Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
So it seems this turned out to be the sleeper issue of the election, bizarrely enough. The people voted Bush, because they hate fags. (Personally, I'm not so convinced since there were states that went Kerry and yet still voted for a ban on gay marriage.)

Rather than legislating for gay marriage, what I'd prefer to see would be the disappearance of heterosexual marriage as a legal concept. Let people get married in churches or in humanist ceremonies or whatever, but take the law out of what is essentially a cultural, judeo-christian practice. And just stick to the idea of a civil contract of union between two or more people of whatever sex.

James R., Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:51 (9 years ago) Permalink

This is the way marriage originally was in Massachusetts, which is why the judges here ruled the way they did and why the entire rhetorical spiel about "activist judges changing the law" is a gigantic crock of shit in this state.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:58 (9 years ago) Permalink

It's a red herring that played upon the fears and insecurities of people who aren't smart enough to use the Bible as anything other than what it should be used for -- kindling or a doorstop.

If two guys want to get married --- fuck, if two individuals who happen to love each other --- want to get married, how can that possibly hurt anyone?

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:58 (9 years ago) Permalink

Thanks for the offer but I'm spoken for

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:00 (9 years ago) Permalink

I feel like I keep repeating the same thing, but it really can't hurt. This isn't an issue about "marriage." It's pure and simple a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE.

Je4nne ƒury (Jeanne Fury), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:02 (9 years ago) Permalink

Because the Bible specifically states it is a sin and, as a result, being married in a Church is a slap in the face to many people of faith.

I am for gay marriage, but I also don't want to start pushing people about for their religion. It is their right to hold Christian views if they want and their right to want to keep the Church central to Biblical prose. I think Gay people should be married out of Church sermons. A registrar for example. Why would this bother anyone? (Unless we accept marriage is an intrisically religious thing anyway).

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:03 (9 years ago) Permalink

Because the Bible specifically states.....

Said novel also states that the world was created in seven days. In other words, IT'S A CROCK OF SHIT!

Let's all evolve, people.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:04 (9 years ago) Permalink

SASKATOON— There’s a lot at stake for a gay couple hoping to have their marriage recognized when a Saskatoon judge rules on the case Friday.
James and Willie Hein-Blackmore sat together in court Wednesday as they and four other gay couples asked Justice D. L. Wilson to allow them to obtain marriage licences.
The provincial and federal lawyers are not opposing the application, clearing the way for Wilson to rule in the couple’s favour Friday.
That would make Saskatchewan the sixth jurisdiction in Canada to grant wedding licences to gay couples.
The Hein-Blackmores are both HIV-positive. James isn’t sure how long he has to live.
His immune system is so weak a common cold could cause serious complications, he said.
“It’s very important that we get this done (in court),” James said.
“If something happens to me, I want (Willie) making the decisions for me.”
They met four years ago and have been a couple for the past three. Both are divorced from women, and Willie is a father of three girls.
Both say they’ve always known they were gay, but societal and religious pressure led them to marry women.
In Willie’s case, he served as a Pentecostal pastor in other cities across Canada where he lived. He also sat on various church boards. Part of the reason he got married was he “didn’t want to go to hell.”
Once they accepted their homosexuality, they lived much happier lives, they said.
This summer, they were turned down when they went to get a marriage licence in Saskatoon. So they went to Vancouver and got married in a small ceremony at the home of a marriage commissioner.
“When you live together, there’s a certain level of commitment. Once you’re married, it changes the relationship. It’s like glue that holds you together,” said Willie.
“This is the person I want to spend the rest of my life with.”
While the Hein-Blackmores are hoping to get their Vancouver marriage recognized in Saskatchewan, most of the other couples involved in the court action are not yet married.
“We’re very optimistic about the outcome (Friday),” said Nicole White.
“We’re very excited to get going on the wedding plans.”
White and partner Julie Richards were the original couple involved in the court application. They plan to marry next summer.
Represented by lawyers Greg Walen and Sarah Buhler, the couples put their faith in Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality under the law.
Denial of marriage licences “denigrates same-sex relationships,” Walen said in court.
“It is offensive to human dignity.”

Federal government lawyer Chris Bernier did not oppose the application, but said the federal government could not technically consent to it either, as the Supreme Court is currently considering the issue.
Provincial government lawyer Thomson Irvine took the same neutral position, but said it was because marriage laws are federal.
Outside court, Walen said he’s happy to hear the governments aren’t opposing the application. He said some gay couples have told him they’ll be getting married as early as this Saturday if the ruling is in their favour.
Gay and lesbian couples can marry in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, the Yukon and now Nova Scotia.
CanWest News Network

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:05 (9 years ago) Permalink

Genesis is most likely a gigantic metaphor.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:05 (9 years ago) Permalink

Agreed, but I take it a step further.. Forget the civil contract as a substitute for marriage. Any two adults should be able to enter into a "right of survivorship" contract (name it whatever you want) that gives legal rights - it has nothing to do with sex or couples. It could be a married couple, it could be business associates, parent/child, neighbors, friends. You could only have a contract with one person at a time, but it could be changed every week if people wanted to. (That's not practical, but ideally, there would be no restrictions on this.)

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church. And if it makes people happy, the "right of survivorship" contract could be inherent in a marriage (or, registering that legal relationship could be part of the church/marriage registration process - just as marriages are registered with the county currently.) And if "no man can put asunder" the married couple contract - ie you MUST establish that contract with your spouse if you are married & cannot establish that contract with anyone else - then, that'll have to be part of the compromise.

So, anyway - it needs to be approached as contract law and a business deal, rather than a pseudo-marriage.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:06 (9 years ago) Permalink

And that sort of attitude is going to help bridge a glaring gap between two sets of beliefs how? "Oh your belief sucks", well yeah that'll help won't it? And would you say the same thing about Muslims and their beliefs? Or is it only politically correct to declare open season on Christians?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:06 (9 years ago) Permalink

See above a prime case of the need for rapid evolution among certain members of the human race.

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:07 (9 years ago) Permalink

The Bible nowhere "explicitly states" that gay marriage is wrong.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:08 (9 years ago) Permalink

Yes Kevin, but you can't expect people who've never actually read it to know that can you?

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:08 (9 years ago) Permalink

Kevin OTM; in the Bible, premarital sex is a much larger sin than homosexuality.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:09 (9 years ago) Permalink

Or is it only politically correct to declare open season on Christians?

You've heard of "The War On Terror", no?

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:09 (9 years ago) Permalink

"Because the Bible specifically states it is a sin"

Where? Chapter and verse please.

Man lying with another man? I'll find my paper to tell you why that indicates nothing clear about God's rules about homosexuality.

Bumfluff, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (9 years ago) Permalink

What is it about dumb people and their inability to argue in any way that isn't "oh well x is just as bad" rather than actually ARGUING THEIR FUCKING CASE?

Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (9 years ago) Permalink

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church.

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (9 years ago) Permalink

Check out Paul the Apostle. I don't have a Bible handy just now, but it is indeed declared as a sin. Have YOU read the NT?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (9 years ago) Permalink

Um Huk, I don't think anybody is suggesting Bush is in the slightest bit PC.

x-post

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:11 (9 years ago) Permalink

Paul is not Jesus. Paul is a frakish zealot who is almost the antithesis of everything Jesus (and Matthew, Mark and Luke) stands for.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:11 (9 years ago) Permalink

Oh, good point, Steve.n.

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:12 (9 years ago) Permalink

frakish zealot

(haha nabisco to thread)

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:12 (9 years ago) Permalink

I have never read the bible but I often masturbate myself into a righteous frenzy with it.

Does that help the debate at all?

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:13 (9 years ago) Permalink

That's one up on most people.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (9 years ago) Permalink

There would be no Christianity without Paul.............. discuss

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (9 years ago) Permalink

It's a civil rights issue, but it's more than that, and that's precisely because there's a confusion between marriage as a legal union and marriage as a religious union. I agree that these two should be decoupled, ie a secular state should not be legally privileging what is at heart a Christian religious custom. If marriages were things celebrated in church, and were separate from civil unions between people signed in a solicitor's office, it would surely take the wind out of conservative christians's sails. This, incidently was Derrida's position too. From his last interview:

"If I were a legislator, I would quite simply propose the disappearance of the word and the concept of marriage in the civil and secular code. "Marriage", a religious, sacred, heterosexual value - with the vow of procreation, eternal fidelity, etc.-, is a concession on the part of the secular state to the Christian church - in particular in a monogamy that is neither Jewish (it was only imposed on Jews by Europeans in the last century and was not an obligation of Maghrebi Jewry a few generations ago) nor, as we know very well, Muslim. When we take away the word and the concept of "marriage", this religious and holy ambiguity or hypocrisy, which has no place in a secular constitution, we would replace them with a contractual "civil union", a sort of generalized, improved, refined, and supple pact to be fitted between partners whose gender and number are not imposed.

As for those who want to ally themselves in a "marriage" in the strict sense of the term - for which, by the way, my respect remains intact -, they could do so before the religious authority of their choice - which, moreover, is how it happens in those countries which agree to accept the religious consecration of marriage between homosexuals. Some could unite themselves according to one mode or the other, others both ways, others neither by secular nor religious law. End of the conjugal parentheses. (It's a Utopia, but mark my words.)"

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (9 years ago) Permalink

And Paul doesn't say anything about gay marriage - homosexuality maybe, but that is the only mention in the new testamnet - he also says that people who engage in such acts are murderers, thieves, liars etc., things which are demonstratably false.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (9 years ago) Permalink

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church.

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

That's why it's in quotes. I mean to redefine it to make it a non-issue.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (9 years ago) Permalink

Paul is not Jesus and indeed not God. He is, regrettably, in the Bible, but I tend to forget about him because he's crap.

However, both you and I will have to wait for my rebuttal because i can't get to the paper I have on this for a bit

Bumfluff, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (9 years ago) Permalink

Paul is a frakish zealot who is almost the antithesis of everything Jesus (and Matthew, Mark and Luke) stands for.

So this Paul, he voted Bush in '04 too?

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (9 years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:17 (9 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, sorry Dave. I think it's not a non-issue though. People have always become married independent of religion, for long periods without any ceremony at all. I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (9 years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

It's both, but much more on the legal agreement side.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (9 years ago) Permalink

Other than appeasing the bible-belt, why is anyone arguing what the christian bible has to say about it? It's not the only religious book out there.

I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?
I mean "faith" not "church" -- in other words, it's up to the individuals' own sprituality (or intellect) to decide what a valid "marriage" is. It has nothing to do with law, is my main point.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (9 years ago) Permalink

This is essentially a civil rights issue. Discrimination against same sex couples flies in the face of the concept of equality under the law. If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice, criminalizing or marginalizing sexual behaviors amongst consenting adults amounts to an act of the most basic cruelty.

The hypocrisy with which fundamentalists criticize gay marriage but do not outlaw divorce and remarriage, or require an unwed brother to marry his brother's widow, belies the religious basis of their argument. They cherry pick the OT and the NT to find stones to cast at those who are different, which I find particularly repulsive.

The state does have an interest in encouraging stable, long-term partnerships but why the state should recognize 'marriage' if it is essentially a religious ceremony, is beyond me.

Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (9 years ago) Permalink

If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice

I thought this had been rejected/disproven by gay groups?

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:22 (9 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue. If gay marriage were legalised would it not be down to the individual churches to decide whether or not to allow gay couples to get married in that particular church?

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:23 (9 years ago) Permalink

(Church meaning denomination or congregation there, btw, I don't think it really affects my point either way.)

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:24 (9 years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (9 years ago) Permalink

Yes, it would.

x-post

Leon in Exile (Ex Leon), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (9 years ago) Permalink

I just read a news item - Sec. State Blackwell (Ohio) speaking against gay marriage .. not a quote, but asserts that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, which you can't do with a gay couple. This offends me to no end .. and to debate him on his own terms, leaving out the gay arguments - my wife and I have decided not to have children. Are we no longer allowed to be married? What about people who can't physically have children?

God, I hate that idiot.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (9 years ago) Permalink

xp - Indeed it would. And that would closely resemble a constitutionally-guaranteed right called Freedom of Religion.

briania (briania), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (9 years ago) Permalink

you first 'Chantel'

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (9 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue.

I don't think that really is an issue - anyone/any church can call two people married, the issue is that the rest of society doesn't have to recognize it.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (9 years ago) Permalink

The word "marriage" is charged with religious meaning, which is why I think it'd be best to jettison it from a legal opint of view and just talk about civil unions. This is what they've essentially done in France, where gay couples (or straight couples or brothers and sisters or whatever) can sign a PACS (pacte civile de solidarité) which affords most of the rights of marriage.

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:28 (9 years ago) Permalink

unfortuneately, "civil union" is also stigmatized as "a way for queers to approximate marriage".. So a new term is needed.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:29 (9 years ago) Permalink

Chantel, I don't think you will find anyone supporting the death penalt in muslim nations here. And probably not the death penalty anywhere.

However, I won't allow the Bible to be misinterpreted, twisted and wielded to hateful ends. The arguments will have to come both in the religious world and the secular, because like it or not we live in a christian civilisation.

But Jonathan, why can't a christian gay souple get married in a church which recognises their partnership?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (9 years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

This kind of argument really pisses me off. YES THERE ARE THINGS WRONG IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES AS WELL, I know. But rather than talking about something I know nothing about and have no contact with, I would rather talk about something I know about, think is wrong and have a chance of changing.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (9 years ago) Permalink

Wisconsin and Indiana in:

http://time.com/3270517/court-rules-against-gay-marriage-bans-in-2-states/

Louisiana yesterday a hiccup.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 4 September 2014 19:39 (1 month ago) Permalink

which made its predecessors premature ejaculation

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 4 September 2014 19:43 (1 month ago) Permalink

Oh my

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 4 September 2014 20:37 (1 month ago) Permalink

Wisconsin AG already talking appeal.

a guy named Christian White who represents the typical white Christian (Eric H.), Thursday, 4 September 2014 21:13 (1 month ago) Permalink

Richard Posner, probably the best writer on any bench or circuit in the United States, tears into the case:

Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 September 2014 15:00 (1 month ago) Permalink

Our pair of cases is rich in detail but ultimately straight- forward to decide. The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction— that same-sex couples and their children don’t need marriage because same-sex couples can’t produce children, intended or unintended—is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seri- ously. To the extent that children are better off in families in which the parents are married, they are better off whether they are raised by their biological parents or by adoptive parents. The discrimination against same-sex couples is irra- tional, and therefore unconstitutional even if the discrimina- tion is not subjected to heightened scrutiny, which is why we can largely elide the more complex analysis found in more closely balanced equal-protection cases.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 September 2014 15:03 (1 month ago) Permalink

We might finally be approaching the endgame:

http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2014/09/breaking-supreme-court-lists-all.html

--

Via the Wall Street Journal:

Mark your calendars: the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider its next steps on gay marriage when the justices meet for the first time since their summer break. The court on Wednesday listed gay marriage petitions from five states – Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin – for consideration at its Sept. 29 private conference. Officials in those states are asking the court to decide whether state bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional. The justices use the September meeting to wade through stacks of appeals that pile up during the court’s three-month recess. The court at some point after the conference is expected to add several of those cases to its docket for the term that begins Oct. 6. Court watchers are eagerly awaiting word on whether one or more gay marriages cases will be among them. The court is under no obligation to act right away. It’s possible the court could take additional time to mull its options, particularly because of fast-moving developments in other gay-marriage litigation.

More from USA Today:

By scheduling all for consideration simultaneously, the justices gave equal footing to the Indiana and Wisconsin cases just decided last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. The 10th and 4th Circuits previously ruled in the other cases. The court could agree to hear one or more cases this winter; deny them all, or delay its decision for a while. In all five states, federal district and appellate judges have agreed that state bans on same-sex marriage should be struck down as unconstitutional. But those decisions are on hold pending the Supreme Court's review. Additional gay marriage cases could be added to the justices' list soon. A ruling is expected from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit on cases from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. And just this week, the 9th Circuit heard oral arguments in cases stemming from Idaho and Nevada. Cases from Texas and Florida remain at the appellate court level.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 10 September 2014 22:05 (1 month ago) Permalink

Skinny jeans, please. Ties optional.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 10 September 2014 22:08 (1 month ago) Permalink

Skinny ties, please. Jeans optional.

a guy named Christian White who represents the typical white Christian (Eric H.), Thursday, 11 September 2014 00:44 (1 month ago) Permalink

You play host.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 11 September 2014 01:02 (1 month ago) Permalink

Some snowy night in front of the fire.

a guy named Christian White who represents the typical white Christian (Eric H.), Thursday, 11 September 2014 01:05 (1 month ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

Well well

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/06/supreme-court-gay-marriage/16546959/

The Supreme Court refused to get involved in the national debate over same-sex marriage Monday, leaving intact lower court rulings that will legalize the practice in 11 additional states.
The unexpected decision by the justices, announced without further explanation, immediately affects five states in which federal appeals courts had struck down bans against gay marriage: Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma and Utah.
It also will bring along six other states located in the judicial circuits overseen by those appellate courts: North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Colorado, Kansas and Wyoming. Lower court judges in those states must abide by their appeals court rulings.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 6 October 2014 14:23 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

That would make same-sex marriage legal in 30 states and the District of Columbia.

And if it weren't for Texas, this would cover, what, 80 percent of the population?

Eric H., Monday, 6 October 2014 14:32 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Well, Texas + Florida + Ohio + Georgia + Michigan, I guess.

Eric H., Monday, 6 October 2014 16:54 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

soon enough, boo.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 October 2014 16:59 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

fwiw, a lawyer acquaintance of mine on FB:

"The Supreme Court tends to grant leave only when there's a split in the lower courts -- the 12 Circuit Courts that are one level below them. So far, there hasn't been a split. The Circuit Courts have uniformly held that Windsor establishes the right to gay marriage. Therefore, the USSC has no conflict to decide."

son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Monday, 6 October 2014 19:02 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

ie if that 6th circuit appeal that is mentioned in the USAT story upholds the ban, the Supremes could get involved then.

son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Monday, 6 October 2014 19:10 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 October 2014 19:12 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Idaho and Nevada now also in after a Ninth Circuit ruling

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2014/10/breaking-ninth-circuit-strikes-down.html

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 7 October 2014 20:26 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

mookieproof, Friday, 10 October 2014 21:59 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Weird fucking day. Okay: North Carolina effectively in, probably all over on Monday. Butch Otter gave up tonight in Idaho, fully in on Monday. West Virginia stopped fighting as well. Kansas, no decision at the earliest until November. Arizona and Alaska, POSSIBLY next week. South Carolina is a muddle. Case up for review in Wyoming, that decision might happen quickly. And I think Montana is in there somewhere as well?

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 11 October 2014 02:33 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

and no Florida!

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 11 October 2014 02:37 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

WELL GET ON IT oh wait

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 11 October 2014 02:59 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I have.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 11 October 2014 03:11 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Cal Thomas's flailing, excuse-filled but comprehensive admitting of surrender on this issue is beyond schadenfreude. Only thing I'll give this clown is that he's not pulling a Huckabee and pretending there's still a chance.

http://touch.baltimoresun.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-81640163/

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 11 October 2014 15:37 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Point 3: The main arguments against permitting same-sex couples to marry are moral and biblical. The problem, especially for conservative Christians who oppose the legalization of gay marriage, is that they are speaking to people who don't accept their moral code, or biblical instruction. They cite Genesis 2:24: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." That verse is also quoted by Jesus in the New Testament.

Here's why invoking verses from the Bible isn't working. In addition to the courts having abandoned such instruction, along with, in too many cases, the Constitution that is supposed to constrain government, a growing number of people no longer accept biblical teaching. Many, the products of liberal universities, also regard the C

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 11 October 2014 15:55 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Paywalled, apparently. That link redirects to the Sun front page. xp

warning, #4 can't be unseen (WilliamC), Saturday, 11 October 2014 15:59 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

But I found it at his website.

warning, #4 can't be unseen (WilliamC), Saturday, 11 October 2014 16:00 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

It's at the Sun too; you gotta go to the opinion section.

The suspense will kill you.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 11 October 2014 16:02 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

having abandoned... the Constitution that is supposed to constrain government

Read the establishment clause of the first amendment, fool.

Aimless, Saturday, 11 October 2014 17:03 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-the-supreme-courts-nonruling-on-gay-marriage-commentary-20141010,0,2617179.story

If a news link is behind a paywall, put some of the text in quotes and plug it into google.

abanana, Saturday, 11 October 2014 18:00 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

it's kind of fascinating how egregiously bad his argumentation is

j., Saturday, 11 October 2014 18:26 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i love the blame laid on 'liberal universities', like the widespread modern fact of the individual right to live one's own life is not like, way more important, and actually american

i would love to see a more naked argument that appealed to authority without the indirection wrt religion and tradition and anarchism and pitted individual liberty against the contention that no, you are not allowed to live your life as you choose, that will be decided elsewhere, in advance

a few years ago some old college friends and i friended each other on facebook and they've since become (revealed as) super catholic and pro-life, but minimally trying not to be offensive about it, and one of the most disturbing things i've ever heard from them is the catholic idea of 'teaching authority', as a thing that some things (whatever, jesus, the church, the bible as interpreted by the church, the pope) have or must have, and as a thing that any other source of life-direction is deluded and helpless without

like jesus what the fuck happened to america man, these people were raised in the same crazy brew of rampant social atomization as everyone else

j., Saturday, 11 October 2014 18:33 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Rereading T.S. Eliot at the beginning of last week I found the same sad shaking of the head, this collapse in a belief in authority.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 11 October 2014 18:34 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

The county near me in Idaho (one of the two that went for Obama in 2008) is the first to issue marriage licenses in the state. One of the women in this photo let me take the old 1950s hair dryer that was near their dumpster:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/us/politics/supreme-court-lifts-stay-on-same-sex-marriages-in-idaho.html

joygoat, Sunday, 12 October 2014 00:21 (1 week ago) Permalink

xp wow that's some pretty advanced nonsense. this brief is one of those things people a hundred years from now are going to put in textbooks as examples of how uncivilized we were

i'd rather be arrested by you folks than by anybody i know (art), Sunday, 12 October 2014 00:57 (1 week ago) Permalink

"were"

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 12 October 2014 02:21 (1 week ago) Permalink

In the 'zona!

Eric H., Friday, 17 October 2014 15:28 (1 week ago) Permalink

Meantime this post:

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2014/10/sixth-circuit-court-remains-quiet.html

...brings up something I'd been wondering; namely, if the Sixth Circuit has been going "Er" ever since the Supreme Court turned down the other cases that had reached them. No way of knowing but I am curious.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 17 October 2014 15:31 (1 week ago) Permalink

come to me

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 October 2014 15:37 (1 week ago) Permalink

Wyoming appears to be next, by Monday:

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/gay-marriage-hearing-begins-in-casper/article_c25f4382-bae6-504c-93c1-cd0def51639a.html

A quiet detail there:

About 60 people watched the proceedings, most of whom support same-sex nuptials. In a corner sat Dennis and Judy Shepard, parents of Matthew Shepard, a gay University of Wyoming college student who was fatally beaten in 1998.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 17 October 2014 15:51 (1 week ago) Permalink

The Great Roberts Punt having its inevitable effect.

Spirit of Match Game '76 (silby), Friday, 17 October 2014 18:17 (1 week ago) Permalink

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 October 2014 18:18 (1 week ago) Permalink

this facial expression

Eric H., Friday, 17 October 2014 18:29 (1 week ago) Permalink

Further Arizona update -- AG not appealing so it's done and dusted there.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 17 October 2014 18:51 (1 week ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.