Decent post. Well done Mystal

"Gay marriage advocates lost a big vote in Maine yesterday, but they didn’t lose the moral high ground"

No, somebody who takes it in the ass basically lost that a long time ago

PAILIN 2012

What 1st amendment rights are infringed by someone disclosing my (public record) signature on a petition?

I don't agree with the tactic but I don't see how it is unconstitutional. I never asked for anonymity and my free expression of opinion has not been curtailed by any state action by merely releasing what was already public record.

Comment removed by moderator.

There has never been a nation or society that has survived the encouragement or tolerance of homosexual lifestyles. There has never been a major religion that historically has not condemned homosexual activity.

Furthermore, there is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage.

6 - well said.

maine, like voters in 30 other states, rejected gay marriage in the voting booth. it's amazing how a militant minority can try to trample on the basic reality of marriage being between one man and one woman.

Moral high ground? Gay marriage advocates hold the moral high ground in the same way that Elie Mystal got into Harvard on his own merit... only in Elie's fantasy. But hey, thanks to the First Amendment he can spout off his fantasies like he does here on ATL.

Best post ever Elie

And unlike many, I'm generally a fan of yours.

Again with gay marriage, Elie? Seriously, if you feel the constant need to rant about it, your personal blog would be a great place to let out your frustration. Really though, most ATL readers aren't interested in hearing about it every five minutes. We understand your point of view and whether we agree or not, constant rants about it aren't / should be what Above the Law is about.

I think it's perfectly appropriate to discuss a gay marriage ballot initiative the day after an election on a legal new blog.

NY BAR RESULTS OUT TOMORROW....2012 ARRIVES EARLY

Elie,

Your comment about the First Amendment doesn't make sense. First of all, the First Amendment only applies to actions by state actors. For example, it would violate the First Amendment if the state government fined or punished petition signers. It would not violate the First Amendment if gay rights activists further published information about petition signers that is already public under state law. If your argument about the First Amendment were true, then an op-ed writer in a newspaper could insulate himself or herself from criticism by claiming that any counterarguments by another op-ed writer could increase the chance of reprisals in violation of the First Amendment. For the obvious reason that the purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage public discourse, this doesn't make any sense.

@6: Iran is waiting for you, buddy! It's the model of nationhood for the future!

@7: regardless of whether it is a "basic reality" that marriage is between a man and a woman, the way things are has little bearing on the way things should be.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2328.cfm

This is what happens when these names and addresses are put in the hands of the "tolerant" folks on the other side.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2328.cfm

This is what happens when these names and addresses are put in the hands of the "tolerant" folks on the other side.

6 - incorrect. Go read some ethnographies and history and please return when sufficiently educated. Thanks

6:

I'm wondering at what point in the Bible Jesus condemns homosexual activity. I hate to spoil the answer for you, but it's never.

Elie, you fat AA moron. Had you cracked a ConLaw book, you'd understand that gays are not "treated [un]fairly" with respect to marriage. Gays have the same right any straight man or woman has (i.e. the option of marrying a person of the opposite sex).

What gays desire is a special, novel right--to marry someone of their own sex. No straight person has that right either.

I wish I had the right to get a plus factor into Harvard Law based upon my whiteness like you did for your blackness, but it didn't happen and that unfair treatment seems to be just skippy with you.

11: Click on the "Gay Marriage" and "Gay" tags under "Posted In" and scroll through to see how frequently Elie writes about gay marriage. Above the Law isn't a blog devoted to civil rights, ConLaw, or gay rights issues so yes, it's far too much.

@6 - Hrm, that's a funny assertion, because Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Canada have all done precisely that, and I think the citizens of those countries - the first 6 of these which have been around rather longer than the United States - would be rather surprised to know that their countries haven't survived.

As an aside, you might consider brushing up on the difference between nation, state, and society. Rather different concepts.

I'm a gay marriage supporter, but I'm getting completely sick of Elie's constant political speeches. You're a legal gossip columnist, not a political commentator.

14-

The most intolerant ones are those who claim others aren't tolerant of their own depaved behavior.

4 is correct. To me, its certainly bad form (although not as bad form as the not-so-subtle incitations to violence we see from the extreme right on abortion) but its not unconstitutional.

5 - you're an idiot. The Greeks not only fought off the strongest empire in the world (Persia), but they managed to conquer and rule from Macedonia to India for hundreds of years. The Romans were around as a major power for 1000 years and were perfectly fine with homosexuality, as long as the socially superior person was on top. Needless to say, their religion (which dominated the Mediterrenean until the 340s) tolerated it.

I'd love to hear how homosexuality was the real reason for the decline, there.

Sha'Feef:

Trusted and faithful servant of the Most High:

The One Whose Name May Not be Spoken came to me last night in a vision, surrounded by virgins carrying pomegranates, and rare oils, and allows you to pound Kash's ass, or her beaver, but not both. Make your election forthwith.

The Imam

4 is correct. To me, its certainly bad form (although not as bad form as the not-so-subtle incitations to violence we see from the extreme right on abortion) but its not unconstitutional.

5 - you're an idiot. The Greeks not only fought off the strongest empire in the world (Persia), but they managed to conquer and rule from Macedonia to India for hundreds of years. The Romans were around as a major power for 1000 years and were perfectly fine with homosexuality, as long as the socially superior person was on top. Needless to say, their religion (which dominated the Mediterrenean until the 340s) tolerated it.

I'd love to hear how homosexuality was the real reason for the decline, there.

6 - "There has never been a nation or society that has survived the encouragement or tolerance of homosexual lifestyles"

What does "survival" of a "nation or society" mean? How long is your time horizon? There's plenty of examples in classical antiquity (not to mention parts of contemporary Europe or even major American cities). Even if you want to blame the downfall of Rome on homosexuality, which as a theory is ridiculously far-fetched, you'd still have to admit that Roman society "survived" for quite a bit longer than American society has been around.

One could just as easily argue that there has never been a nation or society that "survived" the widespread ownership of firearms, women's suffrage, the rise of the nuclear family or the advent of professional sports.

I wish I could believe as an alternative proposition that no society has ever "survived" widespread rank stupidity and viciousness as evidenced by the anti-gay marriage movement, but unfortunately history has proven people to be capable of horrendous treatment of their neighbors.

Why is ATL so beholden to the gay agenda?

United States Christians prove more and more each day they are exactly like the radical muslims who populate the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The hold tight to the fears of their religion even when is deprives another person of equality. The fear that religion spreads has sent our country to war in the middle east, has replaced peoples' judgment, and is the foundation that hate is built upon.

We claim to be the melting pot of the world, but we try to shutour borders to prevent anyone else from entering. We claim that we have have freedoms, but freedom does not allow one person to marry and another to not. We claim to be this great country, but we can't take a moment to consider what effect we have on the other countries in the world. We are, at best, a vessel of what is wrong with the world. At worst, Americans are the damned. And it is by our choices driven by decision, fear, and greed that make us deserving of this loathesome ranking.

The bright side is we can change it. The sad thing is we won't.

I'd like to thank everybody who voted against gay marriage in maine last night.

Serious question: On what other issues (besides gay marriage) could the publication of petition signatures lead to intimidation and/or violence?

Bah. The removed post wasn't marked when I wrote my post. So bump 5 to 6.

24/26.

Marriage = 31-0. USA! USA!

How dare people not agree with me. How can I coerce them into doing so? Maybe more of this:
http://www.heritage.org/research/family/bg2328.cfm

That's the kind of thinking that wins elections!

29: And yet, you liberals LOVE radical Muslims, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda (yay tolerance!), while condemning Christians left and right for their beliefs. If you want to talk about intellectual inconsistency, why don't you start there?

29, what was that rambling post referring to exactly? you almost made as little sense as gay marriage.

This educated, thoughtful, and enlightened post from one of the black community's premier scholars brought a tear to my eye.

* throws up in mouth *

"The land of the greed, and home of the slave."

EQUALITY SECURE

I am as straight as they come and a Texan to boot. Regardless, I am a huge supporter of gay marriage. I would love to be married and have a family, but, as luck would have it, things didn't turn out that way for me. I don't want other people--regardless of their sexuality--to involuntarily suffer a similar fate. Opposition to gay marriage is intrusive moralizing and hate mongering, whether it be constitutionally permissible or not. Unlike polygamy, there is no victim in a gay marriage: it is a contract and a commitment between two consenting adults with equal bargaining power. Anyway, enough preaching on my part...

I hope and expect that, in the future, equal protection under the law will apply to homosexuals the same way it applies to me and to everyone else. I respectfully disagree with the person who said they are asking for a special right. It seems to me they are asking for the right to do something most of us take for granted--the right to make a legal and social commitment to another adult. The voters of Maine should be quite disappointed with themselves today.

Elie,

you really are an idiot.

It's perfectly acceptable and even morally imperative, for several reasons, for opponents of same-sex marriage who have signed state petitions to have their names publicly released and to be subject to harassment, punitive retribution and ridicule.

For one thing, by having their identities as heterosexual bigots revealed, petition signers would finally be able to walk a few feet in the shoes of a class of people who are still being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation - a trait completely irrelevant to gay people's ability to be productive members of society or to be in a committed, loving relationship and family and receive all the attendant legal protections of marriage.

Second, I think it's vitally important to know whether businesses, teachers, politicians, church leaders, or others believe in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the distribution of marriage rights - a vitally important public benefit. I, for one, and millions others, would want to learn, like in the Civil Rights era, which businesses, retailers and churches need to be boycotted and protested. Humiliation is not only necessary, but obligatory.

On the other hand, thirty years from now, intelligent people will look back on these battles and laugh and shake their head slowly at the anti-gay bigotry that existed, like people look back at the racism in the Jim Crow era and the conditions that gave rise to Loving v. Virginia. So, in that sense, maybe we just need to let history run its course. Like the conservatives before them that resisted civil rights for African-Americans and equal rights for women and immigrants, today's conservatives will likewise be a public stain on history and will slowly die out.

The word "marriage" obviously has too much baggage. Let's just say anyone who wants to enter into a "civil union" with someone else, can do so. If you want to call it marriage, matrimony, lifetime companionship, whatever, that's your business.

38, who is the victim when three grown adults want to get polygamously married?

Signing a petition for a referendum on gay marriage doesn't indicate whether one is opposed to gay marriage. It simply indicates that the signer believes voters should decide the issue, not courts or politicians. To assume that all those who signed the petition are "homophobes" is cheap and lazy.

Elie,
I find the racist comments despicable and I hesitate to call you out and look like one of their kind but if you're going to question someone's intellectual honesty and say they made "material misstatements of fact" in their ad, you have to do a better job sourcing your contentions and not just rely on further opinions contained in prior blog posts.

NY BAR RESULTS WILL BE OUT TOMORROW NOVEMBER 5TH.

THAT IS ALL.

GOOD JOB ELIE.

NY BAR RESULTS WILL BE OUT TOMORROW NOVEMBER 5TH.

THAT IS ALL.

GOOD JOB ELIE.

NY BAR RESULTS WILL BE OUT TOMORROW NOVEMBER 5TH.

THAT IS ALL.

GOOD JOB ELIE.

NY BAR RESULTS WILL BE OUT TOMORROW NOVEMBER 5TH.

THAT IS ALL.

GOOD JOB ELIE.

NY BAR RESULTS WILL BE OUT TOMORROW NOVEMBER 5TH.

THAT IS ALL.

GOOD JOB ELIE.

NY BAR RESULTS WILL BE OUT TOMORROW NOVEMBER 5TH.

THAT IS ALL.

GOOD JOB ELIE.

NY BAR RESULTS WILL BE OUT TOMORROW NOVEMBER 5TH.

THAT IS ALL.

GOOD JOB ELIE.

NY BAR RESULTS WILL BE OUT TOMORROW NOVEMBER 5TH.

THAT IS ALL.

GOOD JOB ELIE.

40, you're right, it sure is funny to "look back and laugh" at Jim Crow... really? You are a moron

40 FTW

19,

Had you cracked a Conlaw book, you might not make such retarded analogies. After all, by your logic, interracial marriage laws were constitutional since everyone had the same right - they all could marry within their own race.

To the gays,

An argument that one man/one woman marriage is more traditional (and thus preferable for whatever reasons) is not necessarily defeated by a response that the Greeks and Romans took part in their fair share of homosexual activity. To defeat an historical argument for traditional marriage, you would have to somehow show that not only was homosexuality tolerated, but that it had the same standing as traditional marriage. I'm no history major, but I would venture to say that the typical man/boy homosexual escapades were not looked on with the same esteem as that of a fruitful marriage between a man and woman.

My wife is an ER trauma surgeon. She says that on Halloween, gay men usually go completely bonkers - costumes, make-up, mind warping alcohol binges, and yes, hard drugs. She said Halloween night is the WORST night to be on call at St. Vincent's in NYC because gays swarm the ER in various states of delirium and borderline consciousness.

Their common ailment (other than being high on horse tranquilizer)? "Objects lodged in anal cavity." I'm serious. My wife says gay men are wheeled into the ER with all manner of inanimate objects stuck in their rectums - baseball bats, Heinz catsup bottles, light bulbs, Crisco coated black rubber gloves, etc.

St. Vincent's recorded 47 such incidences between the hours of 10:00 p.m October 31st and 4:00 A.M. November 1st. True story.

38: "the right to make a legal and SOCIAL commitment to another adult."

The latter part of your statement is exactly the problem. More than anything else, gay marriage is more about forcing the general populace not merely tolerate and accept, but actively embrace a lifestyle that it doesn't agree with. It's forced social recognition through the force of the law, and as we've seen before (ex, forcing the wedding photographer to work a gay marriage or face legal action), it's a very slippery slope where it's more than just legal acknowledgment at issue, but forcefully changing the views of the American populace to favor something their religious and personal beliefs may not.

I personally don't disagree with gay marriage, but it's a decision for the people / states to make through legislative not judicial means. If a state popularly approves gay marriage, that's fine by me, but to say that the gay marriage debate is just about legal rights is completely false.

why would any rational person ever put a ketchup bottle in their anal cavity?

In a polygamous relationship, the victims are the plurals. If there are many women and one man, the women are inherently unequal, and their position in the marriage is subservient almost by definition. WHen you throw in the fact that most polygamous sub-cultures in the US marry under-age or otherwise very young women to older men, you get a situation in which the women become victims.

I realize that there are other viewpoints on this subject, so feel free to disagree. This is just my opinion.

My-stall you write articles like old people fuck!

I express no opinion on the matter at hand, but do take issue with this line from the OP:

"isn’t it reasonable for there to be an accounting of exactly who supports what in this fight?"

How long before this line of reasoning is applied to the decisions that are made in the voting booth?

18: Your point it misplaced. Jesus was not in the business of condemning. It's rare to find any instance of him condemning particular sins. Rather, he was concerned with the attitude of the heart. Particular conduct is addressed in the law and in Paul's letters. FWIW, homosexuality is strongly condemned in both.

18:

Romans 1:18-32 pretty much covers what God thinks of homosexual acts.

God's Wrath Against Mankind
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

60, unequal and subservient marriages with age differences should be illegal? Why don't you try telling that to Hollywood or any wealthy industry.
There are also existing rules against statutory rape.

Sorry, try another argument against polygamy.

to 58--

legalizing gay marriage does not force the public to "embrace" anything. there are many activities that, although legal, might be objectionable to some people (abortion, for example). the only thing it forces people to embrace is equality: it levels the playing field. bigots can and will continue to shun gay couples, but their desire to do so should not be allowed to oppress a significant portion of the population.

Christian syllogism:
1) God/Jesus/Holy Spirit form the Trinity and all are one.
2) The Bible was "God-breathed" i.e. men wrote it at the divine leading of the Holy Spirit.
3) The Holy Spirit directed the words of the Bible.
4) Jesus directed the words of the Bible.
5) In Romans 1 the Bible says, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
6) QED Jesus condemned homosexuality.

"If there are many women and one man, the women are inherently unequal, and their position in the marriage is subservient almost by definition."

No; if there are multiple shareholders to a corporation, they are not "inherently unequal" to the CEO.

um, underage married are illegal

Um, Elie?

The First Amendment protects against "GOVERNMENT INFRINGEMENT" of speech. It does not, as you erroneously assert, protect people from "the right to express one’s political opinion without retribution [by non-government actors]." Sarah Palin asserted the same thing when she said the news media was violating her First Amendment rights by making her scared to say what she thought. That wasn't the First Amendment because news organizations aren't GOVERNMENT ACTORS.

Similarly, individual citizens may mock or point out what other citizens may do. These aren't citizens acting as government officials. Therefore, there is no First Amendment issue.

Jesus.

I hate this website. I hate the liberal political b.s. on here. Once I leave the legal industry I will never look at this site.

63:

Jesus did condemn specific sins, even if he did say that those who have not sinned should throw the first stone. His point was that all have sinned and that no one is righttious on his own account.

There is also the woman at the well when Jesus said, "Go and sin no more." Jesus does condemn sin, but also offers a way for forgiveness.

Good lord, who gives a shit if two gay guys who already live and have sex together want to go down to City Hall and get married? Seriously, what's the fucking problem???

There's no legal reason why gay marriage cannot take place, nor is there a coherent moral or even cultural one. Who fucking cares?

Don't forget, traditional Western marriage was a contractual arrangement. You married somebody your family chose for you based on how that would further your family's goals. Romantic love almost never entered the picture before comparatively recently. If we're going to screw over the gays because we want to protect traditional marriage, then by definition let's put our money where our mouth is and start marrying 10-year-old girls whose daddies own big businesses and can give us jobs. Otherwise get off your hypocritical high horse and worry about your own life for a change, rather than how you can gratiuitously fuck up somebody else's.

HOW CAN A POST THAT DISCUSSES THE MERITS OF 1A REALLY HAVE A "COMMENT REMOVED BY MODERATOR"

c'mon now...

Why SSM is not like polygamy:

The distinctions lie most clearly in equal protection analysis. Arguably, the state is treating homosexual couples who want to enter into a legally sanctioned relationship dissimilarly from heterosexual couples who want to enter into such legally sanctioned relationships and the state cannot provide sufficient justification for this classification. That's the EP analysis in a nutshell for SSM as provided by the many state courts (Iowa, MA, CT, CA, etc.) that have adjudicated the issue.

Polygamy is much different. Is a man and two to ten (or more) potential wives similarly situated to a heterosexual couple with respect to the state's rationale for granting the legal rights of marriage? Many would argue that a state has an strong interest in preventing exploitation of women and that polygamous marriages generally involve exploitation of very young women. So, that would be one strong interest of the state in contending that polygamist couples are not similarly situated.

In addition, homosexuals have tended to be viewed as a suspect class because of various reasons - immutability of the trait, past history of discrimination, ability to be a productive member of society - by numerous state courts (but not the U.S. Supreme Court). That fact counsels rigorous analysis of the state's justification for denying a benefit to this class. That is missing when analyzing polygamy.

Of course, this is not an exhaustive analysis. Numerous scholars (see Andrew Koppelman, Dale Carpenter, among others) have thoroughly refuted this argument that SSM should be banned b/c there is no principled way to distinguish it from polygamy. Per usual, it takes far more words to make the progressive case for something than it does to simply shout that SSM is like polygamy. But, in the end, the intelligent people who run our government, courts and businesses are far more persuaded by careful and rigorous analysis and advocacy.

To poster 21,

Your argument is fallacious. First, all of the countries mentioned in your post legalized gay marriage only in their very recent history, and they all condemned homosexual behavior until a relatively short time ago. Second, none of them meets the replacement rate: they ARE dying. The lowered birthrates, imported demographics (a futile effort to compensate and keep their social-welfare systems afloat), and gay marriage are all SYMPTOMS of the same phenomenon. Their current economic standings are not indicative of their long-term viability. Third, your division between state, nation, and society does nothing to undermine poster #6's claim, since each is susceptible to his proposition.

To Poster 29,
I am not a Christian, but if American Christians were like the muslim extremists there would be a lot more suicide bombings in America. Your post belies only your extreme bigotry and ignorance.

And To poster 40,
Re-write your post, replacing "supporters of pro-choice" and "pro-choice murders" instead of "opponents of same-sex marriage" and and "pro-choice bigots" and see if you would support the consequences of publishing the data. Do you think the pro-life web pages with abortion doctors' addresses are good thing? Perhaps we should also eliminate secret ballots for elections?

to 15/16 i think you should just look at your comrade #14: the way things are has little bearing on the way things should be.

75 - you are an idiot. Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman. If you change the legal structure of marriage so that two men can marry or two women, there is no rational basis to not change the structure of marriage so as to allow polygamy. If you need any more help with understanding this argument, Tommy can come hit you on the head with a tack hammer because you are a retard.

73,

Other than a desire for society to accept the perversion of homosexual marriage, what is the purpose of homosexual marriage?

Almost all of what homosexuals want can be obtained through powers of attorneys, wills, etc. Marriage is not required.

To all of you pathetic fools quoting the bible, no one gives a shit. I could find more wisdom trying to interpret used toilet paper as a Rorschach test. Get a clue: this is the 21st century and not everyone believes in some ridiculous, superstitious bullshit and we shouldn't have to live under your medieval ideas of decency. Why do you care so much that they want to have the same privileges that we enjoy? How does it affect you in any way? You are shameful idiots, truly.

71 - good fucking riddance.

78: Your comment shouldn't be dignified with a response, but I'll do it nonetheless because you're so typical of the anti-SSM crowd. The reason you're losing in the courts is because you think you're making a legal argument. You're not. Equal protection and due process analysis is relevant here. Your thoughts on fundamental changes of the structure of marriage are not.

-75

WOW...who knew that so many bigots read ATL?

In other news, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected a bid by a "family defense" group to take domestic partnership rights away from same-sex couples. Thank God there is some reason and compassion left in the world.

81, except that the pro-SSM crowd is losing in federal courts and most state courts, and even the Obama administration has filed briefs against SSM (and in favor of DOMA).

@70 and the like: Who keeps the list of people that signed the petition? That would be the state board of elections, also known as a state actor.

Publishing the list, or causing the list to be published, is probably enough of a hook if the courts want to prevent this from happening.

Not sure if the courts would actually use this but you law students act like common sense can be applied to the smattering of legal knowledge you listened to in ConLaw.

Learn about a bootstrap before any client asks you for counsel.

79,

other than to reinforce anti-gay bigotry, what is the purpose of opposing homosexual marriage?

If every gay person in America got married (to another gay person) tomorrow, your life would not change one iota. So what's the problem?

Let's grant that "almost" all of what marriage provides can be obtained outside marriage, and that marriage is "not required" for gays to live happily ever after. It doesn't logically follow that gay marriage should be prohibited. Society shouldn't be in the business of banning things simply on the basis that they are not necessary. I mean, restaurants aren't necessary. Nor are movies, books or music. We don't ban them. Government shouldn't be in the business of dictating which benign social relations are essential, and therefore permissible, and which are discretionary, and therefore prohibited.

Publishing these lists is almost certainly unconstitutional for the same reason Alabama wasn't able to "out" NAACP members back in the bad old days. The purpose of publishing information about peoples' political speech is political intimidation. What, in turn, is the purpose of that intimidation? To shut people up. If you hurt people badly enough when they speak out against something then eventually most people will stop speaking out. So, follow along with me, if the government cooperates in publishing names for the purpose of suppressing speech, this is a clear violation of the second amendment. This isn't that complicated.

85, other than to reinforce anti-polygamy bigotry, what is the purpose of opposing adult polygamous marriage. Your life would not change one iota if three other people got married. What's the problem?

-- not 79

75/81 - funny you should say that an equal protection/due process analysis is important here. Your original post was based on your unfounded assertion that polygamy involves the exploitation of very young women. I'm not sure you came within 200 miles of an epc analysis, let alone a "rigorous" one. If you're going to conduct an eqc or due process analysis, I recommend you finish your first semester conlaw class first.

What happened at Cozen today?

Those people who do not support gay marriage are not real human beings, and are unAmerican. As such, they are not protected by the Constitution and they are subject to being discriminated against.
This isn't a joke. This is time for action. If you are against gay marriage, you are not human, period, and should be treated like an animal.

75,

At no point did you prove your point.

First, you say the state is arguable treating gays and heteros dissimilarly w/o sufficient justification. You haven't at all proved a lack of justification. Now, you may say that's not your purpose b/c you're only trying to contrast the form of the debate w/ that of polygamy, but then you're still begging the question.

Second, you presume that polygamy necessarily involves exploitation of women. That does not speak to the issue of there being a proper analogy because you beg the question that there is a state justification. Monogomous marriages, particularly arranged ones, are vulnerable to the same exploitation problem. Furthermore, the states could have stronger laws preventing exploitation, forced marriages, etc. That concern would also not speak to the essential nature of the relationship amongst, say, four doctors in NYC of both genders who all want to be married. Pro-polygamists will therefore say you're treating multi-party relations dissimilarly from monogamous ones without state justification.

Third, homosexuals have NOT tended to be viewed as a suspect class. Whether they should be is a different matter. That polygamists could equally be treated for the factors you enumerate is easily borne out of their history, see, e.g., Mormons being slaughtered and having to move to Utah.

Fourth, you appeal to authority and beg the question the named scholars "thoroughly refuted" the analogy.

You say that "the intelligent people who run our government, courts and businesses are far more persuaded by careful and rigorous analysis and advocacy." In that case, they certainly won't be convinced by your ramblings.

83: The only marriage-related federal issues have to do with federalism concerns (like DOMA), not with the specific granting of marriage rights. That's the province of states. The DOMA suit filed in federal court in MA is advancing and will likely prevail (according to many legal scholars), Obama's DOJ's adversity notwithstanding.

In state courts, marriage equality groups have been on a tear. In just six years, 5+ favorable decisions on marriage alone and several more where the state supreme court required the state to grant same-sex couples all of the benefits that inhere in marriage without the name. What are even more powerful are the impassioned majority opinions by the supreme courts of MA, CT, CA and IA which absolutely destroy the arguments in favor of denying same-sex couples the benefits of marriage. They are truly a delight to read. And Olson and Boies' suit is advancing in CA (see Liptak's recent NYT piece for a great example of why the anti-SSM crowd lacks a leg upon which to stand). Plus, there's always Lawrence v. Texas, the basis for many of the state courts' opinions in favor of SSM. That must have been the most crushing conservative defeat of all, though it is just one of many forthcoming.

Elie's link about Obama "ending racism in America" is great.
~Not Elie or Elie's Mom.

91 FOR THE WIN!

Fact: every state, all 31, that have had referenda on gay marriage have struck it down. All of them, including traditional blue states like California and historically independent states like Maine.

In every state where gay marriage exists, it has been put into place by a handful of legislators and judges.

Gay marriage advocates have not been able to convince the people of the correctness of their cause, so now they are trying to intimidate and harrass people into conforming with their views. As much as you don't like it, people have the right to be anti-gay and anti-gay marriage. Intimidating people this way will only backfire, it will make people resentful and only hurt their cause.

Whatever happened to convincing people of the correctness of your cause instead of bullying them into agreeing with you?

95 - because convincing uneducated, religious mouth-breathers is a feat of impossibility.

87,

Polygamy and gay marriage are not the same thing. If you have a problem with polygamy, then focus on that. It's constitutionally impermissible to prohibit gay marriage on the grounds that if gay marriage were legal, it might wrongly cause other people to conclude that polygamy should be legal, too. If your problem is with polygamy, worry about polygamy. Of course, since polygamy is already illegal, making it a campaign issue doesn't get anyone to the polls. That, of course, is the real issue here.

Gay marriage is unlike polygamy because it conforms to the existing structure of marriage. If we define marriage as the formal, exclusive sexual union of two consenting adults -- which is basically what it's always been -- then there's no reason to allow heterosexuals to marry but forbid homosexuals from marrying, too. Men and women have always married one another because that's how we've always understood sexual relations. Now we see that some small portion of people have that same sexual attraction to members of the same sex instead. It's not like gays are going to marry straight people. So again, who gives a fuck if two gays marry?

60/75

First, the fact that underage marriages occur in polygamous communities is irrelevant. It's likely the bigoted polygophobes who have pushed these people to the fringes of society where these things are more likely to happen. With legalized polygamy, children would more likely be integrated into communities where they could more easily decide to leave polygamy if they chose.

If "polygamy" were legally allowed, it would allow both multiple wives and multiple husbands. That avoids the messy question of whether women are disproportionately the "multiples." So at least under the law women can marry multiple men and men can marry multiple women. There is equal protection of the laws even if "traditional" polygamy is of one sort.

Who they hell are you to judge if someone is oriented (be it by nature, or circumstances or otherwise) to have a "polyamourous" orientation.

97 = FAIL. "If we define marriage as the formal, exclusive sexual union of two consenting adults..."

Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman

Don't believe me? Go ask your Messiah, Barack Obama.

I take back all the nice things I've been saying about Elie. He doesn't get reason. He doesn't get the constitution. He just wants a tyrant to impose his philosophy on the rest of us. Ugh.

98 - I have it hand it to you... I laughed out loud heartily when I read your last line: "Who they hell are you to judge if someone is oriented (be it by nature, or circumstances or otherwise) to have a "polyamourous" orientation."

Brace yourself for the backlash from the pillow biters and the butt pirates.

Come out of the closet, 99.

97, If we define marriage as the formal, exclusive sexual union of consenting adults -- which is basically what it's always been -- then there's no reason to allow monogamists to marry but forbid polygamists from marrying, too. See what I did there? You conveniently ignored that marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman, so I felt it was okay to ignore that marriage has always been defined as between two people.

Why don't you just admit that when you mandate acceptance of gay marriage, you're forcing society to change their definition of marriage.

100 = fail

Legitimizing Elie's prejudices as a "philosophy" is completely inexcusable.

80,

Poster in 18 asked for a Biblical cite, so why are you bitching that one was given; or are you too stupid to follow a simple thread?

Just because you don't like the truth doesn't mean you can honestly twist it to fit your perverted desires.

102, what is that? when in doubt, question the sexual orientation of someone you disagree with? Isn't that exactly the kind of bigotry that the anti-same-sex-marriage coalition is supposed to espouse?

Sadly, you only expose how intolerant and bigoted the pro-same sex marriage crowd can be. Same sex marriage advocates would be a lot more successful if parasites like yourself weren't linked to their cause.

82

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2328.cfm

Bigots? I'm guessing you are refering to the widespread intimidation of anti-SSM petition signers (not even voters)? Outstanding examples of reason and compassion.

Read my post more closely, 103. You've materially misconstrued it.

- 97.

I don't understand why they don't just term SSM "garriage," extend it the same federal rights as marriage, and call it a day.

That would resolve everybody's issues. Homosexuals could have the same legal rights as straight people, while nobody would be forced to call straight marriage the same thing as gay garriage.

Then this entire semantic dispute could finally be put to rest, so it would stop boring us all.

Elie,

You take a lot of shit for being a fat race-bating walrus. I think that is unfortunate.

However, you should take a good deal more for being completely unable to separate your job in reporting for and editing this blog from your political views.

Perhaps worse, you can't even separate what the law actually is from what I can only imagine is a veritable sewer of awful ideas swirling around in your fat walrus head.

107 - I don't understand how the regrettable (and despicable) actions of some pro-SSM advocates changes the simple fact that anti-SSM individuals are generally so inclined due to an uninformed, irrational prejudice against gays. You're obfuscating the issue, here; just because some supporters of the cause use abhorrent tactics doesn't mean the cause isn't right.

The reasonable and compassionate thing to do would be to allow gays the same rights and privileges as straights. And don't give me the line that someone earlier did, scilicet, that gays have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, too. I hope you realize why that's ridiculous.

97

The whole issue or redefinition centers around what elements of marriage we think are negotiable and what elements are not.

For the pro-SSM crowd, the definition clearly emphasizes the two consenting adults portion.

For the anti-SSM crowd, the definition clearly emphasizes the opposite sex portion.

For others, the exclusivity is most important, while for others it may not be.

For some it's a legal agreement used for some financial or other protection, for some it's merely a tool used to show their commitment publicly to others.

If we view marriage as a bundle of sticks where some can be included and some can be left out, and none are too important, then the pro-SSM crowd wins.

Because of no-fault divorces and numerous other "loosenings" of the marriage standard over the past 50 years, it appears that marriage does resemble a bundle of (optional) legal rights rather than a sacred institution.

So, in conclusion, eventually SSM wins. It's precisely because people said "what the hell does my no-fault divorce harm your marriage" that marriage is the laughable institution it is today.

Grab your bundle of rights. 15 bucks says that federal law mandates SSM for all states within 15 years. I say this as someone who will be on the losing side of that culture war.

107,

I wonder if the Prop 8 supporters who have experienced "harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry" are now able to sympathize or empathize with homosexuals who have experienced the nearly exact same things (substitute "racial" with "gay" and substitute "anti-religious bigotry" with "anti-gay bigotry" for far, far longer for the simple reason that they are gay, unlike the Prop 8 supporters, who experienced these things because they supported taking away a right granted to homosexuals through the courts.

I sure hope it's a learning experience for the Prop 8 supporters, but suspect that it won't be.

Gay marriage is still a live political issue in America? I thought Professor Thiao's argument about using straws with your noses dispensed with all this years ago. She also had an argument about condiments or utensils that somehow refuted Affirmative Action and the death penalty.

114 FTW

111-

I'm not obfuscating the issue. My issue is that voter coercion and intimidation are reprehensible, I'm not speaking to the larger SSM debate.

When Elie asks to hold people "accountable" for their views, I thought it instructive to give real life examples of what happens when identifying information (or petition signer information) is disseminated to the public. I don't think it's a good public policy idea and it clearly doesn't work in practice.

Like Momma always sed...gay people are nice until u tell dem dat dey can't marry...den dey jus burn your house down.

115 = 114. I think the jokes about Prof. Thiao are a lot less funny now that I have read 57's comment... catsup bottle stuck in the anal cavity? Now that's messed up.

117 = racist bigot. Please moderate.

116,

If prosecutors would actually prosecute those who attempt to intimidate petition signers, there wouldn't be a problem with disclosing the names. Even better, would be if a private citizen physically arrested someone who attempted to intimidate them, hogged tied them and drove them to the local county jail as would be legal in the State of Washington.

116,

If prosecutors would actually prosecute those who attempt to intimidate petition signers, there wouldn't be a problem with disclosing the names. Even better, would be if a private citizen physically arrested someone who attempted to intimidate them, hogged tied them and drove them to the local county jail as would be legal in the State of Washington.

So anyone who signs a petition should have their identity disclosed so that the rest of the population knows their political views? What about membership lists? I think the NAACP in Alabama during the middle of the last century felt differently.

Gay people themselves have some leeway to keep their orientations secret or not in different crowds. They wouldn't want the name and address of every homosexual to be accessible from the secretary of state's office would they?

The right to express oneself must include the right to do so anonymously. I'm not a first amdt expert but I think there is ample legal precedent for that proposition. That right is curtailed with regard to political contributions because it is balanced against the need to avoid political corruption. There is no such rationale here.

The events in CA after proposition 8 (e.g. the examples in that Heritage paper, the Orrick partner who was forced out for following his religious beliefs, etc) amply demonstrate that gay advocates are not mature enough to take part in a debate. That's not what they're after.

If we want to legalize gay marriage (because religious morals are just so outdated), we might as well make it legal for people who enjoy killing other people (and see nothing wrong with it) to kill people.

118,

An ER RN friend of mine told me about a homosexual man who was dropped off by his with a door knob stuck in anal cavity. His 'friends' just left him on the sidewalk and took off.

107,

I wonder if the Prop 8 supporters who have experienced "harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry" as detailed in the Heritage paper are now able to sympathize or empathize with homosexuals who have experienced nearly the exact same things (substitute "racial" with "gay" and substitute "anti-religious bigotry" with "anti-gay bigotry") for far, far longer for the simple reason that they are gay, unlike the Prop 8 supporters, who experienced these things because they voted in favor of Prop 8 or gave money to the campaign to destroy an important right granted to homosexual through the CA courts.

I sure hope it's a learning experience for the Prop 8 supporters, but suspect that it won't be.

Also, for gays to compare themselves to black people who faced discrimination is just laughable.
-123

This isn't about morals. This is about numbers. The church and the state want you to procreate. More people, more power, more money. This is the same reason they don't want you to terminate your pregnancies. The church has brainwashed the masses into believing this is a moral issue. See through the BS, and end the bigotry.

To those who oppose SSM and think that Scalia's dissent in Lawrence is "brilliant," please kill yourselves. The world would be a much better place without you around.

125-

You fail to make the distinction between the right to exist without harassment and opposition to gay marriage. I for one see a huge divide between tacitly approving of discrimination against gays in housing, employment, or otherwise and objecting to gay marriage.

For better or worse, legal sophistry and redefinition of "marriage" is required to state that SSM is an equal right and not a special right.

To injure, intimidate, or harass someone because of their sexual orientation is abhorrent. To object to a redefinition of marriage to suit SSM does not rise to the same level. I hope that supporters of Prop 8 who harassed homosexual individuals change their ways. I hope that SSM supporters can see that the distinction between wanting to harm homosexuals and opposition to SSM. You may think this is "a distinction without a difference." I do not.

um, 84?

The petition is a public record. It's archived. People don't sue the government because there is a record of a court proceeding. That it is exists as an archive is not an action. (That is, existence does not equal action).

That the government may allow people to access that information and copy it in different ways, as you admit, "may be" enough of a hook, but it isn't.

And the action to which Elie and 13 and 70 were referring to isn't the government providning the list, it's whether gay rights activists who use the list violate the first amendment in so targeting petition-signers.

Spotting the issue: it's an important skill set for those who pretend to think they are good lawyers like you, 84.

128, Why so bitter? Is the Ketchup bottle from Halloween still stuck in your anal cavity?

129,

Like most opponents of SSM, you believe (simplistically and naively) that all you are doing is objecting to a "redefinition of marriage to suit SSM." That's the basis of your opposition (unless you actually hate gay people).

This view is wrong on so many levels. Legal recognition of a marriage by a state brings with it a vast and vitally important array of legal and societal benefits too numerous to mention here. By objecting to SSM, you are objecting to, for example, a homosexual couple who has been together for 30 years being able to adopt a child, list each other as beneficiaries and dependents in numerous programs, visit each other in the hospital under various circumstances, and so on and so on. That is why it is repugnant for you to simply say that all you're doing is objecting to a redefinition of marriage. You're objecting to equal treatment for a couple for the simple reason that they are gay. For shame. State it for what it is.

This is why your side is losing in the courts. Anti-SSM people are not able to distinguish between religious recognition of marriage (unaffected by SSM) and legal recognition of marriage by the state. Legal recognition by the state implicates distribution of a wide array of benefits. And the state has no good reason to deny those benefits to a committed same-sex couple.

132, proponents of homo marriage (let's "state it for what it is") are seeking NEW rights that have never been recognized. Comparisons by proponents of homo marriage (let's "state it for what it is") to interracial marriage are just as preposterous, if not more so, than the comparisons of opponents of homo marriage (let's "state it for what it is") to polygamy, incest, and any other union not between one man and one woman.

You're exactly right to state that denial of homo marriage is a denial of equal treatment. Just remember that equal protection does NOT equal equal treatment. Or have you not gotten to that part of your first semester Con Law class yet?

132-

Your whole argument is based on semantics. California had an extremely liberal civil union law at the time of Prop 8. Those rights can be granted without the term "marriage." Even federal law could be changed to recognize civil unions on the same footing as marriage.

I will state it for what it is. I am absolutely objecting to extending the right to marry to encompass same sex individuals. Not because they are gay, but because they are the same sex. Again, this is a subtle but relevant distinction. I feel no shame in saying so. I am opposed to SSM, straight up.

You see SSM in terms of gay folks and their orientation. I see it as redefining marriage and opening a can of worms to redefine marriage again and again. You may say the slippery slope argument is irrelevant, but I don't think it is.

Your "for shame" is about as persuasive as the guy up there who quoted scripture. I fully believe I am on the morally right side of the issue--I recognize it's not a popular one, but I care about what's right, not what's popular. See, I can do it too.

134, your only mistake is stating that your position is not a popular one. Marriage = 31-0!

I'll qualify that as "unpopular in the circles I run in."

I'm sick of the narrowness of the Pro-Gay marriage and Religious opposition debate!

Gays couples aren't equal. Gays are, by definition, evolutionary duds. Their relationships aren't worthy of government recognition because their relationships are futile. While many hetero couples cannot or do not procreate, it does not follow the TYPE of relationship isn't of the procreative KIND.

Enough of your "bigotry" "close-minded" tropes. You aren't sinners, and you are equal citizens, but as couples you are not worthy of marriage privileges, just as the blind aren't entitled to drivers' licenses.

End of story.

132: Legal recognition by "a state" does not necessarily bring any legal benefits whatsoever. Certainly that ain't the case with respect to Proposition 8; as you know or should know, the DOMA precludes states from establishing federal marriage rights by legalizing gay marriage, and Cali already affords full state-level legal rights to civil unions; there's virtually no difference between the two, apart from some minor arcane points. Thus in many respects, the political issues are pure terminology, along with the corresponding desire to propound a specific social message through enforced terminology. This is annoying. It's further annoying when people keep misrepresenting this point, histrionically trying to exaggerate what's actually at stake. Nobody would get a significant new legal right if Proposition 8 hadn't passed; what would change is the specific term used by the state of California to apply to gay civil unions. You know this, surely. So why pretend otherwise?

There are plenty of people, like myself, who want the DOMA repealed and further want to see that EVERY committed sexual union (straight, gay, polygamy, etc.) is treated equally with respect to legal rights, but who are annoyed by efforts to establish, via semantic equalization, that every such union is equally valid, traditional, and important. And are further annoyed by the lack of candor about this goal.

"For shame, state it for what it is," lol. What a bunch of sanctimonious, disingenuous posing.

Too bad there aren't any Mormon temples in Maine for people to desecrate. Instead, maybe all those self-righteous Mainers can fire all of their Catholic employees. Those fools. Title VII protects minorities, not religions...

To 138

The Constitution is a real pest, isn't it?

35--name one prominent "liberal" who has supported the Taliban or Al-Qaida.

Oh, what's that, you can't? Thanks for perpetuating one of the principle lies of the right-wing.

1. I have not read a single thing here that is not already covered in my first semester Con Law class, so get off my F'ing Con Law class already.

2. If gays can marry they will stop partying, dancing, primping and acting so happy. Then we will have nothing to watch on television.

3. If polygamists are allowed to marry they will move back into cities and they all have messed up grills. We can go to London if we want to see that -lets not make it a permanent fixture.

4. If you think discrimination, harassment and abuse of people that discriminate, harass and abuse you is a good idea, you should kill yourself before you contaminate the gene pool.

138

Fantastic reply. I appreciate how clearly you laid out the real situation. While I still may not be on board with everything, I appreciate how clear, concise, and forthright you are. You've really cut at the root of the problem. I hope that eventually the debate can be reshaped to examine it from your point of view. We're much more likely to reach a happy compromise.

That said, why compromise when you know that popular opinion and state (and eventually federal) courts are gradually swing your way? I don't see a SSM/civil union compromise on the horizon because there's no reason for SSM supporters to compromise when they know they'll win outright given enough time.

-132

141 - Stop being ridiculous. Name one prominent "conservative" that supports bombing abortion clinics. You can't. Yet the right-wing nut jobs always get accused of supporting such actions. Such logic is worthless, on either end of the political spectrum.

141,

Bill Maher, which is why he lost his job.

And it is "principal", not "principle".

Why are we even having this discussion? Screw this intelelectual crap.

It's so fucking obvious. If you advocate against gay marriage your brain is not functioning right. You are sub-human, and you shall not be taken seriously as a person. I get the fact that more than half of the people in this country are like that. But look around you: Most people in this country are retarded assholes, and should not be taken seriously.

There's no pointg in arguing. Again, if you are against gay marriage, you are a sub-citizen; you are useless; and your parents failed in raising a decent person.

@137

YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!! It does not make any sense at all to deny one group a privilege just because they are incapable of exercising full enjoyment of it. NOT ALL SEEING PEOPLE HAVE DRIVERS LICENSES EITHER!

LET THE BLIND GUYS DRIVE!

146,

Well, Heil Hitler to you too...

128,

Scalia's dissent in Lawrence wasn't brilliant - it was obvious.

ATTA BOY 146!

That's why I also think the poor shouldn't vote. They don't know how to F'ing work or they are just too stupid. Either way, sub-human retarded assholes, and their parents are utter failures.

145:

You are a piece of crap liar. You know perfectly well that Bill has never supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda. If you're talking about what he said eight years ago on ABC, he said that the douchebag terrorists were not cowards. He did not support the disgusting, pig-like thing those asshole terrorists did. Rather he stated the truth in that, yes, they were evil piece of shit scumbags, but no they were not "cowards" because they killed themselves.

Right wing asswipes love to lie about what Bill said.

He now has a much better job, where he can say whatever he wants. His show is actually awesome and he's about the only public figure who has the balls to actually say interesting, truthful things. God bless him.

146-

Nice try at trolling. The only thing that is obvious is that you are an imbecilic, homophobic troll trying to incite others against SSM supporters. We don't need your help.

- Against SSM

151 = Maher's gimp

150:

I said nothing about the poor.

If you want to have a contest as to whether Americans are intelligent, you know which way it will come out. I could spout off statistics that go on so long you'd be reading for the next week that shows how uneducated and dumb people in this country are.

145:

And Bill is super awesome and he's my best friend and we have like a ton of awesome super cool friends that all said he is so smart and my whole family thinks he is funny and they usually don't think guys with grey hair are funny but they do think Bill is and he told me that when this all plays out we are going to get married and then Bill will probably be President of the Euro-American-Asian-African Union.

-151

155:
5150 much?

154,

That is completely true! Did you know that said data also breaks down along racial lines? For example, Californians on average have the second lowest IQ in the union. Guess why.

Debating gay marriage is useless. Those in favor of gay marriage can blame conservatives all they want. However, doing so seriously risks alienating those conservatives who are not necessarily opposed to gay marriage. The constant mockery of Christianity and conservative morals does not encourage conservatives such as myself to vote in favor of gay marriage. If anything, it makes me want to oppose gay marriage just to spite you.

151 -

Before you start calling people liars, maybe you should present them with the actual facts. After Maher said that the 9/11 terrorists were not cowards, he added, "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."

Now, that isn't coming out and directly supporting the terrorists. But say that the 9/11 terrorists were not cowards in the same breath as you call American soldiers cowards for "lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away" is a little different than your interpretation of Maher calling the terrorists, "evil piece of shit scumbags."

Kids these days. Always spouting off without any substantiation. For the love...

152:

No trolling here. I've met a lot of people and I've done a lot of research, and I honest-to-God believe that people against gay marriage have serious medical problems . Something is not firing right in their brain. It may be a synapse problem, or it be something awful that their parents did to them, but there is something off. They therefore should not be taken seriously, and nobody should engage in debate with them.

--146

146/160,

You have done no such research, you aren't qualified to do research, and you no one can in their right mind believe that you could do either.

146/160,

You have done no such research, you aren't qualified to do research, and you no one can in their right mind could believe that you could do either.

Seems to me that keeping the identities secret of those who sign petitions denying rights to certain members of society pretty much accomplishes the same thing as the hoods worn by Klan members. Maybe doing away with the hoods wouldn't have gotten blacks the right to vote any faster, but it sure would have cut down on the number of lynchings.

163,

Doubtful:

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm18.html

146, i'm glad we can agree that barack obama a useless sub-human

143-
LGBT Americans waited 218 years before federal courts "gradually" swung in favor of striking down criminal laws that allowed states to imprison them for living normal lives.

Americans who fell in love with - and wanted to marry - partners who were of a different race waited 180 years before federal courts "gradually" recognized that, while the Constitution DID NOT grant any special right to interracial marriages, it DID prohibit states from prohibiting them by law.

The reason for this was that depriving interracial couples of the freedom to marry - which the Loving Court recognized had "long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men" - violated "the principle of equality at the heart of the 14th Amendment."

Though Virginia argued, and a lower court held, that "[a]lmighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents . . . The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix[,]" the Court found that this justification amounted to no more than "invidious discrimination," which the 14th Amendment prohibits.

So, yes, hopefully one day public opinion and the courts will "gradually" accept the fact that LGBT Americans are, in fact, American citizens possessing rights and freedoms equal to non-LGBT American citizens.

Until then, though, all of us in favor of equality for all Americans will unceasingly strive to correct every instance of federal and state governments denying some Americans the freedom to marry because of ignorant, archaic and discriminatory beliefs that are as offensive today as the arguments against interracial marriage were in the '60s.

166,

Hear hear! For too long have the Pedophile Americans, Bestiality-inclined Americans, Necrophiliac Americans been repressed by ignorant, archaic, and discriminatory beliefs. For those of us who believe in equality for ALL Americans, this is a step in the right direction.

166

My point is that SSM supporters will not compromise on the semantics of "marriage" because they know in 5-20 years they get the whole banana. Your diatribe about 200 years is pointless. Even those of us opposed to gay marriage can see the writing on the wall. Your side wins and in not many years.

I'll keep my archaic beliefs just the same. It's not simply about doing what "history will look kindly on" it's about doing what you think is right.

166, interracial marriage has nothing to do with same sex marriage. The Loving Court and Lawrence Court both distinguished the one (marriage between one man and one woman) from the other (homosexual marriage).

78, 133 and others who are against gay "marriage":
Here is my plan and I would like to hear your input on this.
1) The term marriage is abolished from all Federal and State laws, statutes, and other items.
2) The term civil unions or civil partnerships (not sure which term I prefer yet, other ideas can be used too) is introduced to describe the connection between two people. Men can be connected to women or men, Women can be connected to men or women. Doesn't matter.
3) Marriage is returned to religious organizations, where it once began. Each religious organization will than be allowed to determine what marriage is made up of (so the catholic church for example can say marriage is only between a man and a woman)
4) All Local and the Federal government will confur the rights currently held by "married" couples onto Civil Union/Civil Partnerships. (this means all tax breaks, rights to visit in hospitals, and other rights)
5) No rights are given by either the local or federal government to couples who are not a civil union/civil partnership.
6) A couple can get just a marriage and not a civil union/civil partnnership but these couples will have no rights under any government.
This accomplishes several goals. It protects the sanctity of marriage. It makes sure all people are treated equally under the laws of the United States. It eliminates the distinction between marriage and civil unions that gay couples seemed to care about. So lets here it, what is wrong with this plan?
-posted by a staight jewish male

141, you asked for one name of a prominent "liberal" who supported the Taliban or Al-Queda.

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, in response to 9/11, stated that the chickens had come home to roost.

170 - isn't that exactly what the gays want? ie - for society to teach that their union or contract or marriage or whatever you want to call it, is the same as a heterosexual one? On top of that, don't they want to force it down everyone's throat (please try to not get turned on at the thought) by the force of law. Don't they want to paint anyone is thinks that gay sex is wrong as a bigot?

So tell me, what exactly does your plan offer those who are against gay marriage?

LAST- move along folks, and put that stick away. She's dead.

15-

These people should absolutely expect their names to be public. If you donate money or sign one of those petitions at least have the balls to stand by it. Lost your job because you signed it? Good! I can get fired in half this country merely because I'm gay. Worried about vandalism? Welcome to a small taste of what myself and many friends have gone through. I've left a gay bar at 2am, in a major city mind you, and had two skinheads follow me down the street (and I know it's following when I change streets, then they do, and when I duck into a convenience store and they wait outside for 30 minutes until I ask owned to call the police at which point they finally leave).

You honestly cannot expect me to stand by, get punched in the face and do nothing. Tired of voting on these laws? Fine, convince enough of your fellow citizens not to sign my petition to pass it. But I will lobby, table, and gather signatures every year until this passes. That's not democracy works. I will not be a silent minority.

173, if you're done with that stick, I'm sure 57's wife knows some folks who might want to use it...

174,

My heart bleeds for you.

You are the embodiment of manliness.

Since when does fairness/justice = equality. These are apples and oranges. Some things that are fair are not equal, and some things that are just are not equal. It is equal that I might be born with a smarter sibling? No, but who is to say that is not fair? Must we live in a world where everything has to be exactly equal to be fair? Of course not, thatd be the most boring place I could ever think of. I cant help you if ATL's definition of fairness is always the same as equality, thats just silly. Again, I dunno why the liberal media has been successful in defining these terms as the same when they are not. If you think it is fair to ignore natural comparative and absolute advantages each sex has been given over the other and bow down to EQUALITY above all else, I guess you just really wanna live in a very boring world where everything is exactly the same and no one can be smarter or dumber or prettier or uglier than anyone else. Read Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron, the famous short story about equality above all else. Sounds like a fun world I want to live in. Homosexual marriage may be unequal, or it may not, but that does not automatically translate into fairess or justice, not even a little bit.

Since when does fairness/justice = equality. These are apples and oranges. Some things that are fair are not equal, and some things that are just are not equal. It is equal that I might be born with a smarter sibling? No, but who is to say that is not fair? Must we live in a world where everything has to be exactly equal to be fair? Of course not, thatd be the most boring place I could ever think of. I cant help you if ATL's definition of fairness is always the same as equality, thats just silly. Again, I dunno why the liberal media has been successful in defining these terms as the same when they are not. If you think it is fair to ignore natural comparative and absolute advantages each sex has been given over the other and bow down to EQUALITY above all else, I guess you just really wanna live in a very boring world where everything is exactly the same and no one can be smarter or dumber or prettier or uglier than anyone else. Read Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron, the famous short story about equality above all else. Sounds like a fun world I want to live in. Homosexual marriage may be unequal, or it may not, but that does not automatically translate into fairess or justice, not even a little bit.

160-

You are mistaken. The scientific literature demonstrates that homossexualaity is rooted mostly in disfunctional family of origin relationships, sexual abuse, or seduction by much older individuals of the same sex.

Those who claim that homosexuals do not recruit are in denial. The evidence supports the proposition that a person'[s first homosexual experience is almost always with an older person, and most often with a significantly older person.

171 doesn't know the difference between "support" and "making an opinionated observation".

171 is dumb.

Gay Marriage has nothing to do with civil rights. If the goal is legal rights, then civil unions fit the bill.

Gay Marriage is about using the state to redefine a cultural norm. The word "marriage" has cultural value. Gays want to latch onto and subjugate that cultural value to their own agenda. Why convince people of your point of view when it is so much easier to redefine words to mean completely different things? Orwell knew this well.

179, please give the cites to the "scientific literature." You should realize, though, that some conservative pastor's sermon is not "scientific literature" in the sense that social scientists and educated people use the word.

Hey, Elie and Lat:

I just thought of a way your website could make more money. Keep a catalog of all the IP addresses of the bigoted assholes and complete nutcases who post here, and then sell the list to the Republican National Committee. They can use the information to link the IPs to the users, and then they can build their base by attracting their target audience: hateful, bigoted, narcisisstic assholes, who apparently make up the majority of this blog's readers.

The only reason why anyone could oppose gay marriage is because he is in-the-closet and feels guilty about it. For all of you haters, I recommend that you come out and embrace yourself. The rest of us think its ok.

So, Bill Maher, who didn't exactly defend al-Queda but did say the hijackers were "not cowards", and Jeremiah Wright (who could hardly be considered a liberal in any traditional sense, are the best examples you can come up with?

Color me unimpressed.

183,

If you were correct, your project would be retarded for being redundant, i.e., those people would already constitute the base....

However, the RNC doesn't need that data since most of the small-minded, bigoted nutcases you speak of are actually liberal democrats who post ill-reasoned, pathetic (in the original sense of the word) arguments for gay marriage.

137

172-
They get to protect marriage. Every commercial and anti-gay marriage item I have seen is about the fact that the sanctity of marriage must be preserved. Fine. My plan gives marriage to religion. Only they can decide who does and does not get married. The word belongs to them. This way they can call their union a marriage, even though it has no significance. That way it only has a religious connotation. Any other argument is just we don't like gays, and that argument would violate the 14th amendment .

Here's an ill-reasoned and pathetic argument for same-sex marriage, 186.

The debate over same-sex marriage is really two different debates that are happening at the same time. The first is a normative debate about what relationships to value or even to sanctify. The second is a debate about administration – about which relationships ought to have legal consequences.

The normative debate concerns what relationships are intrinsically valuable. It is taking place within most religious denominations within the United States, creating divisions that sometimes approach schism. The key question is one about objective moral reality: are same-sex relationships as such morally equal to heterosexual relationships, or do heterosexual relationships partake of a good that homosexual relationships cannot possibly share? The conservatives have some powerful resources: authoritative texts, longstanding traditions, the considered views of clergy, a primitive revulsion that many feel toward homosexual sex. On the other hand, there is a fundamental difficulty in the claim that there is too much love in the world, and that we therefore must weed out love of the wrong kind.

The most powerful argument on the other side notices the strong resemblance between the most successful heterosexual couples and their gay counterparts, in terms of both care for spouses and the creation of a family environment in which children can thrive. Like things should be treated alike. Unless there is some salient moral difference between the two kinds of couple, they should be treated the same. This argument has been powerful enough that the burden has been shifting to the opponents of same-sex marriage to explain just what the moral difference is.

The administrative debate concerns what relationships between persons ought to be given legal recognition. Here the issue is nothing as exalted as intrinsic value. It is the more mundane question of how resources should be allocated and unfair disruption of people’s lives prevented. Like it or not, households, of whatever kind, and relationships of dependency exist. From those relationships, one can reasonably infer what the members of those households would want and need if some unprovided-for contingency arises, such as the illness or death of one of them. From this perspective, law ought to maximize welfare by reflecting people’s preferences and providing the default options that they would probably have chosen had they been able to think about it.

On the policy side, marriage is good for married people and good for society. The public-policy argument for same-sex marriage can be put simply: It will benefit gay families, including couples with children, and will do so without much risk of harming others.

There are about nine million gay Americans. As of 2005, there were almost 780,000 same-sex “unmarried partner” households, totaling about 1.5 million adults. Overall, at least one million children in this country are being raised by gay parents. That’s a lot of people with no prospect of marriage in their lives.

Of course, these numbers should be put in context. There are 300 million people and about 55 million married households in the U.S. The vast majority of children are raised by heterosexuals, and heterosexual couples are far more likely to raise children. If denying marriage to gay Americans and their children is somehow really necessary to protect the overwhelming majority, so be it.

But the needs of gay families must be considered in the debate. Any humane and civilized person should be concerned about the welfare of these people and thus should consider how public policy affects their lives.

Gay marriage is new to the law but gay “marriage” is not new to life.

Gay families have been living and functioning as real families for decades now without full marital sanction. Over the past half-century, there has been a significant liberalization in social attitudes and legal policy toward homosexuals. This has occurred incrementally and, while there has been resistance, its vector has been toward the formation, growth, and formal legal recognition of gay families through domestic partnerships, civil unions, and now marriage.

One of the benefits of this development is that the debate over gay marriage is becoming less abstract and more based on actual lived experience. Gay families function much as others do in their needs and capacities for love, support, and sacrifice. They also have the same problems with money, jobs, child-raising, illnesses, and injuries.

Marriage offers them irreplaceable legal, care-giving, and social benefits. The legal advantages are many and well-known. Law confers rights and imposes obligations on married people in ways often designed to sustain them in times of crisis. Children are more secure in households where their parents are united in marriage. In the absence of marriage, the law is twisting itself in knots trying to accommodate the needs of gay families. Gay marriage would alleviate these legal difficulties and thus should help stabilize their lives.

There’s more. Marriage, by custom, social expectation, and to some extent by law, also encourages spouses to commit to each other. Even with no-fault divorce, it makes partners think twice about exit. Custom and social expectation – perhaps less powerfully at first for gay couples -- will give them and their relatives and friends a common language in which to talk about their relationships and a common framework in which to think about their obligations.

It’s implausible to think that gay families will get no benefit from marriage. The interesting question is how great the benefit will be. We probably can’t just extrapolate everything heterosexuals get from it, but some magnitude of the benefit will surely be available to gay families.

On the other side of the ledger, how plausible is any harm? Even proceeding cautiously to minimize the danger of unintended consequences, every change requires some judgment about risk. I don’t see any basis in experience or common sense for thinking that heterosexuals will procreate less responsibly or take their own marriages less seriously, or that the stabilizing conventions of marriage (like the expectation of sexual exclusivity) will be undermined.

38-

It is not a good idea to use the fact that you are a Texan to demonstrate that you are a heterosexual. I (and others) assume you are a trolling homosexual.

182,

http://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/rootsofhomosexualityp603.php

http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/homosexuality/overcoming/A000001536.cfm

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w035q36562138761/

http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/BroSx/Html/ShrtEvid.htm

http://www.home60515.com/3.html

http://math.ucsd.edu/~weinrich/NCLSWNRC.HTML

There are lots of others.

190: I think that what 182 requested was cites to scientific literature. Only one of those links leads to anything remotely related to scientific literature and the article linked to merely supports the proposition that "[s]tatistically significant differences were ... found between the [lesbian women] and heterosexual groups on subtests measuring negative attitudes toward mother, negative attitudes toward father, struggle for independence, parent-child friction, interparental friction, family inferiority, rejection of child, and parental qualities."

If that's all you can come up with for peer-reviewed scientific literature, I'm not surprised you're a bit frustrated.

185,

Jeremiah Wright not a liberal? Your are probably the only person in the country who believes that.

188,

First, you beg the question of it being a matter of like things being treated alike. The onus, therefore, has not shifted to opponents. Second your weeding out love argument is completely sophistical. And anyway, love is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for marriage. So far you aren't contradicting my "ill-reasoned and pathetic arguments" claim here....

Furthermore, you have created an artificial dichotomy between the normative and administrative considerations. The administrative question, as you've articulated it, is clearly a normative function of distributive justice (who is allocated what resources and on what bases). Although the claimed divorce is popular Positivist dogma in the academy, you yourself don't abide by the distinction anyway. You switch IMMEDIATELY to normative considerations by claiming the primary purview of the law ought to be welfare maximizing. By your argument, by the way, we should be doing more to care for underground polygamist families.

You move from the fact of gay 'familial' situations to their normative worth. Your "data" are unsubstantiated (indeed, highly suspect), and you have in no way demonstrated why there would be welfare improvement in a move from civil unions to marriages, and the "knots" position is also question-begging.

Nowhere did you address my claim that Gays are actually unworthy of marriage or the benefits that institution confers. You simply presumed it away (see above about like things being treated alike). \

137

Opponents of equal marriage rights fail to treat the lives and experiences of gays and lesbians with any moral seriousness.

The argument that there's no equal protection problem because gays are able to marry someone of the opposite sex is either cynical (19) or fatuous (let's be a little generous to Justice Scalia dissenting in Lawrence; his concern that states would no longer be able to legislate against masturbation just makes me want to pat him gently on the head). Suppose the rule were that you could marry only someone of the same sex. Would any intellectually honest straight guy think, "Oh, cool, I can marry a dude, so no equal protection problem here. Doesn't trivialize the most central aspects of my identity."

Other favorite grounds seem likewise to grow out of a belief that gays and lesbians are completely alien, rather than quite similar but with a different affectional orientation. E.g., the bogus social science, the cramped Biblical interpretations, and the bullshit urban legends (Lightbulbs, ketchup bottles. Really, 57, your "trauma surgeon" wife didn't see any gerbils?).

My brother and his wife started dating six months before my partner and I did, and yet, if something happened to one of them, the other wouldn't have to worry about visiting in the hospital, the state potentially trying to tax the survivor on their house, or people not understanding what their relationship is because there's no good word to describe it. Like them, we have chosen to be together to love, encourage, and support each other, That's why I'm holding out for "marriage," 170, with all its responsibilities and rights, both legal and cultural. And I take heart in knowing that as more people are able to come out, more opponents of marriage rights have to confront the contradictions between their views and the sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, brothers- and sisters-in-law, and friends they love. "The world only spins forward. We will be citizens."

sorry, that should say "of the benefits that institution confers"

137/186

We do take you seriously, we just either think you're sinners or you're unequal. You're also generally subversive of the entire social order, and thus constitute a threat to our freedom.

I feel badly that 196's parents abjectly failed in their task of raising 196 to be a decent, tolerant and compassionate human being. I feel for you, 196.

191,

I am not frustrated.

Seems that lots of homosexuals are the ones frustrated by the fact that there is no scientific fact that there is no clear genetic basis for homosexuality.

It is also clear that homosexuals are much more dissatisfied with their lives. Even pro-homosexual sociologist recognize the life expextancies for homosexuals are 10-20 years less than hetrosexuals. Also, the biggest open secret about homosexuals is the rampant physical abuse within a large number of lesbian relationships.

Why would any sane person encourge behavior that is so destructive on so many different levels?

Holy shit, I had no idea there were this many ignorant, bigoted attorneys (or law students) out there. Either that or Jerry Falwell's Liberty University devoted a class to posting lessons from their latest lecture on ATL today. The bar exam clearly needs to focus more on logic and reasoning skills. For some of you, the brain itself appears to be an obstacle to thought, and there is little hope -- I can only pray you will gain some wisdom with age. For the rest of you, start with Goodridge v. Department of Public Health if you are looking for legal arguments.

What I don't get is why you care so much what two consenting adults do, or what they call it, when it has nothing to do with you. Leave it to God and stop trying to legislate morality when there is no consensus and no victim.

199,

Ahem, Christians do leave it to God; and God is very clear that homosexual acts are an abomination.

I you think our nation should abandon God's laws, whay have any laws; or haven't you read the Declaration of Independence, which BTW is the law of the land?

If you don't think it is, I suggest your read the first statute enacted by the first Congress.

BTW, why do you assume that only attorneys and law students read this blog?

197,

If I wasn't feeling or compassionate I wouldn't care about the social order, would I?

196

Best comment I've seen on ATL: People aren't born gay just like I'm not born an English speaker. That isn't to say that during someone's formative years, certain influences and experiences cause them to believe that they are gay, much like I "believe" I am an English speaker.

We can debate all day and all night (and apparently we have) about whether this is problematic or not. No one can dispute that it is happening. The arguments that rely on "genetic predispositions" should stop. The original progress thinker that the anti-organized-religion crowd faithfully followed, Darwin himself, implicitly makes the argument that any homosexual genetic combination is either decreasing (which apparently isn't happening) or is the result of a mutation. So, which of those two alternatives do you want to claim? Isn't it easier just to give up the genetic argument already?

And I'm still waiting for an example of a prominent "conservative" who openly supports the bombing of abortion clinics. Maher and Reverand Wright are at least colorable examples of liberals; what about the conservatives?

200: You are proof that non-attorneys and law students read and post on this blog. Congrats. Now...our laws are God's laws? Are you serious? Are you that out of it? I'm sick and tired of conservatives getting a free pass on being stupid, ignorant, completely out of whack with history, reason and logic, and generally useless. 200, prove your use or go away. And if you make another comment like that, you don't deserve to be a member of any bar or engaged in the legal profession whatsoever.

203,

Think logically why your last sentence is irrelevant.

199, stop trying to legislate morality when there is no consensus? Seems like there is a pretty clear majority of voters that believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

It's pretty clear that the people trying to push their morals are the pro homosexual marriage crowd. Look at California, for example. The state offered to registered domestic partners all of the rights that the state granted to married couples. Even so, the gay marriage crowd still sued to be able to marry in California. If marriage is just semantics, why not be happy with all of the rights that married couples have?

My Fellow Homosexuals -

After the loss in Maine, our homosexual-marriage record at the ballot box is now 0-31.

Clearly, most of America is still homophobic and clings to guns and religion.

In response to the hate-mongering, it is incumbent upon us to affect the type of change we can believe in. Therefore, I propose we circumvent the democratic process, and head straight for the courts. We've had so much success here in the past.

And if the voters pull a Prop. 8 on us (curse you, Mormons), I say we petition President Obama for a Homosexual Marriage Czar.

Even though Obama is on record as opposing our sacred cause, we know he's just playing coy for fake news organizations like Fox News. I mean, his school czar is homosexual, and is on record as sanctioning homosexual relationships between students and older men. Get 'em while they're young, is what I always say.

Homosexual Marriage Czar: Change We Can Believe In

EQUALITY SECURE

203,

Assuming you are an attorney, you are proof that any idiot can pass a bar exam.

BTW, mandatory state bar membership has been around for less than 100 years. Why do you suppose that changed, other than as a way to control the practice of law by the powerful people within various states and against the interests of justice for the common man; and the money, of course?

If you are so intelligent, just what do you think is the foundation of the laws of this country? If there is no absolute moral basis, why have any laws? The fact is the founders of our nation agreed that our rights are given to us by God and stated just that in the Declaration of Independence.

If you want to live in a country where this isn't the case, you are free to leave.

205: A majority does not a consensus make. A consensus is an agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole -- like don't fuck sheep. Here there are obviously many people who disagree with you (at least a large minority if you believe the polls).

I don't care what you call a legal or spiritual union between two people of the same gender. Why? Because it doesn't affect me. It does seem to matter to gay couples that want to marry, and it affects them. So, that's why it should be called marriage.

208,

Your narrow-minded, bigoted, anti-bestiality remarks belie your hypocrisy. For, under your definition, there is no "consensus" unless it includes and SUPPORTS the views of the dissenting minority!

James Tait (google me)

209: Jesus, (wo)man, now you're just being ridiculous. I never said everyone either - do we need to pick a % for you to get your mind around this? You can amend the federal constitution with enough people, so for your mental masturbation purposes lets pretend that is enough to constitute a consensus that would justify imposing a tyranny of the majority (since your constitutional rights are only as good as that anyway). We don't have that much of a consensus to prohibit gay marriage. We do have that much consensus to prohibit bestiality. Just get over yourself.

I am stunned at how often purported pro-gays resort to ad hominem attacks. If someone disagree with the pro-gay agenda, he is a "bigot", an "idiot", or worst of all, "Christian".

There are strong arguments for and against gay marriage, and reasonable (and educated) minds can differ. The ad hominem attacks are a waste of space and hurt the pro-gay cause.

The truly pro-gay usually have coherent arguments. The unthinking PC drones usually resort to name calling. The latter should shut up so the former can the state the case without fighting through the noise.

It would seem that ad hominem attacks have been used pretty widely by both sides. Not particularly classy, but this is a blog and not a courtroom. Feel persecuted much?

210,

209 here. Given the 0 for 31 rating on State popular voting on the matter, we obviously do have enough of a majority on the matter. States with gay marriage have ONLY come about via dubious state supreme court decisions. Why do you think Obama had to lie during the election campaign to say he was against gay marriage?

You are a fool.

213: That's not how you amend the federal constitution.

You are a genius.

213 here,

Thanks, I know about article V Apparently, you can't read though, since my point was only to demonstrate that there wasn't a sufficient amount of voters to support such a move anyway.

Nice try though, dipshit.

215: Obviously you forgot to demonstrate that point with words.

Nice try, Shakespeare.

216,

What, then, do you think the words " 0 for 31 rating" and "majority on the matter" mean then in my previous post?

You must be some sort of imbecile.

217: The initial assumption is that you were proposing that the anti-gay marriage interests had sufficient support to ban gay marriage, notwithstanding the normative proposition that a government should not be able to prohibit any "victimless" activity between two consenting adults without a consensus at least as great as would be required to impose a constitutional amendment (which would also be sufficient to overcome any "equal protection" or other legal arguments that have been successfully advanced in support of gay marriage in some states). However, after I pointed out that your example of apparent support for a ban was not equal to what was being called for to impose such ban (you went after my example, after all), you responded (or so the words indicate) that you were actually making a case that there was not enough support to impose such a ban. Keep in mind that your posts are now about as clear as mud following apparent contradiction. Next time you should just say what you mean with your actual words instead of your thoughts.

At this point I feel bad for picking a fight with the mentally handicapped. And I've got my billables for the night, so cheers. Sweet dreams. And remember to stop sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

Not at all. I had argued there was a sufficient majority to block a pro-gay marriage amendment, which is what poster #210 had suggested, i.e., the reason for my post. Read my post at 215: "not enough supporters".

You have confirmed your imbecility, now go to bed.

sorry, that should say poster #205 (people trying to push their morals).

@79

Your argument is fallacious. First, all of the countries mentioned in your post legalized gay marriage only in their very recent history, and they all condemned homosexual behavior until a relatively short time ago.

>> so what is your timeline for social decay? If we're talking decades, then your argument is specious.

Second, none of them meets the replacement rate: they ARE dying.

>> Meeting the replacement rate is not the same thing as dying. The TFR in the US, among native born Americans, is less than the replacement rate. Said another way: Neither is the US - again, your argument fails.

The lowered birthrates, imported demographics (a futile effort to compensate and keep their social-welfare systems afloat), and gay marriage are all SYMPTOMS of the same phenomenon.

>> gay marriage is a symptom of a declining TFR? I would hazard that increased Per Capita income is more likely the cause of that decline in TFR. But don't trust me; Check the CIA's study on same.

Their current economic standings are not indicative of their long-term viability.

>> economic and socio-economic are standing are not the same, again. If your view is that most of western Europe and the Scandinavian countries are going to vanish in the near future, methinks a few courses in geopolitical history are in order.

Third, your division between state, nation, and society does nothing to undermine poster #6's claim, since each is susceptible to his proposition.

>> See Lewis Black's commentary on the subject. Gay Marriage as a source of state, national, or social decline ranks up there on page 6 with "are we eating too much garlic as a people?".

- 21

I really didn't need yet another excuse to avoid the BC Law fundraising guy when he inevitably calls me in the next few weeks trying to get a piece of my year end cash but Prof. Fitzgibbons gave me one. Thanks Fitzie. You were a complete bore in corporations and probably am responsible more than anyone for the field I practice in today.

Signed, Big Law Partner Who Never Really Wanted to Give to BC Law and Now Won't Give them Another Dime

Straight, married, pro-gay marriage supporter here. It's an equal protection issue, pure and simple.

The only coherent arguments anyone seems to be making against gay marriage are that 1) it might lead to other perversions like polygamy, or 2) it falls outside the traditional definition of marriage, or 3) that the majority of citizens don't want it.

It's absolutely pathetic that on a law blog, of all places, incoherent arguments like these are being made. Banning gay marriage because it's new and might encourage polygamy, or because a majority of citizens don't want it, is exactly the same as allowing a racist city to ban black people from moving into it on the grounds that the city's always been white and, in any event, if you let the blacks in you might encourage illegal aliens, too.

Whatever. To those of you who are happy that the gays don't get to marry, keep in touch and let us know how that got you a job, put food on your table, or kept your streets safer.

Boo hoo hoo. Gay Marriage loses again. Look, I don't give a flying fuck what happens either way, but they had the vote, you lost, get the fuck over it. Thats democracy for ya.

Boo hoo hoo. Gay Marriage loses again. Look, I don't give a flying fuck what happens either way, but they had the vote, you lost, get the fuck over it. Thats democracy for ya.

"I believe that my personal opinions and beliefs should be as far removed from the content that I post as possible. However, I’ll let the readers be the judge of whether I am doing a good job at maintaining intellectual and professional impartiality."

--Elie Mystal

Practice it Elie.

Elie must have been sick the day they taught law at Harvard.

"Signing a petition isn’t the same as casting a ballot. They don’t take you into a booth and close the curtain when you sign."

They also don't take you into a booth and close the curtains when you contribute money to the NAACP. But somehow the Supreme Court didn't think that that was a terribly important distinction.

Amazing how little legal knowledge there is among people who are lawyers. Guess passing the Bar proves nothing. NAACP membership lists are private information; Alabama tried to require the NAACP to provide them to the state. If under state law these anti-marriage petitions are public documents, which only makes sense, then the signers' names should be publicly available. Go back to the Declaration and some political theory; you have a right to petition the government, but not in private. Goverment (other than national security, criminal investigations and the like) only works when exposed to the light of day -- i.e. transparency. You may protest but you have to do so publicly so everyone can see. How difficult is it to understand that basic concept?

#21 - your should brush up oin your history before speaking so glibly: "Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Canada all done precisely that, and I think the citizens of those countries - the first 6 of these which have been around rather longer than the United States ..."

Belgium - indepdnent from the Netherlands in 1830
the Kingdom of the Netherlands - formed in 1815
Norway - indepednent of Sewden in 1905

To 21/221,

1, Just because it would take decades to die doesn't make the argument specious. You simply beg the question.

2, Actually, Red States are the only places in the the Western world that meet replacement rates. The fact that Natives don't meet it proves only that seem not to really understand what this means, including the fact that the Native population is also in trouble.

3, I didn't say Gay marriage was the cause of TFR rates differing, I said they were BOTH symptomatic of the same "phenomenon". Read more carefully.

4, Your division between economic and socio-economic differences is precisely the point I made. Bravo again on your reading comprehension skills. Sweden's rate of senior citizenship surpassed its birth rate a couple of years ago. Canada is expected to do the same by 2015.

5, Your Lewis Black point is an arbitrary appeal to authority and unworthy of a serious response.

Regards,

76, not 79 (again, sloppy reading comp)

@229 -

re Belgium - My bad, tempered by the fact that there have been people in Belgium since Roman times.
re Netherlands - The Peace of Munster and the Peace of Westphalia are generally considered the start of the United Netherlands, in 1648.
re Norway - see above re Belgium, only insert 'Viking' period, which was from 800BC to ~1100BC.

All three have seen civilization since way the hell before the USA became the USA, in any event.

Furthermore, the point was in rebuttal to an argument for social decay based on acceptance and promotion of gay marriage, which argument is, for lack of a better way of putting it, total crap.

"and plastered of picture of Pedro"?

What does that mean?

76/230

1, Just because it would take decades to die doesn't make the argument specious. You simply beg the question.

>> By that argument, and without a specified time-frame for collapse, *anything* could lead to a society's downfall. Just because glass appears to be a solid to the naked eye doesn't mean it's actually classified as solid at room temperature. Everything dies if you have an infinite timeline.

2, Actually, Red States are the only places in the the Western world that meet replacement rates. The fact that Natives don't meet it proves only that seem not to really understand what this means, including the fact that the Native population is also in trouble.

>> are you talking about Red States as a separate society, distinct from Blue States and the United States? TFRs are, generally, speaking measured at the 'national' level to have any statistical validity, not least because of inter-state mobility. Furthermore, I spoke of natives, not 'N'atives - again, TFR is measured, in this case, as against, those native to - born in - the United States.

3, I didn't say Gay marriage was the cause of TFR rates differing, I said they were BOTH symptomatic of the same "phenomenon". Read more carefully.

>> you're right - I misread. However I'm still mystified as to the causal link between social decay and gay marriage? Is the implication that lowered birthrates, imported demographics (which, as an aside, is, if memory serves, a rather important part of US history as well, which would seem to indicate that the US is on it's way down...), and gay marriage are all symptoms of social decay, or is your argument that Gay marriage causes social decay. Either way, you need to clarify what is your chicken and what is your egg.

4, Your division between economic and socio-economic differences is precisely the point I made. Bravo again on your reading comprehension skills. Sweden's rate of senior citizenship surpassed its birth rate a couple of years ago. Canada is expected to do the same by 2015.

>> that has very little to do with gay marriage or declining birth rates, and a LOT to do with the fact that the baby-boomer generation is reaching retirement. That demographic bubble is so far beyond standard deviation as to be useless in terms of comparing birth rates and death rates. The biggest baby-boomer demographic bubble of them all is in the US, so that would militate against the US's survival, with or without gay marriage, no? (Not that I'd have much of an issue, honestly, since I'm anti-hegemony as a general rule)

5, Your Lewis Black point is an arbitrary appeal to authority and unworthy of a serious response.

>>I think Mr. Black would be horrified to be referred to as anything *like* authority. In point of fact, it was not an appeal to authority so much as my attempt to say "there are more important things to worry about." But take it as a serious appeal if you so chose.

>>Do reply. This is fun :-)

21/221

Does anyone else think that it is a little bit crazy to define a person's identity based on who they find sexually attractive?

In all of the posts and comments on this issue it seems that everyone has bought into this fallacy.

It may go a long way toward negating the hatred, vitriol and anger on all sides of this issue if we start viewing others as people instead of in terms of fictional categories.

76 here again,

1, While there is a concern of Post hoc ergo propter hoc move, no one could seriously say that a cause cannot have effects that take place decades later, e.g., Asbestos to cancer. No one could claim that because the cancer manifested years later that the asbestos must be excluded as a potential cause. You have leaped to an infinite time frame without warrant.

2, Actually, there IS separate data for Red States, if you care to inquire.

3, I have already spelled out the chicken and egg for you. Again, since I have suggested there is correlation not causation I am in complete agreement about American population declines. A big difference between the USA and the small European countries enumerated above is that the US could, all other things being equal, decline dramatically without being in any danger of ceasing to function (in fact, it might suffer no harm at all if Soc Sec was eliminated) while the Euro states will not given their relatively small populations. However, this alone does not warrant calling one effect of that general cause as harmless in the American circumstance.

4, You also presume that mass immigration is always a good thing. Immigration, like in most other countries still, used to be tied to economic needs. Now it isn't. In fact, we're making it hard on the right kind of educated, skilled immigrants to come and easier for the illiterate, unskilled kind.

I must get going even though there is more to which you'd like me to respond. Another time.

76

55-

You also should crack a ConLaw book, as to this day, black gays cannot marry white gays. Interracial marriage or yesteryear is a straw argument if ever there was one. Polygamy is the truest analogy there is to this gay marriage issues. Both should be against the law and neither run afoul of any constituional stricture.

57-
Your wife is a bigot. Seriously, is she older than twelve? "Oh my god honey! You wouldn't belive all the stuff I had totake out of gay guy's butts today! Tee hee!" It's pretty loathsome that she brings her bigotry into a job where her firt priority is the care and comfort of her patients. To run around mocking them is eggrigiously unprofessional if not unethical. Take her to the ER and have the stick removed from her anal cavity.

57-
Your wife is a bigot. Seriously, is she older than twelve? "Oh my god honey! You wouldn't belive all the stuff I had to take out of gay guy's butts today! Tee hee!" It's pretty loathsome that she brings her bigotry into a job where her first priority is the care and comfort of her patients. To run around mocking them is egregiously unprofessional if not unethical. Take her to the ER and have the stick removed from her anal cavity.

I have carefully read all the posts (it took nearly 2 hours!).

One thing that I don't understand, which will be key to my decision on this issue, is What is the harm caused by same-sex marriage?

All the pro-traditional marriage responses haven't answered this question. I can see the possible benefits, but I don't see harm. If there aren't any negative consequences, then I will become a pro-same-sex marriage supporter. Thanks.

239,

Society cannot continue to function well over the long term without the promotion of marriage between one man and one woman; which is - despite the claims of pro-homosexual groups - clearly the most healthy environment in which to raise children.

If you think otherwise, how do you explain the fact that children who are raised in single parent household are far more likely to be involved in destructive behavior, perform much worse in school, get involved in inappropriate relationships, drop out of school and are much more likely to become involved in illegal activities and later imprisoned?

Also, the is no benefit to be derived from homosexual relationships. As you must know, the life expectancies of both homosexual men and women is decades shorter than those involved in long-term committed hetrosexual relations within marriage.

Suicide rates and domestic abuse rate within homosexual relationships are dramatically higher than in hetrosexual relationships. This is especially true within lesbian relationship for domestic physical abuse and suicide amongst homosexual men. Even lesbian organizations recognize these facts, or why do those groups conduct seminars on the topic. It's an open secret that lesbians don't want to discuss with those opposed to homosexual lifestyles.

A society that embraces or encourages homosexulaity will not survive over the long term.

Those who say morality should not or cannot be legislated most likely would not approve of anarchy. Morality is legislated all the time. If you believe it should not be legislated, you should be advocated the repeal of ALL laws, open up the prison gates, and make no judgment on people to take any action they desire, including murder, rape, etc.; which of course would mean actions against homosexuals. Are you willing to go that far? If not, you would be a hypocrite.

I agree that marriage is good for society and those individuals who are in a marriage. Perhaps, all the problems that befall the gay community is because of the lack of access to a similar and stable situation.

Before the creation of the institution of marriage, heterosexuals had a lot of problems too. After the creation of marriage, heterosexuals focused on more productive activities and their lives improved. Arguably, a similar effect would occur if marriage was extended to homosexuals. All the problems that homosexuals face could diminish if they were able to enjoy the stability of marriage like heterosexuals. That would be a good thing.

I do agree that children raised by single parents statistically do have more problems. But, that is not an argument against same-sex marriage.

I have a favor to ask of all anti gay marriage people: Would you consent to donating your brain to science after you die? We need to research the brains of narrow-minded, stupid bigots so we can figure out what makes them tick.

Thanks.

I read a recent article that boys raised by two men in a homosexual relationship are eight times more likely to be a homosexual. That sure lends a degree of credibility to the assertion that environment plays a major role in ones sexual identity.

I noticed you evaded the reality that children do best when raised by a mother and father in a committed marriage relationship, and that emotionally healthy children need both a mother and a father. Nice try, but it doesn't work the way you wish it would.

Your claim that physical and emotional problems within the homosexual community might be alleviated if marriage was available is laughable. It has nothing to do with not being able to be married in most states.

Lawrence v. Texas was decided quite a few years ago and nothing has changed for the better in terms of emotional or physical health of homosexuals, so you supposition is unfounded.

The reality is, homosexual have deep-seated emotional problems that can be addressed and resolved by a motivated person living that lifestyle. I in no way would suggest that a person be coerced or forced into therapy.

While reparative therapy does not always result in a changed orientation, it is quite common for people to change; and I would also say that it is not an easy road to take, but much healthier that remaining in that lifestyle.

242,

Your argument isn't with people who recognize that homosexual acts are sinful; your argument is with God:

Romans 1:18-32 pretty much covers what God thinks of homosexual acts.

God's Wrath Against Mankind
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

I second 242. Will same-sex marriage opponents please donate their brains to science after they die? It would be really fascinating to see what the neurological differences are between intolerant, ignorant bigots and people who don't give a flying fuck whether two people who love each other and want to raise a family together are able to get some sort of legal recognition from the state.

245, from your comment it is obvious that you are the one who is close minded and intolerant of the views of those who support marriage.

What happened to separation of church and state? Civil marriage that is recognized by the state should be extended to same sex couples as it is to opposite sex couples. All these religious arguments should have no bearing on government-created rights and obligations. God may hate homos (I don't think He does from my reading of the Bible), but the government is not empowered to act on His behalf.