, you may be required to allow it for use by gays. But, similarly, if you owned a hotel, you couldn't exclude gays, just because you don't agree with their lifestyle.

God, I'm so tired of the hate mongering. Living in a country that allows complete religious freedom does not mean that you should live in a country that allows you to discriminate outside your church. Supreme Court precedent is clear that you can't escape laws of general application by invoking the Religion Clauses.

Ugh. Vehemently opposed? I'm still confused as to why you give a damn. So long as I'm not knocking boots on your church steps, why is it your concern?

9 You are an impostor. Stopping pretending to be me. I am the real neverous Top 10 1L

@124 - Yes, very gay.

111 is clearly a homosexual. At first I thought he was a super genius meta-troll, but apparently he is being serious. What other reason could you have for opposing gay marriage than because you are a closeted homosexual? Amazing. You've proven the point.

88-

why don't you keep *your* morality to yourself. our constitution does not enshrine your moral code that gay marriage is a necessary component of a free society. So please stop employing the powers of the judiciary to pervert to say otherwise. Both the federal and state constitutions were created by and belong to the people as a whole via the mechanism of consent and mandated gay marriage was definitely NOT part of the deal.

What's the real issue? Is it rights or nomenclature? I would think that the issue is making sure that same sex couples have the same rights (from A to Z) as intersex couples. If you can achieve that, why does the name matter? A name is just an artificial label.

Also, 88-

yes, we get paid to anaolgize and the civil rights analogy is a damn stupid one. Numerous limitations have always existed on marriage; one of these limitations is that one cannot marry someone else of the same sex. To pick out this distinction, and ipse dixit, equate it to the civil rights of blacks is a very poor mode of argument. Are you saying that all limitations on marriage = miscengenation laws or only the ones you personally disapprove of? And the context of the 14th Amendment's ratification (namely, concern over the rights of black Americans) also undercuts any legal argument applying the rationale of "Loving" to laws restricting gay marriage.

"The [obvious homosexual at comment 111] doth protest too much, methinks."

I'm glad to see that a state did it the right way...and by a super majority at that.

I am against gay marriage, but I will respect the law of the land for Vermont.

This is a moral issue, not a rights issue. The laws should provide for the same property rights of gay couples. But what is a marriage...is a moral issue.

The constitution does not dictate such moral issues (for your side Elie, or mine). The people should decide.

They did in CA, and in VT...I respect both decisions, do you? If people don't like it, try to overturn it.

Just want to say that I am personally opposed to gay marriage and am very concerned about the effect it will have in continuing the horrific moral decline of society.

That said, the people of VT have spoken in favor of gay marriage, and as one who supports the democratic process and the principles of constitutionalism, I applaud VT for changing the law through the proper means. Though I don't agree with the outcome, when it comes to the state of VT it is none of my business.

The problem as it relates to gay marriage, however, is what happens if after 5 years the people of VT begin to regret this decision and vote in a conservative legislature? Can they then change the law back to define marriage to exclude same-sex couples?

Elie, I appreciate you representing for the tides of history and all, but I am beginning to believe that you write these posts the way you do less out of a love for equality (although I don't doubt your sincerity) and more in order to provoke the same old comment wars - the Dred Scott comparison in particular was certain to freak people out, especially without the explanation you later provided in a comment. I guess it gives ATL more page views and is sort of satisfying if you enjoy needling jerks, but as a gay person who is seriously, seriously sick of this discussion in its internet form, I beg you to stop feeding the trolls.

134 - Vermont is ranked as the smartest state in the union. http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm And in the top five for safety, health, and education.

How is your state doing?

134, I thought that if you disagreed with a decision by the people, you are supposed to harass the other side's supporters, vandalize their buildings, put their names and addresses on the internet, and make appeals to the judiciary to overturn (again) the popular vote.

Oh wait, that's only if the popular will is against gay marriage.

105, 121 (nice double post in an attempt to get some attention, by the way - I suspect that is a usual need of yours),

Never felt the slightest impulse other than hetero and happily married for seven years.

Have worked with many individuals who, in different periods of their lives or in different social settings have changed their preference to fit in because of people like you who want to confuse, twist and torture them into your way of thinking, which is black and white and erroneous. Funny that you try to claim it is something that I have struggled with - McCarthyism at its best.

Reality is that choice is a component (I did not say that genetics aren't) whether you like it or not and so is social influence. Because of that, setting up of social norms is entirely relevant and we can't all just stick our heads in the sand under the "it doesn't affect me" argument. The majority can't be foreced to be ruled by a small, confused minority that is seeking justification or for their traits to be called something that they aren't. Of course there is no place for those people to be hated or mistreated.

- 99

@54: "I am vehemently opposed to it and have zero attraction to members of the same sex."

Sure buddy, that's what they all say. And by "they" I mean flaming closet homosexuals.

ELIE YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dred Scott is a great analogy. Blacks were once not even considered legal persons or full citizens. How eeriely similar to the way social conservatives view gays today. Dred Scott was a judicial decision, but it reflected the perverse views of the time---just like Prop 8.

Narrow minds make narrow times.

47 -- point well taken.

138 - you know more than one person who went from being gay, to straight, then back again? Or vice-versa? Remarkable.

There are still people who think homosexuality is a choice? TALIBAN!

A closer analogy would be Plessy, but very good point Elie. May the fight for equal rights live on!

136 - Keep in mind that Vermont is also ~98% white. It's the same fallacy in comparing the United States' crime rate, quality of education, and health care to those of the Scandinavian countries or Japan. Whether it's PC to say or not (and Harvard researchers had a tough time rationalizing results in their recent study), the more diverse a society is, the more social problems that society has to deal with, in terms of just making sure everyone is able to get along with each other.

136 - 2 points:

(1) Um, I don't see what you are getting at. The was, however, an awesome non sequitur.

(2) Did you look at the methodology for the "smartest" state rankings. It was basically a ranking of best overall school systems. Did you also notice that none of the top 24 states on those rankings were anywhere near the Southern border? Coincidence? There were 21 factors that went in to those rankings, but none of them had to do with intelligence.

140 - So you are saying that conservatives don't consider gays to be legal persons of full citizens? Talk about narrow mindedness!! Scary that people like you have the same right to vote as everyone else.

Right, there's no legitimate arguments for no same-sex marriage.

And stop with the LGBT nonsense. Transgendered people are mentally ill. Equating them with someone who merely is attracted to someone of the same sex does a disservice to the cause.

138, anyone who thinks gay are a small confused minority has obviously never been to a pride parade.

145, you got it. Diversity sucks and tolerance is a one way street.

138, you don't even know my way of thinking. But way to pontificate (which I suspect is a usual need of yours).

I never said choice didn't play a part in who you sleep with. But that is totally distinct from what your sexual orientation is. And sexuality may be fluid. (sex isn't binary, gender isn't binary, it logically follows that sexual orientation wouldn't either).

"The majority can't be foreced to be ruled by a small, confused minority that is seeking justification or for their traits to be called something that they aren't. Of course there is no place for those people to be hated or mistreated."

The majority isn't forced to be ruled by any small majority for the purposes of this blog post. And your small, confused minority - at least in the state of Vermont - are people like you. So, I will apply your logic and refused to consider your protestations any further.

149: It's more to say that things in the real world don't work out as ideally as they do in the liberal wet dream of one person of every race / gender / sexuality holding hands and singing cumbaya together. If you want the articles on the findings, here they are:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c4ac4a74-570f-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/

129, unfortunately a unanimous court in Iowa disagrees with you w/r/t to their own constitution. And, the constitution doesn't mandate anything w/r/t marriage - thus the attempts to amend it. Good try though. Maybe apply some of that mental energy to the actual study of constitutional law and you'll come up with the actual federalist arguments against gay marriage.

Hmm, here are my unrelated thoughts:

-THANKS VERMONT. Thank God Vermont voted for equality and love.

-ELIE'S ANALOGY IS SOOOOOO OFF. OFF WITH HIS HEAD! Do people really not see the analogy that Elie was making? Seriously? Prop 8 is the new Dred Scott as much as Gay is the new black (I believe both are apt). Now, there are differences between both (as 30,547 law school 1L commentators pointed out regarding the former), but at bottom it just makes sense to any person with even a vague history of the Civil Rights movement of the 50s/60s and the current LGBT civil rights movement.

-ELIE POSTED A RELEVANT LEGAL STORY ON A LEGAL BLOG, GET THE MOB! Elie, how dare you post a huge legal development on the most pressing legal issue in civil rights today (yes, the LGBT movement is THE civil rights issue of our generation). This isn't a legal blog you jerk. And while I'm at it, stop providing commentary and analysis of information, just post random facts about non-legal issues.

-IF YOU FOLLOW YOUR PRIEST ON THIS ONE ISSUE WHILE IGNORING THE REST, YOU'RE LIKELY A CLOSET CASE. I'll admit I'm gay, so I'm biased, but I just do NOT understand people who "vehemently oppose" gay marriage. Now, I'll give you that many religious denominations oppose it for various reasons. But really? It's 2009 in the USA. And while I loving being (a cafeteria) Catholic, you cannot say with a straight face (no pun intended) that you oppose gay marriage for moral reasons. Anyone with a scintilla of intelligence and testicular fortitude (metaphor, I'm not that sexist) hears what a Priest/Reverend says, contemplates for a moment, and then forgets it. Why do the anti-gay comments stick? While I don't want to dabble in psychology, as many commentators have pointed out, the reason those comments stick is becuse they relate to your life and your "demons" (since 'you' define your homosexual thoughts as a sin). When my Priest tells me to not kill, I pay no attention to that because I'm not a killer and I'm non violent, it just doesn't relate to my middle class american life. Same with their anti-abortion crap. Likewise, when they tell me to confress more often it goes in one ear and out the other. Anti gay marriage people really do need to do some soul searching.

-IF YOU HATE ME SO MUCH, WHY DON'T YOU FIGHT ME? ARE YOU COWARD? Now, I've heard stories, read books, and seen footage of anti civil rights movement peeps. They marched, threw stones, fought people, lynched people, and all around kicked black/black-supporter ass. IF you anti-gay marriage peeps are sooooo vehemently opposed, and we make you soooo sick, why don't y'all protest more civilly and protest more illegally via vigilante justice? You straights don't come to our gay bars and hate crime us (normally), you straights don't protest our pride parades (aside from the like 4 protestors I saw at North Carolina's last pride). IF you really were that against us, I would expect (though not like) to see you all put some effort towards opposing us. God, if you're gonna hate us, at least hate us. Stop just trolling on legal message boards and spouting hate. Come to the gay bar, stand outside, and say it to my face, cause i bet you won't. And if you do, you'd better be ready to bring it.

God bless Vermont for this!
Love you Elie, keep up the good reporting AND analysis!

149, you're preaching to the choir here. But I'm going to go a step further and say that it's not diversity per se that causes crime and quality of education declines. It's the proportion of the population that is black or Hispanic. It's quite that simple. On average, they have very low IQs, almost a full standard deviation below the white mean, and thus cannot compete.

ooooooooooooooh 99 all gay people are born gay. Who you sleep with is not the same thing as sexual orientation. Just because you know some guy who knows some guy that used to date women but now dates men doesn't mean that his, or anyone else's sexual orientation is one way or another.

And I don't even know what you're talking about regarding "forcing other people to change their views" since what we're talking about here is a legislative act. So, "everyone else" is not forced to do anything.

Nevertheless, sanctioning gay marriage doesn't force anyone to change their views. Views may change on their own as a result, but that's not the state's fault.

154, asians, however have statistically higher scores all around. They are elite.

@154 . .. and scene.

gay sucks....true statement, right

153 said "you cannot say with a straight face (no pun intended) that you oppose gay marriage for moral reasons".

Anyone that thinks it is the anti-gay marriage conservatives that are trying to enforce their morality on everyone else needs to read the sentence above.

Conservatives are not trying to enforce our morality upon the unwilling, we are trying to preserve its last shreds in society. People like 153 are trying to get rid of it completely.

so do barnacles

159,
You can preserve your godd*mned precious marriage as freakin sacred as you want in your little dumble f*ck church. i'm sure i wouldn't want to be married in your house of hate that you call a 'church' anyway.
America has separation of church and state. i'm saying the state, if it gets into the business of marriage, has no right to deny it to me just because i'm gay and want to marry another consenting male who loves me.

so in short, you can preserve your hateful marriages in your church until you are blue in the face. in fact, i hope you actually have fun at your church and stay at it a long time, that leaves less of a chance i'll have to be near you in the public sphere. but speaking of the public sphere, once it becomes a goverment issue, your religious morals (should) matter no more than mine. while i'll admit bigots with morals like yours outnumber me, intellectuals with humanity like me outnumber you in places of power.

served

153

159, don't speak for all conservatives. Most of the conservatives I know (myself included) that oppose gay marriage do so for constitutional reasons. Nobody's, not yours and not gay advocates', personal preferences are supported by the constitution (unless they're stated). There is no constitutional right to marriage, unless we're talking about Supreme Court created rights. Conservatives want the government out of our lives, not enforcing anybody's morality.

Your "conservatives are trying to preserve its last shreds in society" is antithetical to real conservative philosophy.

156, yes it is true that Asians have higher IQs than whites on average. Which is why I said that diversity alone is not a good metric.

Gay is not the new black as long as the old blacks continue to be shot in the back by police officers on the train. Gay can be the new gay. People with disabilities can still be special needs soldiers. Women still need feminism. Muslims still need a new PR campaign. And we can remember that very few peope in this country have all their rights. So we don't need just one civil rights cause we need to champion them all.
What gay is, is married in 4 states. What anti-gay marriage rhetoric is, is the vestige of a weirdly applied puritanism that is disengenuine and hypocrital.

You know what ruins families? Divorce. Yet nowhere is anyone raising up a movement to prevent divorces or bring back covenant marriages. It's time for people to let go of their homophobia.

For the last time you can't catch it and if you don't purchase Logo from your cable provider or watch America's Next Top Model you won't accidently be exposed to it.

Gay is not the new black as long as the old blacks continue to be shot in the back by police officers on the train. Gay can be the new gay. People with disabilities can still be special needs soldiers. Women still need feminism. Muslims still need a new PR campaign. And we can remember that very few peope in this country have all their rights. So we don't need just one civil rights cause we need to champion them all.
What gay is, is married in 4 states. What anti-gay marriage rhetoric is, is the vestige of a weirdly applied puritanism that is disengenuine and hypocrital.

You know what ruins families? Divorce. Yet nowhere is anyone raising up a movement to prevent divorces or bring back covenant marriages. It's time for people to let go of their homophobia.

For the last time you can't catch it and if you don't purchase Logo from your cable provider or watch America's Next Top Model you won't accidently be exposed to it.

164, oh really? Many religious conservatives have been calling for restrictions or even an outright ban on divorce for years. The fact that they haven't been successful doesn't make them hypocrites.

I sometimes want to support gay marriage, but I'm really worried; it's a slippery slope from first allowing gay marriage, to then allowing gay polygamous marriage. As everyone knows, gay polygamous relationships are a huge and growing social problem, particularly in Utah, even though the Moreman church condemned them over a hundred years ago. And I for one do not want to see this social disintegration continue, particularly because of its effect on children. Don't we owe it to our future to oppose gay marriage for this reason?

166, there is no current anti-divorce movement in the United States that rivals the anti-gay marriage movement. Maybe those few religious conservatives aren't hypocrites, but your majority supports divorce (and 49 states support no fault divorce). But way to ignore the forest for the twig.

167 - supporting gay marriage has nothing to do with supporting polygamous marriage.

Beware of absolutes "as everyone knows" because they destroy your credibility.

And gays can't biologically have children with each other, so your "it's effect on children" argument is moot.

@166 Just because they call for it doesn't mean they also don't partake in the benefit of legal seperation.
Also besides being potential hypocrites they are clearly irrational and unreasonable.
Additionally I'd like to know what you mean by "many".

153--

So, as a "catholic," you have no bones with God's laws so long as they aren't inconsistent with your own views on things.

This is the age we live in. God truly is dead.

169, I suspect reading comprehension was not your best area on the LSAT.

167

172, I suspect logic wasn't yours.

Has anyone looked into the legal reality of just giving all the gays a state where they can live our their lives of debauchery (for the men) and on the other side of the state over zealous /ticking biological clock parenting (for the lesbians)? I mean I bet the gays could make something really happen in South Dakota or maybe Wyoming.

54 and 68 nailed it. 111's girlfriends dump him when he asks them to peg him.

174 YES, let's give the gays matthew shepard country

172 are you for real trying to compare lsat scores with someone?

"guest" number 18374 obviously aced the lsat and well the slopes always tend to have oil on them and then old ladies are walking with walkers and you know slipping so we shouldn't allow gays to marry.

169/173, um, go back and read 167 again....

179, I - unlike you - do not have to read ATL comments more than once to know they're b.s.

So because religious conservatives don't attack divorce with the same vehemence means they support it and are hypocrites? God the pro gay marriage people put forth the worst arguments ever.

Yes. Because religious conservatives who are for "traditional" or "biblical" marriage forget what "biblical" marriage actually requires. So they're both hypocritical and stupid.

God anti-gay marriage people can't even manage the most basic mental exercise.

171,
Yes i am Catholic. In my post at 153 I explicitly stated i was "(a cafeteria) Catholic." You then criticize me for not subscribing to all of the views of my church? Well, get ready, an year egg of Catholic school knowledge is about to get cracked:

As a Catholic, you only have to believe in the tenants of faith AND ex cathedra messages "issued from the seat of peter." The tenants of faith are essentially that God is Jesus, there are 3 natures and 1 person, transsubstantion is not symbolic, and the only ex cathedra messages issued by a Pope that hasn't been ruled an anti-pope (ie, the only message we HAVE to believe) is that the Virgin Mary is a virgin and never had sex and is the mother of God/Jesus.

IF you meet the above criteria, you are Catholic and CAN TAKE COMMUNION in a state of grace.

IF I failed to believe one of those tenants, the Catholic Church actually "holds me closer" (to use Vatican language) and petitions God on my behalf that I might find understanding and accept all of those tenants of faith and the ex cathdra message.

IF I STILL DIDN'T BELIEF THOSE MESSAGE: I'm still Catholic according to the Church. I simply cannot take Holy Communion.

I can only be made "not Catholic" by excommunication. Which doesn't occur anymore practically.

********

Now, getting deeper. Did I mention homosexuality at all there? No, because many Catholic views are just the view of the Church and you do NOT have to believe them to be fully Catholic.

I can believe in same sex marriage, butt sex, cussing, and polygamy. None of these practices or beliefs makes me "not catholic."

And don't confuse the "Cathecism" that comes out every year with rules you have to believe. This is simply the Church's contemporary views on myriad issues and its attempt to explain things in a Catholic perspective. You can burn it, it isn't binding. Consider it persuasive, but non controlling precedent from another jurisdiction.

So.....how am I not Catholic?

p.s., historically, the church also thought the earth was flat, that jews went straight to hell, and that communion given in the hand was a mortal sin. The Church changed.

To 147--I never understood the inclusion of trans people under the LGB umbrella either. After most of them transition, they become functionally heterosexual. How many people are born a man and become a woman in order to be a lesbian??? Just doesn't happen.

184, I know a guy who did that, but I'm talking purely as a practical matter. A lot of people sympathize with gays and lesbians but don't buy into the whole "I'm really a woman trapped in a man's body" bullshit.

184,
Any derivation from the "I was born X and like Y" model is considered a sexual minority, even if after operation transgendered people are effectively in the majority.
For practical reasons, the LGBT community is really cohesive and strong. Yes, gays prefer gay bars and lesbians prefer lesbian bars, but as a community we're VERY tight knit. There was never a discussion of how to include transgendered people in our cause, there was just a discussion about how to best do so. The term LGBT was formed, and the rest is history.

The only analogy I can see to what you're saying 184, is if you were to ask the NAACP why they still fight for the rights of "white appearing/high yellow), but ethnically black individuals. There are black people, to be sure they're small in number, but that are so light skinned they're not colored. These people historically used to "pass." Yet the NAACP has always helped and included these people. Same with the Gay/lesbian community and transgendered people and bisexual people.

These comments from the gay community are too funny!

There are probably tens of thousands of bisexuals who "choose" their sexual orientation on a routine basis.

Not just who, but with what sex on a regular basis!

Get a grip on reality - people "choose" all the time! Shouldn't be the standard and they shouldn't have a right to force the majority to approve with the stamp of marriage!

181,

The point here for many in this regard is that Jesus said buttloads (oh, I love the humor) about divorce. It's a major no no in his eyes. Jesus said nothing about fags. Read your Bible. HE said NOTHING. It is hypocritical to vehemently oppose gay marriage on religious grounds but agree with divorce in spite of your religion.

Nothing more to say on the topic.

187 has no idea what sexual orientation is.

183 - FYI

Tenant = A person who inhabits a dwelling owned by another.

Tenet = A principle or belief (in your case one held by the church)

-The more you know...-