Gay Marriage Brain Lock

Some combination of deceitful advocacy, blind obtuseness and political correctness has afflicted both sides of the gay marriage debate with brain lock. Jill from Brilliant at Breakfast provides some lunchtime fare with an extended excerpt from the Supreme Court transcript illustrating two easy questions no one seemed able to answer.

First, who could possibly be harmed by gay marriage and what possible state interest could there be in not allowing it? The attorney meant to argue against gay marriage had no clear answer here. I doubt that is becasue he is stupid, and he shopuldn't be advocating in favor of gay marriage, so that leaves me thinking he was burdened by political correctness.

A reason to oppose gay marriage was offered by black ministers in Massachusetts when that state's Supreme Court opened the discussion in 2003. This is from a Feb 10 2004 article now archived, but excerpted here:

Bishop Gilbert A. Thompson Sr., who as pastor of New Covenant Christian Church in Mattapan heads the largest Protestant congregation in Massachusetts, said black ministers have many reasons for speaking out against gay marriage.

"We're weighing in on this because we're concerned with the epidemic rate of fatherlessness in America and in our community, and we don't think gay marriage helps that cause," he said.

I am reading between the lines a bit but I took that to mean that these inner-city ministers are trying very hard to persuade twenty year old gangsta wanna-bes that marriage is a great idea. Although they subsequently got help from Beyonce, who dressed like a hooker and told them to put a ring on it, these ministers seem to be concerned that if marriage is re-branded as a "gay thing" that it won't help them break through with their hyper-macho target audience.

Well; I'm not a black minister. Maybe inner city youth aren't so homophobic now (or ever), or maybe we shouldn't let the homophobia of inner city youth drive our social policy. But I don't see proud progressives saying "I understand gay marriage might further reduce marriage in the inner city, but it's a small price to pay". Instead, they are pretending there are no foreseeable consequences whatsoever. If another progressive experiment wreaks even more havoc in the inner city, well, who could have seen it coming, right?

Various judges extended the brain lock to the subject of marriage as an instrument of procreation:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples — both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional -­

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE KAGAN: No, really, because if the couple — I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.

Mr. Cooper eventually makes one of two good points. He reminds the court that the man is likely to be fertile whether the womon is or not, and the woman has an interest in assuring his monogamy.

The obvious point to which he barely alludes is simple leadership by example - it is entirely possible that both of these adults have children/nieces/nephews of marriageable age, and both would want to set a positive example of the importance of marriage.

MR. COOPER: It's designed, Your Honor, to make it less likely that either party to that — to that marriage will engage in irresponsible procreative conduct outside of that marriage. Outside of that marriage. That's the marital — that's the marital norm. Society has an interest in seeing a 55-year-old couple that is — just as it has an interest of seeing any heterosexual couple that intends to engage in a prolonged period of cohabitation to reserve that until they have made a marital commitment, a marital commitment. So that, should that union produce any offspring, it would be more likely that that child or children will be raised by the mother and father who brought them into the world.

I understand the progressives who want to pretend the possible problems don't exist. I am baffled by the hired mouthpiece's reticence on these points.

CREEPING TOWARDS HONESTY:

Brilliant quotes Amanda Marcotte at Slate:

We've given the homophobes plenty of time to think this over. It's time to move on without them.

I'll feel a certain comfort - cold, perhaps - when prominent progressives write that yes, gay marriage may prompt homophobes including inner city black males and working class whites to be even less interested in marriage than they are now, but that is OK. Move on without them.

But to conduct a broad social experiment while insisting that there is no experiment underway at all is... well, pretty typical, but still scary.

SINCE YOU ASK: As part of the war on working class marriage, let's not forget the Unaffordable Care Act subsidies, which apply to the employee but not the spouse or kids.

Comments

[Rob Crawford]

I don't give a shit about gays "marrying" each other.

I'm sincerely worried about how some in their ranks have used it as cudgel against anyone who doesn't break out in coos of pleasure over the idea.

[Danube of Thought]

Interesting analysis by Michael McConnell via Hot Air:

If Mr. Dellinger is right [ina arguing that the plaintiffs lack standing] (and I think he is), the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to decide the Proposition 8 case, and neither did the Ninth Circuit. The court should vacate the decision striking down Proposition 8, leaving in place the original district-court order that prompted the case by allowing two same-sex couples to marry, but depriving Hollingsworth of precedential effect.

What a marvelous outcome that would be.

[MarkO]

But, will the Dems get more votes? Moreover, what of the voices of the unknown children? They should carry the day.

This is the Supreme Court? Well, then, I nominate Oprah.

[RichatUF nee GMU]

Glad we have solved all our other problems that this issue can gather steam. Wonder who has funded the astroturf and Delphi effects?

and from the other thread...happy birthday cathyf.

[boris]

"Maybe inner city youth aren't so homophobic now (or ever), or maybe we shouldn't let the homophobia of inner city youth drive our social policy"

I do object to the inference that any behavior affected by changing the definition of marriage must be the result of homophobia.

The word "marriage" seems to be very important to proponents of replacing the meaning with the definition of civil union. Apparently that change affected people's behavior. Why shouldn't the meaning be just as important to us?

If the term "civil union" has so much less status and dignity than the word "marriage" ... why (apparently) assume the meaning is irrelevant?

[Porchlight]

What Rob Crawford said.

In addition, I think it is generally sound principle to be exceedingly careful about tampering with basic societal structures. Look where lifting the social taboo of childbirth out of wedlock has gotten us.

[boris]

"First, who could possibly be harmed by gay marriage proposition 8 and what possible state interest could there be in not allowing it?"

Not saying there isn't an answer to that. Judge Walker has one. Just pointing out that in the absense of clear understanding simple symmetry should be considered.

[Porchlight]

or maybe we shouldn't let the homophobia of inner city youth drive our social policy

And maybe we shouldn't let the homophilia of the Democratic Party, the media, and the entertainment industry drive our social policy either.

[Rob Crawford]

And maybe we shouldn't let the homophilia of the Democratic Party, the media, and the entertainment industry drive our social policy either.

That's just crazy talk. Those are our betters you're talking about.

[Frau Auch Heute Hoffnungslos]

Piven Cloward high five time. It's part of a progressive tsunami against the foundations of the country: same gender marriage, illegal immigration and murder of the second amendment. There's no use to duck and cover.

[Rick Ballard]

"This is the Supreme Court?"

In keeping with the comment theme from a previous thread, I believe you're referring to a 'jerk of justices'. I don't understand Kennedy's reluctance to address the issue. Surely he understands any decision reached by the Nine Ninnies cannot possibly further reduce public sentiment regarding the overall ability or competency of the Court. There is no 'Beyond Nil'.

[Rick Ballard]

"This is the Supreme Court?"

In keeping with the comment theme from a previous thread, I believe you're referring to a 'jerk of justices'. I don't understand Kennedy's reluctance to address the issue. Surely he understands any decision reached by the Nine Ninnies cannot possibly further reduce public sentiment regarding the overall ability or competency of the Court. There is no 'Beyond Nil'.

[Rob Crawford]

There is no 'Beyond Nil'.

Yes, there is. You can go from "they're trying to do their job properly, but they're incompetent" to "they're actively trying to do the wrong thing".

[Threadkiller]

I have to believe hit's Princess Victorlya pic led to this new thread.

Bravo hit!

[Frau Auch Heute Hoffnungslos]

cathyf - Many wishes for HB that will cover the weekend.
I'll vote for any ticket that includes cathyf on it.

[Chubby]

((First, who could possibly be harmed by gay marriage and what possible state interest could there be in not allowing it?))

once the definition of marriage is changed, several other definitions change collatorally, including bride, groom, mother, father, mom, dad. I see that as being harmful to children. Having a "father" who is a mock man and and "mother" who is a mock woman will damage the minds of children imo, because those definitions do not reflect what is natural.

other definitions that will changes: good, virtue, right, wrong and morality. Anyone who argues that forcing redefinitions of all those concepts on people won't trample their religious rights hasn't thought about this issue any too deeply.

[NK]

I'll re-post this from late in the prior thread. fabulous NY Post tabloid reporting about the Lululemon 'bend over test': http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/how_us_your_asana_lRnwqI1P2GqzURYztlcUJO

[Frau Auch Heute Hoffnungslos]

RIP Rabbi Herschel Schacter.
He was with the first to enter Buchenwald.

In Buchenwald that April day, Rabbi Schacter said afterward, it seemed as though there was no one left alive. In the camp, he encountered a young American lieutenant who knew his way around.

“Are there any Jews alive here?” the rabbi asked him.

He was led to the Kleine Lager, or Little Camp, a smaller camp within the larger one. There, in filthy barracks, men lay on raw wooden planks stacked from floor to ceiling. They stared down at the rabbi, in his unfamiliar military uniform, with unmistakable fright.

“Shalom Aleichem, Yidden,” Rabbi Schacter cried in Yiddish, “ihr zint frei!” — “Peace be upon you, Jews, you are free!” He ran from barracks to barracks, repeating those words. He was joined by those Jews who could walk, until a stream of people swelled behind him.

LUN

[Rick Ballard]

Rob,

Reflection made during brief visits to the Earl Warren Memorial Public Urinal would peg that point at the issuance of Griswold. Since then, it's all been a downward slide on a rail lubricated with WD40 over a graphite base.

[Chubby]

I was amazed by an article at Yahoo this morning about a top Royal Bank honcho who says that gay marriage will have a postive effect on the economy. The part that I found amazing was that at Yahoo, a veritable hotbed of leftyism, the comments were overwhelmingly dismissive of redefining marriage and of the premise of the article. Gay rights activists argue that their rights are denied by being unable to marry. But imv, its a far greater tyranny to impose the will of an elite minority on the vast majority, as per the attempt in Califoria.

[Captain Hate]

First, who could possibly be harmed by gay marriage and what possible state interest could there be in not allowing it?

The same effing dimwits predicted that the "war on poverty" would have only positive outcomes.

[DerHahn]

Marriage ... the new "going steady"

[NK]

Because 'Gay marriage' is a lie-- a lie made up by contemporary narcissists who want what they 'feel' to be given the same legal status as a societal structure consecrated by God and validated by several thousand years of real world experience. that's why it's a big deal, and must be fought against.

[matt]

Megyn Kelly had Dr. Ben Carson on and cited some interesting statistics. The marriage rate in the United States is now only 51%. 63% of all families today have 2 parents compared with 82% in 1970.

41% of all single mother families are living below the poverty line.

The collapse of the nuclear family is leading to a concurrent collapse of our country and culture.

Rather than take a more rigid approach to the maintenance of the nuclear family, we allowed our own 'freedoms" to override our responsibilities. There is less and less accountability today along with greater and greater dysfunction.

it is not necessarily about gay marriage. It is about accountability. The disintegration seen in the inner cities is coming to a town near you soon.

[bgates]

Commenters at Althouse (who are the only reason to go there) point out the interesting role of the estate tax in all this: Edith Windsor inherited a large sum of money from another woman; she's trying to have DOMA overturned because if the federal government does not consider the inheritance to have passed from one spouse to another, she'll have to pay an estate tax of $360,000. If I'm reading the exemption table right, a tax bill that size for a death that occurred in 2007 implies the estate had been $2.8 million, which would make Ms Windsor a millionaire and/or billionaire.

The estate Windsor is trying to protect? She didn't build that.

Occupy could not be reached for comment.

All the government wants is $360,000 out of $2,800,000. That's a lower tax rate than Warren Buffet's secretary pays.

At a time when school children are denied the ability to tour the White House, the left is fighting to keep money in the hands of the 1%.

They just want everybody to pay their fair share. For Edith Windsor, they've decided the fair share is zero.

[Frau Auch Heute Hoffnungslos]

Too bad Thomas Sowell is not on the SC. He doesn't waste words.

Now that a number of state courts have refused to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, cries of "discrimination" are being heard.

The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

In a free society, vast numbers of things are neither forbidden nor facilitated. They are considered to be none of the law's business.

Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else's approval.

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

They argue against a "ban on gay marriage" but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban.

[NK]

Tom Sowell said: "They argue against a "ban on gay marriage" but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban."
Completely agree with Sowell-- 'gay marriage' is a lie foisted on us by a narcissistic elite who 'feel' it must be given the same legal status as 'marriage'.

[Captain Hate]

So much common sense, Frau, which is lost on many of the deciders. Does anybody doubt that the Founding Fathers would react like Marshall McLuhan in Annie Hall?

[Frau Auch Heute Hoffnungslos]

That was Thomas Sowell in 2006. Here, again, in 2008.

The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.

All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.

But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined-- and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?

Despite heavy television advertising in California for "gay marriage," showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.

Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing-- riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.

Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.

[Frau Auch Heute Hoffnungslos]

Thomas Sowell, an American treasure:

The politically clever way to get special privileges is to call them "rights"-- especially "equal rights."

Some local election campaigns in various states are using that tactic this year, trying to get special privileges through affirmative action quotas or through demands that the definition of marriage be changed to suit homosexuals.

Equality of rights does not mean equality of results. I can have all the equal treatment in the world on a golf course and I will not finish within shouting distance of Tiger Woods.

[Porchlight]

No one has a monopoly on common sense but Thomas Sowell probably comes closest.

[Frau Auch Heute Hoffnungslos]

Another train up a child story. Sean Penn's son verbally attacks journalist. What demented woman stayed with Penn long enough to bear his spawn?
Pfui!

[Porchlight]

Robin Wright Penn? Some people like her but I was never a fan.

[Annoying Old Guy]

I'm being Mr. Puzzled again, but I'm not so sure prohibiting new marriages to people over 55 is unconstitutional. I can see the justification based on custom and tradition, but not really the Constitutional argument.

[Chubby]

Frau, thank you ten million times for posting Thomas Sowell's words

[Dave (in MA)]

Fun comment section over here.

[centralcal]

A great piece by John Kass:

But I am Greek Orthodox, a never-changing faith, and this is Lent.

In recent weeks, with the advent of a new Roman Catholic pope, there have been many beautiful words written about tolerance and change, written by those who on one hand support abortion rights and gay marriage, yet on the other talk lovingly of the comforting ancient rituals and the sound of ancient prayers.

Forgive me, but I find this all quite difficult to reconcile. The liturgy is not a costume drama. The incense isn't a prop. The singing isn't about nostalgia. These are means to reach a timeless place, where the state and its laws do not go.

And while I struggle with the fast-moving issue of the redefinition of marriage and its effect on our culture and how to reconcile the rights of others and my own religious beliefs, I ask only one thing:

Tolerance.

Remember that word? Tolerance?

Tolerance for those whose faith and traditional beliefs put them in what is fast becoming the minority.

[Danube of Thought]

How long before this wonderful new game is challenged as discriminatory:

Urine for a good time at Coca-Cola Park´s male bathrooms this season. A brand-new “urinal game system” will let fans of Lehigh Valley’s IronPigs live-stream a video game right from the restroom. And it’s completely “p-controlled.” “These games are sure to make a huge splash," IronPigs General Manager Kurt Landes told MiLB.com. The system turns on when a user approaches the urinal. The right kind of angling can help multi-tasking gamers guide a snowmobile down virtual alpine roads littered with plump penguins. The 55-second game tests both “agility and knowledge.”

[Rick Ballard]

DoT,

At the very least, the Vulvarians will insist upon a "no hands" rule.

[henry]

Rick, that would restrict the game to soccer parks.

[Danube of Thought]

Time for a bit of a gloat-o-rama:

And yet more than 100 days later, no bill has passed either house of Congress — and members are now off on a two-week spring break.

In interviews, gun control advocates’ frustration with — and mystification over — Washington is palpable. So far, their anger has not turned specifically on Obama — though people in Newtown itself and gun control advocates beyond question whether he could have done more to turn the post-Sandy Hook momentum into tangible results.

(Also on POLITICO: Poll: Support slips for gun control)

But the increasingly sour mood of gun control proponents highlights the stakes in reaping even a slim victory from Congress this spring.

Anything less, in terms of Obama’s legacy, would transform Newtown from a moment of moral clarity to a symbol of how much clout a newly reelected president really has in a divided Washington.

Obama may still get a bill, but not like the one he and his allies envisioned in December. There won’t be new bans on assault weapons or high-capacity ammunition magazines. Universal background checks have moved from an assumed yes to a wish list item for gun control advocates. Even a new gun trafficking law — the smallest and weakest of the issues — is not a sure thing to pass the Senate.

[Chubby]

((Despite heavy television advertising in California for "gay marriage," showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.))

another way the anology is false:

the abolition movement was driven by Christians and was all about expanding Biblically based Judeo-Christian moral values -- the anti-slavery theme is big in the Bible.

the gay right movement is about contracting Judeo-Christian moral values and there is no support for it in the Bible, unless you stretch the meaning of a few texts beyond all recognition.

[Extraneus]

The 55-second game

Age discrimination.

[narciso]

To think I thought Kagan was the smart one, this was a much better exchange;

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/03/reaction-to-prop-8-oral-argument/

[NK]

DoT/Gloatorama-- congrats, you deserve it gun rights supporters have done much better than in Congress than BlueState hostages like TomM and I assumed. I still think there will be a background check expansion-- but on the margins that won't affect standard issue law abiding owners doing family/social transfers. 'High capacity Ammunition' no new federal rules tahnks to Andy Cuomo's Hijinks 7 bullet rule in NYS.

[narciso]

Well Murphy is a self styled idiot of the highest order, so you some and then some more;

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/27/tea-leaves-from-oral-arguments-supreme-court-leaning-towards-striking-down-doma/

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Mr. Cooper eventually makes one of two good points. He reminds the court that the man is likely to be fertile whether the womon is or not, and the woman has an interest in assuring his monogamy."

Ummm, why is it a good point that the man is likely to be fertile after the age of 55 even though the woman is not? Why is that a good point, Tom?

Hint: I am giving you a chance to gracefully get out of this without having to explicitly confess that you were sleeping through high school biology.

[maryrose]

KathyK: We get your point. Most women don't conceive in their 50's
This whole question of Kagan's misses the point.
If Gays want a contract that betroths them for life'just call it something else. If they want a preacher to unite them fine. Don't horn in on our established marriage definition. Do what you want, don't force approval of it on us. I could care less what this 6% of the population does. Employers if they own the company can give them whatever benefits they want. After 9/11 if a gay partner was killed I had no objection to benefits being paid to the survivor. This is a divisive ploy to further divide us. I am not playing.
Happy Birthday cathyf: You also have my vote should you ever run for office. Common sense personified. Have a great week-end at Notre Dame!

[NK]

Are States free to not recognize old geezer marriages? possibly, but it would be hazardous legislation. If 55+yos were marrying to preserve and protect the integrity of one of their or both of their children, then disparate treatment of those men and women would be a clear equal protection violation. Not recognizing marriages of childless 55+yo man/woman, who have no biological chance of reproduction? That might pass equal protection muster-- might-- who's the first to propose that law? KathyK? if you hate old dried up people enough-- go for it.

[Janet]

Thanks for the wonderful links & posts, Frau.
Rabbi Herschel Schacter. Thomas Sowell.

[narciso]

Kathy doesn't understand the socratic nature of this coffee clatch,

[narciso]

Now Cooper was too diplomatic, to tell Kagan, no that's not the issue.

[Mark Folkestad]

Socratic nature? I'll let Kathy have some hemlock and she can really go Socratic on us.

[maryrose]

narciso: Amen! Oh was that too religious?

[maryrose]

Mark: lol!
Frau I also enjoyed the wonderful links and the Liberation story.

[Clarice]

Reading bits of the give and take, I was astonished the attorneys on both sides were not better prepared for the obvious uestions.

[lyle]

From the comment section to that link from Dave(in MA) upthread:

I think Scalia would be perfectly happy if Clarence Thomas' vote only counted as 3/5, so I'm guessing 6 to 2 3/5.

Historically illiterate and bigoted at the same time!

[maryrose]

clarice: I agree. As an attorney I bet you could have done a much better job. I was also surprised at the weakness of their reponses.

[Tom Maguire]

RIP Rabbi Herschel Schacter.

Ditto. He had a great Times obit today. As did Virgil "Fire" Trucks, hard thrower for the old Tigers.

[Enlightened]

I wonder if Kennedy is as duly concerned about all the children that have parents gay or not, that choose to never marry.

I guess all of those kids are f--ed up in his opinion, since he made it clear he thinks children of unmarried gays that WANT to marry, might be.

[centralcal]

Bill Whittle:

The canaries in the coal mine aren't singing any more.

[narciso]

Talk about missing the point;

http://www.utilityproducts.com/news/2013/03/21/the-next-climate-debate-conservatives-should-accept-the-science-and-focus-on-policy.html

[Kathy Kattenburg]

Two definitions of marriage, one for heterosexuals and one for same-sex couples? Two tiers of marriage, one with all the legal benefits that come with marriage and the other with none of them?

That's unconstitutional, maryrose. That's not America. Sorry. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection to all Americans. You cannot have two standards of protection for marriage, or for any fundamental right.

You don't have to like it, but you cannot deny an entire group of people the right to marry, or say they have the right to call it marriage but it's really not marriage.

Any by the way, Justice Kagan's question did NOT miss the point. Charles Cooper had been arguing that marriage has to be defined as between a man and a woman because marriage is supposed to be society's vehicle for procreating and raising children. THAT was the statement that led to Kagan's request that Cooper then explain why heterosexual couples without children should be able to marry. She gave the example of a heterosexual couple both over the age of 55. A heterosexual couple where both members are over 55 cannot have children, maryrose. Barring an extremely rare and unlikely biological anomaly. Cooper did not appear to understand this. He kept saying that men over the age of 55 are still fertile, that men remain fertile well past 55. It was Cooper who missed Kagan's point, or didn't understand it, apparently not knowing that the vast majority of women over 55 have gone through menopause and cannot have children no matter how fertile their husband is. It's very disturbing, how ignorant of basic biology so many supposedly educated people are.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"I'll let Kathy have some hemlock and she can really go Socratic on us."

Awww. Mark wants me to drink poison and die. But I won't take it personally, Mark. I understand that's just your style, in the same way that it wouldn't be my style to tell someone I wish them dead no matter how strongly I disagreed with them -- even if I hated them, which I certainly don't you.

Have a good day, Mark. Try some herbal tea, very soothing. Peppermint's my favorite.

[Jim Eagle]

In re, Frau's postings of Thomas Sowell, from time to time, Rush will do one of his charity golf outings and have Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell co-host the radio show. Those are some of the most profound 3 hours your brain will ever attend. The main has forgot more about reason than most people will ever learn. On my all time favorite TS qoutes:

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today."

[Mark Folkestad]

No, Kathy, I just wish that you wouldn't feel so compelled to share your irrelevancies with us. You normally behave as a troll, and we enjoy our vacations away from you. And personally, I prefer raspberry tea.

[Janet]

John Nolte at Breitbart -
"If you are now wondering if everyone is gay except you, you are not alone. The media is flooding the zone to push the same-sex marriage agenda.

Fifteen years ago this was unthinkable.

Fifteen years from now what will the media be pushing that is unthinkable today.

That's an unsettling thought, is it not?"

[narciso]

When someone was accused of incitement to murder, this was her response;

http://themoderatevoice.com/97681/what-sarah-palin-should-have-said/

Kagan let loose a herd of squirrels, misrepresented the purpose of marriage, for
an incident where it might lie.

[Rob Crawford]

Fifteen years from now what will the media be pushing that is unthinkable today.

There will be a mass media fifteen years from now?

[Jim Eagle]

It is no wonder that the court was packed with advocates of same-sex marriage. They fell aggreived and oppressed not being able to marry the same as heterosexual couples. In fact, in Great Britian they are finding that fully 70% of their citizens feel they are "victims". That is what this is all about - victims of old white guys like Popes and founding fathers.

[Chubby]

((You don't have to like it, but you cannot deny an entire group of people the right to marry,))

d'oh! no one is stopping any gay person from marrying.

and last I heard, children aren't allowed to marry. do you have a problem with that<

[NK]

Mass Media/Elites flooding the gay marriage/racial intermarriage etc zone is too obvious to ignore. Why do they do it? well their SunGod was elected twice, the prog 2009-2010 Congress passed Stimulus! and Obamacare, and tax rates on the 'Rich' rose to Clinton levels in January, and Obummer's 'reset' foreign policy has been in place for almost 5 years. And it's all a frikkin' disaster. Can the MSM/Elites talk about jobs, wealth creation, stronger middle class, safer world? NO, they can't talk about any of that. So it's gunz, gayz, celebrity meltdowns and the occassional rightwinger stupid remark. That's all they got, so they flood the zone with it, hoping the LIVs don't notice the wreckage of what once the Great American Jobs machine and upward mobility.

[Porchlight]

You don't have to like it, but you cannot deny an entire group of people the right to marry, or say they have the right to call it marriage but it's really not marriage.

Sure you can. It's denied to people under a certain age, it's denied to siblings, it's denied to moms and sons, fathers and daughters, uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews - need I go on?

[Chubby]

kaka is lying when she says that all gays want is the right to marry

no, they don't want to marry, that is legally unite with someone of the opposite sex. they don't want that at all. what they want is to redefine marriage.

it's like saying all I want is to eat chinese food, but that chinese food better consist of a big mac and a supersize coke.

[Chubby]

((Why do they do it?))

because they hate that the people of California voted down gay marriage and they know that grassroots opinion is not with them, so they have to use smoke and mirrors to create the illusion of support for the tyrannical act of imposing on people what the people do not want

[narciso]

Things that make say hmm;

http://freebeacon.com/pulling-punches/

[Stephanie]

Every time these fools go mucking about with constitutionality it is to reinforce the idea that the constitution grants rights and furthers their 'notion' that the government is the arbiter of all. The constitution really does no such thing. It clarifies and adjudicates where the invisible line is between my inalienable rights and yours and the processes by which those inalienable rights will be protected.

That KK calls marriage a right is laughable. It is no more a right than the "right" to drive a bicycle as Sowell points out. And as he pointed out, the government can and does, by granting privileges, discriminate at will. Bike riding is no inalienable right nor is marriage. And as such, marriage is not in the purview of the government to tinker with EXCEPT to ensure that each party's inalienable rights are respected in the transaction. No forced marriages, no forced copulation, no treating either party like chattel, etc.

This is an argument over a moot issue as the constitution does not address it. And properly so.

[Chubby]

NK, imo, get the moral foundation right, and everything else will fall beautifully into place clickety-clack

[Stephanie]

Oh, and Happy Birthday CathyF!

And the same also to any others I've missed.

[GUS]

We need to start a list. A score card if you will.
GAY MARRIAGE good
BABY KILLING good
FREE CONTRACEPTIVES good
FREE HEALTH CARE good
ILLEGAL ALIENS good
MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD good
ARAB SPRING good
TRILLION DOLLAR OVERSPENDING 2009 good
ditto 2010
ditto 2011
ditto 2012
ditto 2013,
Do you see a pattern of OBAMA leadership here???

[hit and run]

Stephanie:
And the same also to any others I've missed.

You missed Nancy's yesterday.

[Peter Kenny]

Excellent piece, on the bold social experiment towards which we are blindly moving.

[narciso]

Hence the desire to demolish the moral foundations,

[Chubby]

exactly narciso

[Jim Rhoads f/k/a vnjagvet]

Happy Birthday, cathyf. Many more.

[GUS]

But, but, but, butt, butt, Homosexuals want to be MARRIED.
But, but, but Libtards want free stuff.
But, but, but, what about all of the GOOD, NICE and decent Muslims in the M.E. and N. Africa.
But, but, but, they are only ILLEGALLY crossing our borders to help their families!
But, but, but, Obama has created 54 millllion jobs!!!
But but but, Obama has already reduced the debt by TRILLLLLIONS (by the year 2525 as planned).

Cloward-Piven-Alynski. Don't fix a single problem, create more, then lie you ass off.

[Rob Crawford]

You don't have to like it, but you cannot deny an entire group of people the right to marry

Sure you can. We do it all the time.

[Stephanie]

And the same to any JOMers I missed.

I don't wish Nan happy anything.

BTW, you do realize we missed Bristol this year? There was a discussion last year about doing a JOM meatup at Bristol and didn't they just run Bristol a few weeks ago? Ooops.

[rse]

Happy birthday cathyf.

Definitely a desire to destroy moral foundations and replace them with communitarianism.

These clowns have no idea what a diminishing pie does to social ties.

[bgates]

Bike riding is no inalienable right nor is marriage. And as such, marriage is not in the purview of the government to tinker with

It's bizarre to say that the government cannot "tinker with" marriage because marriage is not an inalienable right.

What's the list of things which are inalienable rights?

[GUS]

as the TRAIN WRECK formerly known as AMERICA, hurtles off the track, Obama heads out for a well deserved vacation.
We've completely lost COMMON SENSE in this land. The LIBTARD co-opting of our education systems holds most of the blame.
We used to understand as normal thinking beings, that MARRIAGE had a meaning, and we understood that HOMOSEXUALITY was not equatable to marriage. We as a society recognized that homosexuality existed and we for the most part tolerated it. That wasn't enough for the nuts (libs). There are many reasons for HOMOSEXUALS and LIBTARDS to argue for Gay Marriage. But the bottom line is.....LIBERALS FUCK UP ANYTING THEY GET NEAR. The institution of Marriage has existed for THOUSANDS of years. Libs could not abide that. Libs do not believe there is such thing as MORALITY. Look at who they vote for. Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, Rodham, Ted Kennedy, Warren, Kerry, on and on and on and on. Take take take take, spend spend spend spend. America because GREAT because of it's people and morality. Libs are trying to change that. Our young people see this FILTH as NORMAL. Unless you are well over 40, you never knew ABORTION to be wrong. Unless you were raised by MORAL PARENTS. Mom and Dad.

[bgates]

you cannot deny an entire group of people the right to marry

I agree, and I'm writing a children's book in defense of the idea, "Heather Has Four Mommies and a Daddy".

[maryrose]

Chubby: Well said. The libs in California were apoplectic when voters rejected gay marriage. I think it was UNexpected so they didn't put enough effort into making sure gay marriage passed. When they are defeated Dems run to the courts to undo decisions they disagree with. Florida in 2000 was a perfect example. I loved after the SC decided so many said we will count every vote down there only to discover that Gore did in fact lose.
KK: As stated previously gays can have the same legal rights as heterosexuals. I am fine with that. Come up with a different noun to describe your union. The word marriage in its truest sense is already taken.

[Rob Crawford]

I agree, and I'm writing a children's book in defense of the idea, "Heather Has Four Mommies and a Daddy".

Wouldn't "Heather's Daddy has a Harem" be more multicultural?

[maryrose]

Back when Clinton passed DOMA he knew he had to in order to continue being the President.Now he has stuck his finger up into the wind and determined it is now PC to believe differently. How typical,Hil the same. How can I promote myself while turning my beliefs upside down and inside out.Pandering pigs.

[Stephanie]

What's the list of things which are inalienable rights?

Forgot the DofI didn't ya? Life, liberty and property. Although they muddled the issue with the whole pursuit of happiness thing at the end.

The problem with demanding a list of inalienable rights is that that would be a positive list of rights and would be lengthy and probably untenable. And subject to reduction by revocation by the state.

It is really intriguing to me that the left pushes for a concrete set of all defined rights for all and then demands that the current set of negative rights have limits placed on them.

Everyone has a right to marriage (found no where in the constitution). The left demands it now !!!

Everyone has a right to self defense (found in the second point in the constitution). The left demands we put limits on it now!!!

Once you muddy the waters between rights, privileges and such, the infringements begin.

Curious.

[Rob Crawford]

Now he has stuck his finger up into the wind...

Well, for Clinton that's the least intrusive place he's ever stuck his finger.

[bgates]

Forgot the DofI didn't ya?

No, I didn't.

The problem with demanding a list of inalienable rights is that that would be a positive list of rights and would be lengthy and probably untenable

How do you reconcile that with your insistence that because the Constitution doesn't mention marriage it can't be a right?

If there is no right to marriage, would no rights be violated if Congress voided all marriages in the country?

[Chubby]

((How can I promote myself while turning my beliefs upside down and inside out.))

you call it "evolution"

[Rob Crawford]

Everyone has a right to marriage (found no where in the constitution). The left demands it now !!!

Everyone has a right to self defense (found in the second point in the constitution). The left demands we put limits on it now!!!

The left assesses the value of "rights" based on the danger those rights pose to the left's power. They grant sexuality unlimited bounds because it poses no threat to them; it cannot be used to resist their tyranny. If anything, they use it to enforce and strengthen their tyranny, by claiming that anyone who expects you to act more responsibly than a rutting animal is "oppressing" you.

Gun ownership directly threatens their lust for power -- so it must be removed.