Judicial_Tyranny_R

Breaking: Judicial Supremacists Impose Sodomy-Based Marriage on Utah and Indiana

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

Federal courts in Indiana and Utah on Wednesday blatantly overthrew the will of the people and subversively imposed same-sex “marriage” on the citizens of both states. The judicial oligarchy (tyranny of the few) continues flexing the muscle of its apparently unchecked power. The death of democracy is undeniably upon us. Each victory for the homosexual activists represents another nail in America’s coffin.

According to WLFI.com, a ruling from an elitist U.S. District Judge in Indiana wrongly declared that the prohibition was unconstitutional because it violated guarantees of equal protection and due process.

U.S. District Judge Richard Young ruled that the state’s ban violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal-protection clause because it treats same-sex couples differently than couples of opposing genders.

“Same-sex couples, who would otherwise qualify to marry in Indiana, have the right to marry in Indiana,” Young released. “These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street. The Constitution demands that we treat them as such.”

The clerk in Marion County, home to Indianapolis, says the office will start issuing marriage licenses immediately.

Contacted shortly before noon Wednesday, Tippecanoe County Clerk Christa Coffey said she is not yet issuing marriage licenses for same sex couples because she has not heard from the attorney general’s office.

The Indiana attorney general’s office said it would appeal the ruling but declined further comment.

Separately, a rogue appeals court ruled 2-1 that Utah’s traditional marriage amendment was unconstitutional as well, saying that the gender of the two persons cannot be considered as a reason to deny a marriage license. And that’s just it — these decisions require that reason be jettisoned in favor of unrestrained deviancy.

The Washington Times reports:

The decision from a three-judge panel in Denver upheld a lower court ruling that struck down Utah’s gay marriage ban. The panel immediately put on the ruling on hold so it could be appealed, either to the entire 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or directly to the nation’s highest court.

“A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union,” the panel wrote. Gay marriage in Utah likely will remain on hold pending the appeal.

The decision gives increased momentum to a legal cause that already compiled an impressive winning streak in the lower courts after the Supreme Court last year struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Since then, 14 federal judges have issued rulings siding with gay marriage advocates.

These recent developments are eerily reminiscent of the words of Jesus in Luke 22:53, “But this is [their] hour—when darkness reigns.”

The light of morality and freedom is being brutishly snuffed out right before our very eyes. It’s a national tragedy unfolding at an accelerating pace.

And this is not a good harbinger of things to come — unless our elected leaders and Christians defiantly rise up and engage in civil disobedience.

Print Friendly and PDF



Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

  • garybryson

    Great news! Thx for update jeff. Once again, constitutional rights prevail.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      Perversion prevails.

      • JonF

        And your frustration never fails to entertain, please don’t stop with the whiny posts.

      • garybryson

        The constitution prevail. Equal rights prevail. My fellow man prevails.

      • vorpal

        Yes, it does in 30 states, sadly, but we’re making progress.

      • Scott Lanway

        Let me taste your tears, Jake! Mmm, your tears are so yummy and sweet! Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness, you guys!

  • ErickMN

    Hey Allen, ANOTHER hard slap across your hateful face. Does it sting?

    • Jacobus Arminius

      Keep your sado-masochistic ways to yourself.

      • penguin_boy

        It seems, from reading your posts, that you see everything in terms of sex. Especially your graphic imaginings of rough gay sex.

        Dude, actual gay men don’t think about gay sex as much as you do.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          Yeah, right. That’s why many homosexuals have had from 500-1000 lifetime partners.

          • penguin_boy

            That stat is really old, and dates from when *everybody* was screwing like mad. Ever hear of Plato’s Retreat? Kid, in the 1970s, everybody got laid without trying.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Oh, I forgot that the male libido has changed since then.

          • penguin_boy

            No, but society has. AIDS and Herpes Simplex II killed the sexual revolution dead. Plus, that figure you gave came from really poor sources. They took the high-end numbers and presented them as the mean. They lied, in short.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            BarbWire had an article looking at every study done on male homosexual promiscuity from the 70s and EVERY decade since. The rates may be down, but they are still high and way higher than heterosexuals.

          • torrentprime

            Almost like male homosexuals are in fact male and like to have sex a lot, isn’t it? Straight men would too if they could.

          • penguin_boy

            So? First of all, this site is hardly an impartial resource when it comes to information on GLBT issues. Secondly, sex is fun! Sex is a whole lot of fun! Evolution has left us in a near permanent state of arousal, so go for it. Sex, in whatever form with whatever consenting partners, is amazing!

            Are you jealous?

          • Scott Lanway

            Of course he’s jealous. I’ll bet Jake here couldn’t get laid in a Nevada brothel with two fistfuls of Franklins.

          • grada3784

            Been keeping count? Or just spreading gossip?

  • dawn1257

    Whoo hoo! You’re party’s over! Time to rinse out the Tea pot!

    Marriage equality is here, and will not be denied!

    • Jacobus Arminius

      I know several churches that will deny you.

      • nowaRINO

        Your point?

        • Jacobus Arminius

          You may win at the state level, but the faithful church remains closed to your perversion.

          • nowaRINO

            Faithful to your particular beliefs, not all Christians and other religions believe as you do. I also know a few churches that would think twice about allowing you in the narthex.

            PS These are CIVIL marriage rulings. Churches will be allowed to do as they please…otherwise the Roman Catholics would be required to marry civilly divorced people.

          • DrThorne

            Anyone who believes that homosexuality is not sin is NOT a Christian. I know lots of apostates who call themselves Christians, yet they oppose almost all of God’s law! Can I call myself a Progressive, yet oppose your entire ideology? I guess I would be lying now wouldn’t I?

          • garybryson

            Are you god? If not..I’m assuming not, who are you to say who is and isn’t a christian?

          • DrThorne

            Well, let’s see. By their fruit you will know them. Look it up. If they call good evil and evil good, I guess, using the brains that God gave me (but denied you), I could figure out that they are hypocritical liars and are just using the name of Christ to push their progressive social justice agenda. Ya think, genius?

          • Red Mann

            Except that the ones you call apostate are actually closer to the teachings of your Christ than the deceitful ones like you.

            I just love your highly un-Christian arrogance “using the brains that God gave me (but denied you),”

          • Steven Schwartz

            Of course, if they disagreed with you on what was evil and what was good, then we’d have to refer to some outside objective reference — oh, wait; there isn’t one!

          • grada3784

            Homosexuality is the entirety of Christian dogma? Funny, but I thought there was a lot more to Christianity than that.

          • Clive Johnson

            …and guns–assault rifles in particular, just like Jesus carried.

          • Red Mann

            So, you’re the Pope and can define who is and is not a Christian? When did God put you in charge?

          • nowaRINO

            Being a Christian is a self-identification you may not take away from a fellow believer with your particular dogma.

          • ben

            Church ceremonies were never at issue. Just as rabbis cannot be compelled to marry two non Jews, or a Jew and a Gentile, and Catholic priests cannot be compelled to marry a divorcee to a second wife. The question at issue here is not marriage as a religious sacrament but rather marriage as a civil ceremony and contract. My wife and I were married at city hall, nobody’s religion was involved.

          • DrThorne

            That is an utter lie. Obama’s DOJ is forcing businesses to cater to “marrying” homos and are gunning for the churches as well. What a lying hypocrite!

          • garybryson

            Where’s that happening?

          • DrThorne

            Ocean Grove, NJ. A church is being sued because they wouldn’t allow a same-sex marriage in their facility. Obuttboy will be watching this one closely to see if he can force churches to allow buggery on the altar. What a bunch of Nazis you people are.

          • grada3784

            It wasn’t their facility. They traded public access to it for monetary considerations, thereby losing control of who could make use of it..

          • Red Mann

            Read the whole story before you embarrass yourself again.

            Apparently links cannot be posted here so remove the spaces, change “dot” to “.”

            “https:// http://www.aclu-nj dot org/ news/2012/01/13/judge-rules-in-favor-of-same-sex-couple-in-discrimination-case”

          • capecodder2010

            “We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a
            courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.”

          • grada3784

            Discriminatory businesses are being tried under state laws, not Federal. And businesses do not have the same 1st Amendment protections that churches have.

          • Red Mann

            Business are public entities and not legally allowed to discriminate, no one is, or will be, “forcing” any church to do any such thing. Calling out the unsavory behavior of these churches is not “forcing”. This is part of your beloved persecution complex.

          • garybryson

            This isn’t about your churches. This is about having the same ability to marry that you and I have

          • Jacobus Arminius

            You can marry, but you can’t have holy matrimony.

          • grada3784

            Considering the divorce rate in the Bible Belt, Christians don’t have holy matrimony either.

          • garybryson

            says you. are the arbiter of all tht is marriage?

          • Red Mann

            Gee, thanks. Holy Matrimony is a purely, but legally meaningless, religious ceremony unnecessary for marriage.

          • MarkSebree

            They can if THEIR beliefs say that they can, and their Christian church will perform the ceremony. You have so say in other people’s beliefs, and you cannot define what is and is not a sin according to their beliefs, only according to yours. And nobody is subject to your intolerant beliefs except you.

          • DrThorne

            If it’s all about love, can someone marry their dog if they love him? Why not? Can children marry? They seem to be full of love. Why not? Your argument is specious (look it up).

          • grada3784

            Neither animals nor children can give informed consent.

          • DrThorne

            Of course they can. There is an animal rights group that is actively suing on behalf of their “clients”. There are several gay rights groups that support changing the age of consent to 12! Lying won’t help your idiotic non-argument.

          • grada3784

            Come back when they win.

          • DrThorne

            Hardly the point, Raymond. They are TRYING. That is your side. The psychos. The ghastly. The crapulous. The REAL haters.

          • Red Mann

            Bogus “reasoning”. Logic fail.

          • Steven Schwartz

            If we’re going for guilt-by-association, Thorne, then you are in the same boat with the Christian Identity folks who want to create a white homeland in the U.S., the Dominionists who want to establish a Biblical theocracy, and Westboro Baptist. That’s *your* side.

            Now, disown them, and accept that other people disown the extremists on their side, and maybe we can get somewhere. But you don’t get to deny your extremists and paint others with theirs.

          • grada3784

            Except the won in the Bible Belt with the Christian anti-abortionist, Neal Horseley. You know – the one who loved mules.

          • grada3784

            Of course, you could go down to the Bible Belt where they have anti=-abortionists like Neal Horseley, who gave this in an interview:

            “Is it true?” Colmes asked.

            “Hey, Alan, if you want to accuse me of having sex when I was a fool,
            I did everything that crossed my mind that looked like I…”

            AC: “You had sex with animals?”

            NH: “Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule.”

          • Red Mann

            No, neither children nor animals can give informed consent under the law. Just because someone somewhere wants to change the age of consent is meaningless unless it happens.

          • Red Mann

            Why do you religious and/or right wing types have such a problem with the concept of consent? Can’t you understand that this has already been covered?

          • Steven Schwartz

            Why do you religious and/or right wing types have such a problem with the concept of consent?

            Because their god-concept is “I made you, therefore I can do whatever I want with you, and it’s moral.”

            Consider this bit of prayer: “Thy will be done” — this is consent, if not informed, of a blanket variety. They write blank checks to a being whose moral authority is based on power — why is a lack of understanding of consent hard to grasp? ;)

          • Red Mann

            So what? Nobody says your churches can’t discriminate, have at it.

          • Clive Johnson

            Do you mean the faithful church that was opposed to same sex marriage yesterday, but for it today? They’re getting hard to tell apart these days.

      • ErickMN

        So what? You and your hater churches get more irrelevant with every passing day.

        • DrThorne

          Hey Erect – Did NAMBLA kick you off the Hump-a-scout team? There is nothing as hateful as child abuse – homosexuals’ favorite passtime. You are a Nazi.

          • garybryson

            trolling hard today, huh?

          • ErickMN

            YOU are the only one posting about that vile organization. Just YOU, freak.

          • DrThorne

            Nonsense. The NYC Gay Pride Parade featured NAMBLA proudly marching under their banner. If you support gay marriage rights, you support child predators since major gay groups do the same. Pig.

          • ben

            when was this? Do you have some evidence of that?

          • ErickMN

            That foolishness happened decades ago. And you are STILL whining and moaning about it. Stay miserable, hater!

          • dawn1257

            And white supremacists claim to be “conservatives”, so your point?

          • Red Mann

            Read the 9th Commandment Doc and stop lying. Also, I don’t think your Christ was down with all the insults.

          • Red Mann

            As usual, distortion is your byword. Even in the first Gay Pride March in 1979 there was opposition to NAMBLA, in the 80s they were unwelcome and in 1994 GLAAD officially deplored them. Your child predator claim is still a malicious lie.

          • Clint Batterton

            No, “Dr.” Thorne, you are the Nazi. They hated gay men as much as you do, and sent them to the camps, where they died by the thousands. NAMBLA is a pederast group, not a gay group. The research, by the actual experts, shows that “the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children.” Of course, you wouldn’t be interested in the facts.

          • Red Mann

            Wow, such a Christian attitude, blatant, gross lies and a disgusting ad hominem, sounds like you’re getting desperate, Doc.

      • dawn1257

        And, you would call them……churches?

        • Jacobus Arminius

          Yes, I would. If, however, they perform a gay “marriage,” I would call them apostates.

          • grada3784

            Which is a lot better than what Roman Catholics called Protestants for several hundred years. Apostate does sound a lot better than heretic.

          • dawn1257

            If they perform marriages for two people who are committed to and love each other of either sex, or the same sex, I would call them….Christian churches.

            For those who won’t, I call them Sanctuaries for Theologic intolerance, but not churches.

          • Red Mann

            Thank you Pope Jacobus, are you speaking infallibly?

          • Jacobus Arminius

            More infallibly than you, that’s for sure.

          • Red Mann

            Wow, that’s quite an ego trip you’re on, Pope Jacobus.

      • grada3784

        Like the southern baptists – formed to justify belief that slavery was ok?

      • Red Mann

        Who cares about what churches do. Churches are legally allowed to discriminate because apparently it is part and parcel of religious freedom to discriminate and use lies to support it.

      • vorpal

        So what? Churches can deny whomever they want.
        As an atheist, please, please, please keep denying people. The fewer “loving Christians” in the world, the far better off we all are!

      • penguin_boy

        And that’s their right. It’s long established law that churches cannot be compelled to violate their teachings. There are plenty of faiths that will provide ceremonies, however.

        Also, if a church owns a hall or space that they rent out to the public, they have to rent it out equally, according to the local public accommodation laws.

      • Steven Schwartz

        That’s fine; they’re free to. If their congregants are county clerks, however, they’re not free to deny licenses.

    • DrThorne

      Go marry your dog. It would be a valid as a homo marriage.

      • garybryson

        Never heard that one before….LOL!

        • grada3784

          It stole it from Frothy.

          • DrThorne

            You look like Raymond Burr. He was a homo.

          • grada3784

            Thank you. he was good looking enough to have quite a career.

          • DrThorne

            I said nothing about good-looking. He was as homely as sin. They taped “Ironside” in San Francisco so he could spend his evenings in buggery.

          • Red Mann

            You are a truly hateful person, hardly what I would think of as a follower of Christ.

          • Clive Johnson

            They appear to come in a very wide array of flavors.

          • Red Mann

            Far too many are sour and rotten.

          • grada3784

            Then he wasn’t as ugly as you? That’s good to know.

          • Red Mann

            Typical radical religious hatred.

      • Red Mann

        Why do you hate the 9th Commandment?

      • penguin_boy

        No, it wouldn’t. Marriage requires that both partners be legally able to understand the rights and obligations of marriage, be legally able to enter into contracts, and be able to clearly state their consent to the marriage.

        Dogs can’t do that. So give up on the stupid argument.

  • lit per

    The only sodomy-based thing here is your brain.

  • SorryNotSorry

    It’s only an “activist judge” when you don’t agree with the decision.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      No, when they actively overthrow the will of the people.

      • nowaRINO

        MOB RULE!

      • cminca

        You like voting on the civil rights of others? OK–but remember this. Next time we may decide to vote on YOURS.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          Same-sex marriage is a phony civil right, recently created out of thin air. Comparing skin to sin is a false analogy.

          • garybryson

            Only your opinion.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Happens to be right. They just found your phony right. Why did it take so long?

          • garybryson

            Again, only your opinion. Thankfully your maguc man doesn’t gudie our judiciary.

          • DrThorne

            Gee gary – is your spilling knot currect todeigh? What a dope.

          • garybryson

            3 or 4 y/o? Nope just a moron.

          • penguin_boy

            Because societal change takes time.

          • cminca

            Civil rights covers more than skin color.
            You’re too stupid to vote, let alone breed.

          • DrThorne

            Hey stupid – It’s the Christians who are breeding. You Leftists kill your babies in the womb. Sort of natural selection, I guess. Mother Nature has made you too stupid to care about the next generation.

          • ben

            Except that Christianity is not heritable. Lots of people convert to Christianity and lots of people abandon it for a different faith or no faith at all.

          • garybryson

            Whats so horrible for you is that many , many gays have children! Oh the Horror!!!

          • vorpal

            Yes, I’ve impregnated six women today just so that we can subsequently abort the fetuses and roll merrily in the resultant bloodshed.

            Idiot.

          • MDB

            You’re way ahead of me; I’ve only finished my second breeding session. But it’s still early…I might get MY quota in by the weekend. God knows, there just aren’t enough babies in the world yet. :-0

          • vorpal

            I believe in you!
            *breaks out the penis shaped rainbow coloured pom-poms that he forced a Christian manufacturer to make*

            Yes, the shortage of babies is quite distressing. The world is clearly underpopulated, so… more babies!

          • ShellyBuchanan

            I read most millennial babies are born to unmarried women.

          • penguin_boy

            So is religious freedom. It really didn’t exist until 1789. Before that, the state supported a religion and suppressed others. It was that way for many centuries.

          • torrentprime

            What about religion? Religion is not race. Would a law that banned Jews from marrying Christians be constitutional?

        • DrThorne

          Mr. Remington says no. But, it will be fun watching you Nazis try.

          • cminca

            Compensating much?
            As for your Nazi remark–seeing as all you right wing nut jobs bandy terms that you don’t understand–I’ll take it as understood that that was your feeble attempt at an insult.

          • capecodder2010

            We have no tolerance for comments
            containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or
            discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a
            courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in
            reasonable discourse.

      • ben

        Having an independent judiciary to ensure that the bill of rights applies to everyone is sort of the point of having a constitution. The united states is not now and never has been a purely majoritarian democracy. We’re a constitutional republic… The will of the majority is fine so long as they do not exercise it to withhold rights that they themselves enjoy.

        • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

          Well written!

          • Jacobus Arminius

            You’re way too easy to impress. This is the same old drivel that I’ve heard numerous times before.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            What you call drivel is fact. What part of the above do you disagree with?

          • DrThorne

            The USSC also “discovered” a right to murder children in the womb. Is that in the Bill of Rights, oh knower-of-all-things? They created it out of whole cloth. Betcha you’re OK with that. What a phony. Leftists are so cute when they claim that they care about our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It’s like watching a puppy trying to walk.

          • vorpal

            Awwww, cupcake: we think you’re just so gosh darn cute, too, kind of like a mentally handicapped kitten falling over and trying to RIGHT itself.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            And that’s the difference between you and us. All you can do is “watch” and whine, while we, the true American Patriots, run this country.

          • capecodder2010

            So, read Marbury v Madison again. You might learn something, eventually.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          There is no right to perversity.

          • ben

            The supreme court disagrees with you, at least on the subject of sodomy. Go and read up on Lawrence V. Texas.

          • capecodder2010

            that would require reading big words, and connected thoughts.

          • DrThorne

            Gee, is that what passes for wit over at Media Matters or the NAMBLA website, capeclodder? This place is starting to look like the Castro in SF. Why don’t you boys head down to Key West and stink that place up even more? Everything the Left touches turns to feces.

          • vorpal

            Keep talking. Your utter ridiculousness and flair for hyperbole keeps alienating people from your side.

          • penguin_boy

            So, you’re familiar with the Castro, are you? Do you understand that it’s a thriving area with successful small business, great restaurants, and on any given day filled with families enjoying one of the best neighborhoods in the City by the Bay?

          • capecodder2010

            Anthony Trollope would find you totally unlike his Dr. Thorne. You sound much more like Henry Thorne, than Thomas.

          • capecodder2010

            We have no tolerance for comments
            containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or
            discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a
            courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in
            reasonable discourse.
            Read more at
            http://barbwire.com/2014/06/25/breaking-judicial-supremacists-impose-sodomy-based-marriage-utah-indiana/#JF8368XWE33jYyOA.99

          • Cheyenne W.

            Why don’t you go do some “research” at a bath house or a rest stop and get back to us when you have something to actually state…

          • grada3784

            Like Alabama snd Mississippi? Or a lot of the rest of the Bible Belt, where divorce rates and out of wedlock pregnancies are so high? Not to mention stereotypes of ignorance, incest and bestiality?

          • vorpal

            There is no perversity to same-sex marriage.

          • vorpal

            I can see how you might have gotten mixed up: there is nothing but perversity to the right.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Only in your confused, upside-down world.

        • capecodder2010

          and we are explicitly *not* a theocracy, despite what Matt Barber and Jeff Allen obviously want.

      • garybryson

        No. They have found the “will of the people” to be unconstitutional.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          So, we are no longer a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. We are a nation of the homosexuals, by the homosexuals and for the homosexuals.

          • penguin_boy

            Who are also tax-paying citizens of the United States, and protected by the Constitution.

            The fact that you separate “people” from “homosexuals” is interesting. Germans did the same thing when discussing Jews. Sie wählte ein Armbinde noch?

          • capecodder2010

            Well, that’s better than being a nation of Britney Spears and Kardashians, no?

          • grada3784

            That same lament went out when Jim Crow started falling.

    • DrThorne

      One more Media Matters moron drools an opinion. This is sort of like what happened to Oregon. After the idiot Californians screwed up their own state so much that they couldn’t live there anymore, they moved to Oregon to screw up that state. Media Matters is so full of excrement that you left-dolts have to come here where there is more space to scatter your filthy infantilism.

      • SorryNotSorry

        Sure thing, babe.

        • DrThorne

          Coward.

          • JonF

            Juvenile twit. :-)
            P.S. Enjoy self marginalization, little man.

          • Scott Lanway

            Juvenile? You give him too much credit.

      • Scott Lanway

        Yeah, our state’s screwed up so badly that it’s only the 9th largest economy in the world. I’ll bet you $1,000 you can’t go a week without using any product or service, grown, designed, made, maintained or based in California. Care to take my bet?

        • MDB

          Or use a computer, tablet or phone whose principles and abstracts for modern computing were (not) conceived by a brilliant gay man, Alan Turing.? … or use the search engine(s) or OS, and/or the actual PC hardware used, developed and manufactured by corporations that fully embrace and support non-discrimination, and support marriage equality around the globe ? Thorne will have use his Bible, and thoroughly beat his PC and iPhone into proper “normal”
          true-Christian® submission, and then stone them to death
          if they don’t change.

          I guess DrThorne should begin raising fleet of carrier-pigeons.

          • Scott Lanway

            Seriously wish I could upvote this multiple times. You see there’s a BBC miniseries about Turing coming up soon, with Benedict Cumberbatch playing the man himself?

          • MDB

            I know. I can’t wait to see Benedict’s performance. He is one very gifted actor and his performance as Khan in Star Trek was phenomenal. The behind the scenes BBC documentary about the making of Sherlock is fascinating, as has been the series. He actually only went to the audition with Martin Freeman to help Freeman land the role, never thinking they would ask him (BC) to portray Sherlock. At least Turing was finally pardoned and rightfully so; I sincerely hope that gets a prominent place in the script.

  • Gowdy_The_Pinhead

    The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals became the first federal appellate
    court on Wednesday to recognize the that the 14th amendment guarantees all couples equal protection for their marriages, since the Supreme Court’s 2013 Windsor ruling. While the 2 to 1 majority opinion was written by Carlos F. Lucero, a Clinton appointee, it was joined by Jerome A. Holmes — a George W. Bush appointee in 2006.

    Interestingly, Holmes was recommended for the post by one of the U.S.
    Senate’s most staunchly anti-LGBT members, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK). In a
    2006 floor statement, the Oklahoma Republican lauded his nomination.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      So what? They’re both wrong. Dems and Repubs are worthless.

      • Gowdy_The_Pinhead

        Sucks for you!
        Marriage Equality WILL be the law in ALL 50 states very soon!

        • Jacobus Arminius

          Just like baby murder…but we will continue to fight your debauchery tooth and nail. It’s the death of America that you are celebrating.

          • Gowdy_The_Pinhead

            HA HA!

          • Theodore Fenton

            You should consider yourself fortunate. If I were Emperor of USA, you would not even be allowed to vote. Think about it and count your blessings. A bit harsh, I know, but I’m tired of the gay community being persecuted at the hands of fundamentalist “Christians.” It’s time to take America back from the far-right religious fundamentalists!

          • Jacobus Arminius

            This is what most homosexuals want. That’s why we fight against their tyranny.

          • grada3784

            Toaster ovens?

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Thanks for admitting to the ultimate goal of the gay agenda.

          • Theodore Fenton

            Nope, just my personal views. There is no “gay agenda.” Well, gotta run. I’m filling in today at the Gay Recruitment Office.

          • penguin_boy

            Do I speak yo you about this? My sister-in-law is wondering when she gets her toaster oven for debauching innocent young women into lives of sapphic sin.

          • garybryson

            Wow. One our northeatern states and Canada have had marrige equality for years and the sky hasn’t fallen. Actuslly they have the lowest divorce rates in the country.

      • ErickMN

        And you are left whining and moaning in the dust AGAIN! HA HA!

      • garybryson

        Are you a sitting judge? If not, you have no idea as to what went into making this decsion.

        • penguin_boy

          And he could read the decision to see the exact chain of reasoning and citations to the law and precedent.

          But that would require thinking.

  • notafraidofchange

    The VAST majority of Americans have spoken!!!! KEEP YOUR BIGOTED BELIEFS OUT OF AMERICAN LAW!!!!

    • Jacobus Arminius

      Keep your anti-religious bigotry out of this country.

      • nowaRINO

        It is not anti-religious to tell you the Constitution doesn’t care what your personal dogma is or isn’t.

      • http://sparklepony.blogspot.com peteykins

        You got religion on my bigotry! No, you got bigotry on my religion. Hey, goes so well together!

      • grada3784

        What religious bigotry? We don’t want to ask you about your beliefs and w don’t want you to tell us.

      • vorpal

        Jacobus, we don’t have anti-religious bigotry. We just want to save you from wallowing in the disgusting and perverse filth of 2000 year old anti-intellectual mythology. We love you: we just hate the perversion that has been hammered into your brain and the recruitment that other Christians – likely family members – have inflicted on you, probably from a young age, preying on you and continuing a vicious cycle to perpetrate their vile and hateful faith that is the equivalent of a mental virus that deserves nothing less than to be purged from humanity.

        I don’t hate you, and I hold no anti-religious bigotry: indeed, I want to help you come to a better life.

        I merely hate the stupidity, and love the stupid.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          Now, Vorpal, thanks for twisting things. First, I was not indoctrinated by my parents. I was not raised in a Christian home. There were drugs, abuse (mother lost custody of both my sister and myself), multiple step parents, etc. It was a real mess. But then I became a Christian and married a wonderful Christian woman. Since then, my life has been vastly, vastly improved in every way.

          Honestly, it is your lifestyle that is exhibit A of perversity. It is against God, biology and nature. It is a denial of the obvious created order. But I love you anyway…you are a great guy, but you’re seriously wrong about this.

          • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

            “It is a denial of the obvious created order”

            —Neither obvious, nor any ‘order’ we need respect in any way.

          • vorpal

            You keep on saying that, but it simply isn’t true, Jacobus. The only thing that’s perverse is that you are making the judgment that there is something wrong with my ability to share, experience, and feel love on the basis of a collection of iron-age books written by humans.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            A book inspired by God. Your way of life is inspired by man.

          • vorpal

            My way of life is inspired by the Most Divine Flying Spaghetti Monster, and how dare you blaspheme his good name?

            Your book is inspired by god like every other holy book – again, a dime a dozen – are inspired by their gods and cultures. You think we were created in your god’s image, when I suspect that quite the opposite is true: like the vast majority of gods that have existed throughout history, they were created in OUR image.

          • Clive Johnson

            You may already be familiar with this, but 19th century philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach had some smart things to say about the human creation of gods.

            “As God is nothing else than the nature of man purified from that which to the human individual appears…a limitation or an evil…”[1]

            “The Christians certainly gave their God no attributes which contradicted their own moral ideas, but they gave him without hesitation, and of necessity, the emotions of love, of compassion. And the love which the religious mind places in God is not an illusory, imaginary love, but a real, true love. God is loved and loves again; the divine love is only human love made objective, affirming itself. In God love is absorbed in itself as its own ultimate truth.”[2]

            “Whatever strongly impresses a man, whatever produces an unusual effect on his mind, if it be only a peculiar, inexplicable sound or note, he personifies as a divine being. Religion encompasses all the objects of the world; think of anything existing, and you will find that it has been the object of religious veneration. Nothing is to be found in the essence and consciousness of religion that is not there in the being of man, that is not there in his consciousness of himself and the world. Religion has no particular content of its own. Even the emotions of fear and dread had their temples in Rome. The Christians, too, hypostatized their mental states into beings and qualities of things, their dominant emotions into powers dominating the world. In short, they hypostatized the qualities of their being — whether known or unknown to them — into self-subsisting beings. Devils, goblins, witches, ghosts, angels, etc., continued to be sacred truths as long as the religious disposition held its uninterrupted sway over mankind.”[3]

            [1] p. 181 in Feuerbach, L. (1957). The Essence of Christianity. Translated by George Eliot. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. New York: NY.

            [2] Ibid. pp. 55-56

            [3] Ibid. p. 22

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Hey, I also like how you conveniently ignored my comments about being indoctrinated by my parents.

            And not only were you wrong about that, I also spent most of my life (like you) running from God. But in 1994, I had a profound spiritual experience that I never even sought, and it radically transformed my life.

          • vorpal

            I accounted for the possibility in my original post: I said that you were PROBABLY indoctrinated / perverted into your faith as a child, acknowledging the possibility that you might simply have fallen into your reprobate Christian lifestyle on your own.

            It’s not too late for you. I, for one, believe that you’re clearly intelligent, so I will hope for the day when you can wake up to reality and stop living in fantasies that encourage you to discriminate against other people and then claim religious oppression.

            The fact that you think I’m “running from god” is laughable. I was a Christian for 22 years, and never had a profound spiritual experience. As an atheist / Taoist, I’ve had at least a handful of profound spiritual experiences, and none of them have pointed to the existence of a god in any traditional sense, and certainly not your god. Furthermore, I have no particular reason to believe that any of them point to some kind of divine truth any more than I do believing that my dreams hold tangible value outside of mental defragmentation or are any reflection on reality.

          • vorpal

            (Indeed, give me a few hours, and I’m pretty sure that I could induce a profound spiritual experience in myself. It’s not that hard to do – at least not for me – and they’re a dime a dozen.)

        • Scott Lanway

          This is brilliant. May I borrow this?

          • vorpal

            Of course! Please do!

          • vorpal

            I also usually like to mention the “Christian lifestyle” when I post something like that, but it slipped my mind this time :-).

        • ShellyBuchanan

          Enjoy Hades. The rest of us G-d followers will be extremely happy without you.

          • vorpal

            Yawn. I’ll be dead, cremated (or hopefully have my body thrown into the ocean), and thus incapable of enjoying or feeling anything else.

          • tatoo

            I will enjoy it. Hanging out on a cloud play a harp through eternity is not my idea of heaven.

      • MDB

        ….. and keep your fundamentalist right-wing bigoted extremist religious zealotry out of my home and out of my life.

    • Matthew T. Mason

      Vast majority? ROTFLMBO!!!!

      • notafraidofchange

        I would consider 73% of voting Americans a “vast majority”.. That’s a CONSERVATIVE estimate of the polling numbers who said they support marriage equality.

        • ShellyBuchanan

          I read it’s 55%. Probably fall as more people are exposed to homosexual behaviors.

          • notafraidofchange

            Of course you “read” it was only 55%.. Look at where you’re getting your information from! It’s rising quickly and across the country. Nationwide marriage equality is inevitable within the next two years-sooner if the right wing FORCES it onto the Supreme Court.

          • ShellyBuchanan

            From Gallup, ignoramus homosexual.

          • notafraidofchange

            Name calling is typical from the intellectually defeated… You wear your bigotry and ignorance with the pride of the minority… We, the majority, have passed you on the March of Progress and will not look back to see if you catch up…

      • Clive Johnson

        Check any poll within the past few years–opposition to same sex marriage is collapsing with great speed.

      • garybryson

        people like you are such a fringe group leaning to the far right that there’s very few of you, in comparison to real christians

      • vorpal

        …as evidenced by the dismal flop that was the Meagre Meander for Marriage last week.

        DC Gay Pride, 2014: 250,000 supporters.
        DC March for Marriage, 2014: 2,000 supporters.

        So yeah, we’re winning, and it’s going to keep happening, bubba. Enjoy ROFLing in your own filth all the same! You’ve earned it!

        • Jacobus Arminius

          With God, one is a majority.

          • vorpal

            If your god existed and cared so much, based on his omniscience, he would have known since the beginning of time that this was going to happen, and with his omnipotence, he could have stopped it at any point.

            He hasn’t stopped it, so I must conclude one of the following:
            1. He doesn’t exist;
            2. He doesn’t disapprove of homosexuality;
            3. He doesn’t care to stop acceptance of homosexuality; or
            4. He isn’t omnipotent.

          • Clive Johnson

            That there don’t make a lick of sense liberal. You add up all those numbers and they still don’t equal the greatness of god. Try some of that gussied up word magic with someone else. I’ve got the Bible. What you got dingbatter? Some crazy scientist? Who do you think designed the internet? It wasn’t the commies, I’ll tell you that.

          • vorpal

            LOL that made me chuckle :-). Thanks, comrade.

          • Clive Johnson

            Obliged, pardner. :)

          • tatoo

            Since there is no god, there is not even one.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          And a million people will never make 2+2=5.

          The only thing your above statement proves is that America is become a morally bankrupt nation.

          • garybryson

            Nopers. It proves that your viewpoint is becoming less and less relevant as the days go by

          • vorpal

            2 + 2 = 5 in Z_1.

            When interracial marriage was ushered in, America had become a morally bankrupt nation, too, supposedly.

            Jacobus, the only thing that has changed is that same-sex couples – which have always existed – are having their relationships recognized under civil law, and are no longer being demonized or shamed nearly as much. I fail to see how that changes anything fundamental that suddenly sinks America into perversion. You are free to disapprove of homosexuality all you like, and even though I disagree with you entirely, I fully support your right to think that and celebrate a faith that espouses that idea: however, I do NOT support you enshrining religious beliefs as law.

      • tatoo

        It doesn’t matter. The Constitution protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Like horrible people like you. In this case, however, the polls show that a majority agree with same sex marriage becoming legal.

  • HomerTh

    No need to worry Jeff, it isn’t likely that any men would want to marry you anyways.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      Based upon your pic, you don’t have much to worry about either. Unless there’s another ugly gay man out there who’s feeling lonely.

      • cminca

        Wow did you get that wrong!!!!

      • http://sparklepony.blogspot.com peteykins

        What a mature riposte! No wonder your “side” is losing so badly.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          Oh, so just ignore HomerTh’s initial response.

          • http://sparklepony.blogspot.com peteykins

            Will do!

      • garybryson

        Is that your christian love showing through for your fellow man?

        • Jacobus Arminius

          I don’t know. Ask HomeTh.

      • HomerTh

        Lol, at least I post my photo, unlike cowards like you.

        • vorpal

          Ignore him. I, for one, think you look great.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Hey, he’s the one who made the initial comment about Jeff’s appearance, and then called me a coward. Why is it that homosexuals uphold a double standard?

          • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

            He didn’t mention his appearance at all… he said it isn’t likely that any men would want to marry Jeff, more than likely because Jeff is a frothing bigot unworthy of love.

          • http://sparklepony.blogspot.com peteykins

            Awwww, boo hoo, life is so unfair. Well, your life anyway.

          • vorpal

            There was no mention of Jeff Allen’s appearance. I took it as a criticism of his stances and personality.

          • Patrick Smith

            haha, can you show me the post where he made a comment on Jeff’s appearance? if you are referring to this>”No need to worry Jeff, it isn’t likely that any men would want to marry you anyways” nothing there or implied about appearance.But hey, don’t let that stop you go full on fail.

      • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

        Looks like a nice Bear to me.

  • nowaRINO

    “The darkness of imposing our personal religious morality and freedom to discriminate is being brutishly snuffed out right before our very eyes. ”

    FTFY

    • Scott Lanway

      I like your version better.

  • Jacobus Arminius

    Homosexuals, enjoy it while it lasts. This is your hour when darkness reigns. When Jesus returns it will be our hour to shine. Better get right with God before it’s too late.

    • Gowdy_The_Pinhead

      To the bunkers!

    • ErickMN

      ANOTHER hard slap across your hateful face. You people are on the losing streak of a century. HA HA HA HA!

      • Jacobus Arminius

        Those who laugh first are laughed at last.

        • ErickMN

          Go ahead and think that while your nurse your sore face.

        • Steven Schwartz

          And considering how many years your kind spent laughing at GLBT folks, I’d say you’re spot on there. GLBT folk are getting the last laugh, after a very long spell of being on receiving end of the jokes — oh, and the discrimination, the assaults, etc., etc., and so forth.

    • nowaRINO

      I am right with my God, and quite frankly it is none of your business.

      • Jacobus Arminius

        Souls are our business (Matt. 28:18-20)

        • Gustav2

          Nope, I just told you to MYOB. If you would continue in public I would call a cop and sue the tiny little pants off you. It would be the Christian thing to do and the American thing to do.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Sue me for what? For exercising my free speech rights? Oh, I forgot, you guys want to eliminate that for people you don’t agree with. Tolerance is tyranny for you guys.

          • Gustav2

            You do not have the right to harass a fellow citizen in the public square. What part of that don’t you get?

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Nobody is harassing you. YOU decided to post comments on this site and therefore to engage in debate. If you don’t want to do that, then leave.

          • Gustav2

            “If you would continue in public…”

            We’re talking about on the street or in the public square after a citizen has asked to be unmolested by your particular brand of religion.

      • Jacobus Arminius

        Then, your god is a false god.

        • nowaRINO

          You are silly. Childishly silly.

    • luyten

      Is this a plot to a fantasy movie? sounds like one

    • BillTheCat45

      Excuse us if we aren’t shaking in our boots over that impotent threat.

    • garybryson

      Heck, I saw Jesus today. He’s lives right down the road from me…LOL!

    • Theodore Fenton

      If Jesus is going to take care of it, then you don’t need to concern yourself with such things.

    • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

      Idol threat. Your holy boogeyman does not scare me. You may as well threaten me with Voldemort or Sauron.

      Now if this Jesus is your hunky Mexican boyfriend, then I might be concerned.

  • Patrick Smith

    “These recent developments are eerily reminiscent of the words of Jesus in Luke 22:53, “But this is [their] hour—when darkness reigns.””
    If by eerily you mean your an idiot, then yes I agree

    • Jacobus Arminius

      So, now you guys are redefining the word “eerily” too? Is anything sacred to you perverts? Oh, I forgot, it’s sodomy or bust.

      • BillTheCat45

        Cry some more thx.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          I’m not crying for me. I’m crying for you.

          • Jeanette Victoria

            Amen these poor poor lost souls

          • Gowdy_The_Pinhead

            You must have a VERY sad life!

          • Arthur Adams

            My soul isn’t lost. It’s… uummm… yeah, here it is, in the game closet, right between my D&D 3.5e books and that badly beat up copy of Terrible Swift Sword I found at a rummage sale a few years ago.

  • ryan charisma

    this is great news.
    I don’t understand why you all wouldn’t be celebrating the win for equality!

    Yay!

  • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

    And what kind of civil disobedience, Mr. Allen, are you suggesting? Just curious. Or, like Mr. Huckabee, you scream that conservatives “need to rise up” but never label what that means? You, like he, are cheerleaders at this football game. You whip up the crowd, but in the end, you never score one point on the field.

    • SorryNotSorry

      “Civil disobedience” simply means “not getting gay married,” which… yeah, that’ll teach us!

    • http://sparklepony.blogspot.com peteykins

      Honey, I’ve been trying to get that answer out of people here forever.

      • Jacobus Arminius

        See above, I just gave it.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      A governor needs to defy a court. Since the court can make decrees, they have no ability to enforce their decisions. So, a governor could fire anyone that issues a marriage license for a homosexual pair.

      • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

        LOL, and are there any governors out there who have even HINTED at this? Mr. Allen was speaking about people like you, not governors. What kind of civil disobedience, Jacobus, would you do?

        And on this issue, my Federal judge trumps your “rebel governor.”

        • ErickMN

          You mean beyond his incessant whining and moaning here?

        • Jacobus Arminius

          True, regarding the governors, but that’s what they need to do. I can’t help it if they’re cowards.

          As for the citizens, a county clerk needs to refuse to issue a license.

          • ben

            County clerks are civil employees. They have no more right to choose which couples get marriage licenses than cops do deciding which laws they want to enforce…

          • penguin_boy

            A few have tried. They’ve been either reassigned or left their jobs. In each case they were told that they swore an oath to execute their offices without prejudice.

            The bigots have lost. Like I said, you don’t need to marry a man, never have to attend a gay wedding, or even like it. You can be a vocal bigot all you like. But under the Constitution, the 5th and 14th Amendments apply to everyone.

      • icapricorn

        So let me see if I got this: You want to overthrow the government of the United States because you didn’t get what you want. Ah…huh.

      • Clive Johnson

        So utterly fascinating, this window onto the misplaced priorities of so many religious conservatives.

        Thousands die of starvation every day. Right-wing Christian focus? Teh gays.

        Climate change. Right-wing Christian focus? What kind of consensual proximity your genitals are to someone else’s.

        Increasing poverty. Right-wing Christian focus? Two men, surrounded by friends and family, getting married in a park on a Saturday in July.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          We really can walk and chew gum at the same time. Ever heard of multi-tasking?

          Christians and their organizations do more for starvation, natural disasters, poverty, disease than any gay organization ever thought of doing…Where’s the HRC or GLAAD on these needs?

          In our town the hospital, homeless shelter, food panty, clothing closet, financial assistance programs are ALL run by Christian churches.

          Climate change. PURE bunk. No warming for over 17 years despite the fact that ALL the climate models predicted that there would be.

          We focus on homosexuals because they are the ones attacking our nation AND our churches.

          • Clive Johnson

            I’m sure you can do more than one thing, but the energy put into this issue is ludicrous.

            HRC and GLAAD don’t address, let’s say, land mine removal because–need it even be pointed out?

            The same anti-science that drives creationism and climate change denial, is the same mentality that leads to the uncritical and irrational belief that gays and lesbians are “attacking our nation AND our churches.” This is a fiction, but if you repeat it enough times there are always people who will believe.

    • capecodder2010

      they don’t even have crowds to whip up anymore. The Huckster was pretty much talking to a Hispanic church crowd last week at NOM’s “big” march….

  • ben

    “One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).

    • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

      Amen! I just wish these ultra right-wingers would learn that.

  • luyten

    Gosh. I think I’ll have to marry my boyfriend in Indiana now <3

    • Jacobus Arminius

      That’s “marry.” Don’t forget the quotation marks. Your marriage will always be a sad counterfeit.

      • BillTheCat45

        Too bad for you everyone else outside your hate bubble, as well as the law, know otherwise. Keep throwing tantrums though, it’s hilarious.

      • garybryson

        Your desperation is showing. Pathetic that you are such a sad, angry person.

      • ben

        Let me ask you a serious question. My wife and I were married at city hall by a justice of the peace. Nobody’s god was invited or involved. Would you also say that OUR marriage is a sad counterfeit? I am completely serious, I want to see what you think on that…

      • penguin_boy

        To echo ben.. my wife and I were married in the day hall of the senior home where my wife’s great-grandmother lived. The officiant was a family friend. There was no religious content at all. We’ve been married for 23 years, many of them tough due to my health. No kids for the same reason

        Would you say that our marriage is counterfeit?

        • capecodder2010

          He probably thinks Riush Limbaughs “marriages” are valid, and so are all of Newt’s. Because “family values”.

      • capecodder2010

        If it’s “marry” why did you write marriage instead of “marriage”?

        geesh. consistent much?

      • grada3784

        Just because it scares you , a “human being”, doesn’t mean it scares everyone else.

  • luyten

    This is the thing : some guys are romantic and love guys and some guys are romantic and love gals. All have loving families, connections to community and responsibilities. Discriminating against the lives of others – because you think you’re superior – is anathema to society.

    End of story

    • Jacobus Arminius

      We don’t think anyone is superior. All people are equal, but not all behaviors are equal. Stop conflating behavior with human worth.

      • ErickMN

        You mean your childish behavior disparaging gay people every day of your miserable life?

      • Theodore Fenton

        Orientation, not “behavior.”

      • garybryson

        Sure you do. You all spend your time trying to shove your version of religion down everyone’s throat.

      • luyten

        My behavior towards my boyfriend is the exact same that you have towards your girlfriend, if you’re a decent person.

        Duh

    • ErickMN

      Yes, thank you.

  • BillTheCat45

    CRY MORE LOSERS HAHAHAHAHAHA…. Two states in one day, time to see the writing on the wall Theocrat failures.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      Gaytheism is being imposed upon us all.

      • BillTheCat45

        Aw what an adorable word you made-up. Maybe mommy will give you a gold star today.

        • icapricorn

          Fair is fair, it is clever. Nonsensical, yes. But this poster with the preposterous faux Latin name believes in a lot of nonsense. I give him an A for creativity, an F for logic.

      • ErickMN

        You fighting it kicking and screaming the whole way just makes it more fun for the rest of us.

      • penguin_boy

        No, no one is making you marry another man, or attend a same-sex wedding, or even like it.

        By the way, the Latin form of Jacob is Iacobus and Arminius was a pagan.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          But they are forcing bakers, florists, photographers, reception hall owners, and printers participate in their same sex counterfeit weddings.

          By the way, Jacobus Arminius was actually a great Christian theologian.

          • Clive Johnson

            Law in the US prohibits discrimination on the basis of quite a number of things. Why do you think you should be able to pick and choose? Should we allow racists to fire people just for being black?

            That a few bigots might be inconvenienced is hardly noteworthy. They are neither martyrs for a new cause of justice, nor commendable in their values.

            Gays and lesbians have faced actual injustice and of a great many types, for a long, long time. Where were the Bible-bangers then? They were either silent, or applauding the abuses.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Religious freedom is protected by the Constitution…remember that old document? Christians should not be forced to act like they believe in gay “marriage,” especially since a homosexual can buy from someone else and let the market decide.

          • Clive Johnson

            No one is forcing you to believe or even pretend to believe.

            Our courts have already decided decades ago that public accommodations, including businesses can’t discriminate against people based on various statuses. Not that long ago in the US KKKers and other racists were making the same arguments about “letting the market decide,” but everyone could see through their game.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            We don’t lose our religious freedom when we start a business.

          • Clive Johnson

            You make the mistake of believing that religious liberty is an absolute. It absolutely is not. You can’t torture your children because the Bible says so, for example. You can’t on the basis of your religious beliefs discriminate on the basis of race. You’re not above everyone else, you’re one of us.

            No one in society lives in their perfect world. We all make compromises to get things done.

            It’s interesting to note how little, if ever, conservative religious leaders condemned the poor treatment of gays, lesbians and transgenders in history. You would think that would be part of their religious beliefs and values also. But, when it comes to treating LGBTQ people with equality and respect, suddenly that “religious freedom”–a freedom that was ignored in speaking out against abuse of other humans even though they were gay–gets dusted off and waved around.

          • Clive Johnson

            So, should you have the freedom to discriminate against Jews in your hiring process on “religious freedom” grounds?

          • grada3784

            Can you point out ‘Christian” businesses that don’t cater to divorced people?

          • penguin_boy

            Yes, because those are business subject to the applicable laws of the locality where they operate. That includes public accommodation laws. If you run a business that serves the public, you have to serve everyone. The only exception is if you can prove that a specific customer was a threat, nuisance, or committing fraud.

            This means if you offer wedding cakes at your bakery, you cannot say no cakes for gays. If you are a florist who dies funeral arraignments, you can’t deny service for a Muslim funeral. The laws are there to make sure that bigotry doesn’t factor into business.

            I used to be the training driver for a company. We had a guy we wanted to hire, but he annou8nced that he wouldn’t work Sundays or Christmas and Easter. Since we were am airport shuttle service, and shifts were handled by seniority, we told him we could not guarantee that.he chose to take the job.

            If you go into a business, you agree to follow the law. End of story.,

          • Jacobus Arminius

            More lame excuses. If you start a business, you don’t lose your religious freedoms…at least until the gay tyranny took over.

          • penguin_boy

            Wrong. You are free to practice your faith, but you can’t violate the laws. It’s been that way nationwide since 1964. Don’t like it? Don’t open a public accommodation. Religious freedom does not trump civil law.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            The Constitution is the LAW of the land. It trumps state laws. Period.

          • penguin_boy

            Yup. And the courts have ruled that commercial activities are not religious. You can’t force a church to give services to gays. You can force a florist to offer services to gays.

          • capecodder2010

            I hope a business refuses to serve you because you’re wearing polyester (mixed fake fibers).

      • Clive Johnson

        There’s no “imposition” to speak of. You can retain your animus against gay people all you want, but don’t delude yourself that when you can no longer put that prejudice into law, that you are being oppressed.

  • Jeanette Victoria

    I wanting for a horse to be appointed a senator…the times we live in are that evil

    • Theodore Fenton

      You obviously have a very low opinion of your husband.

    • pearl87

      Why not, with all the horse’s asses sitting on the bench? It’s time for decent Americans to declare that the judiciary was never appointed to be our masters. They have assumed powers never granted to them. We must not allow them to dictate the direction of our nation. They should be removed and tried for treason, Godwilling.

      • icapricorn

        Don’t understand 3 branches of govt., do you? It is the job of judges to weigh laws against the Constitution and to nullify those that violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Judges are not the pawns of the majority. We are a nation of laws. Not mob rule.

      • Gowdy_The_Pinhead

        The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals became the first federal appellate
        court on Wednesday to recognize the that the 14th amendment guarantees all couples equal protection for their marriages, since the Supreme Court’s 2013 Windsor ruling. While the 2 to 1 majority opinion was written by Carlos F. Lucero, a Clinton appointee, it was joined by Jerome A. Holmes— a George W. Bush appointee in 2006.

        Interestingly, Holmes was recommended for the post by one of the U.S. Senate’s most staunchly anti-LGBT members, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK). In a 2006 floor statement, the Oklahoma Republican lauded his nomination.

        • Clive Johnson

          Eventually they evolve.

    • luyten

      Stop projecting your madness on others. Just because your life has had obstacles doesn’t mean you have to go blaming other people.

      Have you suffered trauma?

      Seek help dear.

    • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

      Why not? you take you morals from a book with a talking donkey.

    • M Jackson

      Who knows? Maybe a barnyard animal is the next logical step for the Texas tea party. Until then, go sit over there and mumble your idiocies to yourself.

    • penguin_boy

      *sigh*

      We elect Senators, horses aren’t citizens, and you know nothing about why Caligula appointed his horse to the Senate. It was a deliberate insult. Caligula was making the point that the Senate was powerless.

      Interesting that you find a time when a woman can vote and voice a political opinion evil.

    • Arthur Adams

      Why not? You prove that a horse’s… rear end can post to the internet.

  • geoherb1

    From the way Jeff Allen is reacting, you’d think that the ruling is going to require him to marry a man.

    • ErickMN

      Ugh, no man would have him!

    • Halou

      That is exactly what he said in his opening paragraphs.

      “…imposed same-sex “marriage” on the citizens of both states…”

      A line that literally means he thinks all men will be required by law to marry men, and women required by law to marry women, such is the definition of “impose”. Not at all unlike his preferred idea of using the force of law to compel men to marry women and women to marry men, sometimes even against their wishes.

  • Theodore Fenton

    Once again the judiciary corrects the wrongs of man, just like Jesus intended.

  • Bernie Keefe

    The Will Of The People has nothing to do with whether a law is constitutionally correct.

  • icapricorn

    Know-nothings, religious fanatics and just plain haters: We all see through you. And so do 23 judges. In a row.

    What about “all men are created equal” do you clowns think is judicial activism?

  • thisoldspouse

    “‘Same-sex couples, who would otherwise qualify to marry in Indiana, have the right to marry in Indiana,’ Young released.”

    The circular reasoning here is mind-boggling.

    • dawn1257

      Well, the issue has pretty much come….full circle at least.

      And, you lost! As black people are no longer 3/5′s a (hu)man. So too are LGBT people no longer your doormat of hate.

      • thisoldspouse

        So, ALL marriage requirements are now null and void? That’s what this judge just said. States’ rights be damned.

        • ben

          No, states can add marriage requirements, so long as they don’t violate the federal constitution.

        • luyten

          What about the due process and equal protection clause of the 14th amendment do you not understand?

        • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

          mmmm, more tears

        • dawn1257

          That’s not what this judge said.

          You still can have restrictions of age requirements, SPECIES nullification’s (just to keep the dogs, cats and…uhh.. arm chairs out of the considerations you might want to include) and inter-related DNA damaging marriages (I think you call those in-breeding).

          Restrictions of marriage have to based upon sound reasoning. Thus far, your side has FAILED to provide sound reasoning for preventing same-sex marriages. All the other restrictions of marriage – as stated above – will still be applicable.

    • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

      mmmmmmm, tears.

      • thisoldspouse

        You don’t know what circular reasoning is, do you?

        if you’d put down the bong once in a while, you might learn something.

        • luyten

          It’s ok. We’ll help you through this XD

        • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

          look kids, thisoldscumbag is making stuff up again. I don’t do any drugs, but that’s a rather common misconception, usually made by holy idiots.

          Here’s a fun example of circular reasoning for you – God exists because the book says so and God wrote the book, so we know God exists because the book says so…

          See if I actually had a drug problem, I might find that reasonable.

    • ErickMN

      Did you enjoy ANOTHER hard slap across your hateful face?

    • Clive Johnson

      This might be a news flash to you, but legal opinions are usually longer than 1 sentence in length. You could read the decision if you wanted to.

  • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

    In all my years of being a drag queen, I have never seen anyone who was more of a drama queen than Jeff Allen.

  • genoendicott

    You really need to look up the definition of sodomy. Straight people can do it to…

    • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

      In fact, according to polls, more straight people do it than gay people. And in the younger set, that kind of sex is the number one way of birth control LOL!

      • Clive Johnson

        I recall reading an article discussing how anal sex was the preferred method of some “abstinence only” Christians.

        • fredk

          c.f. Garfunkel and Oates: “The Loophole”. NSFW…

  • Clint Batterton

    Well, Jeff, you see, under our Constitution, you can’t deny civil rights to people just because you hate them, even by a popular vote. As for “civil disobedience,” what is it that you plan to do? Refuse to buy wedding presents?

  • ErikDC

    It’s like the writer pulled up to the journalistic drive-thru and ordered the 20 piece hyperbole and super-sized hysteria.

  • vorpal

    Congratulations, Utah and Indiana! To my LGBT siblings in both states, I am glad you have finally been granted equal civil rights and your relationships will be accepted by the state as the beautiful and wonderful couplings that they are!

  • Clint Batterton

    Well, you see, Jeff, our Constitution doesn’t allow us to force a group of our citizens into second-class status just because you hate them. So our judges are doing their jobs and are not “tyrants.” .

  • Martin Rizley

    “These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street. The Constitution demands that we treat them as such.”
    This is what leftists would have us believe. They want us to believe that gender is a non-essential feature of marriage, but historically, the word marriage has always referred to a sexual union between persons. Not any kind of sexual relationship, mind you, but specifically a sexual union, which from a rational standpoint, involves the ‘uniting’ of the male and female, the two component parts that make up the totality of the ‘sexual system’ in mankind. Just as a model airplane can only exhibit structural ‘unity’ when the different parts of the plane– wings, tail, fuselage, wheels– are fitted together properly to form a complete operational system, so a true sexual union between persons can only exist where the component ‘sub-systems’ of the reproductive system in man, the male and the female, are brought together through the authentic union of a man and a woman in marriage. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring states to throw out as irrational or false that well-established meaning of the term “sexual union,” or to recognize any type of sexual relationship between persons as constituting an authentic sexual union. The reasoning of this judge is fallacious. There is nothing in our Constitution that demands that society treat something as a a true sexual union which is not that at all, by changing its marriage laws to accommodate the demands of those whose sexual activities frustrate, instead of fulfill, the purpose of sex according to its natural design. On the contrary, our Constitution demands that legislators respect natural design, natural law, and God-given natural rights when engaging in legislative activity– and it certainly gives judges no authority to rewrite laws in a way that is offensive to reason, common sense, established linguistic usage, and the cultural heritage of the people.

    • Red Mann

      Argument from tradition is a fallacy. You God has nothing to do with our legal system so you don’t get to impose your beliefs on everyone else. Your “reasoning” is religiously driven pyscho-babble.

      • Martin Rizley

        Judges argue from legal precedent all the time, which is a form of tradition– legal tradition. Argument from “tradition” does have a place in our legal system, therefore,– that’s why lawyers constantly refer to the way the law has been interpreted in past court rulings to lend weight to their argumentation– even though it must be conceded that past rulings are not infallible or final. The real issue, when it comes to judges imposing a revised definition of marriage and compelling the citizenry to recognize the validity of that definition, however, has to do with the issue natural law (which is based on belief in ‘natural design.) The ninth amendment to our Constitution makes clear that lawmakers (and by logical extension, judges as well) must take natural law into account in their legislative activities, for rights not enumerated in the Constitution itself must still be recognized and respected by government officials, not disparaged or denied, since by natural law and natural right, they are retained by the people. Government leaders, including judges, have no right to compel citizen to recognize the validity of anything that violates “the laws of nature and nature’s God.”

        • Red Mann

          The claim that marriage was always one man, one women, even if true, is the kind of tradition I’m referring to. Just because something has a long history doesn’t necessarily make it right. Slavery was an accepted tradition for millennia, the inferiority of women was a long term tradition, and still is among certain groups. That the gods controlled everything in the world, making earthquakes, lightening, famines etc was an accepted tradition for millennia.

          Marriage is a human construct created by various cultures for a variety of reasons and took more than one form. Same sex marriage also has thousands of years of tradition. The tradition was broken by, guess who, Christians, in 342 AD when such couples were ordered to be executed. Don’t bother with the false claim that homosexuality destroyed empires because it’s not true. Rome was lost long after the Christian takeover

          Since homosexual behavior is exhibited in many species, that kind of makes it natural. It is people with fanatical religious beliefs, people unsure of their own sexuality and those with a childish “ick” factor who stand against equality for all because of their personal beliefs.
          No matter how you try to wrap it, you anti-gay attitudes is wrong and anti-human.

          • Martin Rizley

            So define the word marriage, and where did you get that definition? Why should the citizens of the United States of America be compelled by reason or common sense to view that definition as required by the Constitutional?

          • Boo

            Why do your pronouncements about natural law hold more sway than the pronouncements of those who held that natural law commanded slavery and the subjugation of women? The citizens of the United States are required by the 14th Amendment to recognize equal rights for all citizens, despite this requirement not being found in the Bible.

          • Red Mann

            Same-sex marriages have occurred in different cultures across history, but the traditional meaning ended toward opposite sex for a large variety of reason. This does not mean that the term cannot not now be applied to the relationship of any committed people. Culture determines the meaning and cultures change. Moribund traditions change or vanish and there is no rational reason why the traditional meaning of marriage can’t included same sex relationships.
            Please point out the Article in the Constitution that defines marriage.
            Americans are viewing the definition of marriage as changing to include same sex relationships, close to 60%, and growing, of the population accepts the change and less than 40%, and shrinking, opposes it. More people are realizing that the false definition that has been given to homosexuals is a lie as they meet more and more on their lives and find out that homosexuals are normal.
            The shift toward acceptance is much higher amongst the young, the same young that are abandoning religion because of so many false, and hateful, beliefs.

    • ErickMN

      It wouldn’t be another glorious victory for equality if you didn’t whine and moan about it. Thanks for doing your part!

    • Clive Johnson

      The Constitution demands no such thing vis-a-vis “natural design” or “natural law.” Besides, natural law is not the unambiguous adjudicator you seem to think it is. There is a natural law argument FOR same sex marriage too.

      • Martin Rizley

        Only a shallow interpretation could fail to see the implicit reference to ‘natural rights’ in the ninth amendment when the founders spoke of rights not enumerated in the Constitution which are retained by the people and which must not be disparaged or denied by them by their government leaders– that would include legislators, justices, and members of the executive branch. The unwritten, natural rights retained the people are said to have a restraining power on government. That is clear from the ninth amendment.

        Since natural law arguments are arguments from design, and since the reproductive system in man is a complete operational system involving two component sub-systems, the male and the female, and every human being contains only one of the sub-systems, reason supports the view that a sexual union takes place only as the two component sub-systems are brought together through the sexual uniting of two people of the opposite sex. An attempt by two people of the same sex, with the same sexual parts, trying to unite with each other represents a break down or malfunction of the system, like ducks flying north in winter. The fact that human beings may desire to do that cannot compel a rational citizenry to recognize or concede that such activity involving a malfunction of the self-evident design of the reproductive system can represent a true sexual union in accordance with the design of nature.

        • Clive Johnson

          1) “Natural design,” at least to my ear, alludes to intelligent design, which truly has no place in a secular republic. A minor nomenclature difference.

          “Natural law,” on the other hand—or so it seems to this non-jurist—cannot be used to settle interpretations of law—even though judges may in their personal views use it to create understanding and meaning.

          2) Your second paragraph amounts to the argument:

          a. Babies are produced through penile-vaginal intercourse.

          b. Two males or two females can’t do this on their own.

          c. Rational people will recognize this.

          What does this have to do with same sex marriage? Ability to reproduce isn’t a prohibition held above the heads of sterile heterosexual couples. Sexual surrogates can be used by same sex couples, they can adopt, or, in the future technology might very well enable two females, e.g., to share their DNA in the production of a new life.

          • Dealing-with-idiots

            Your last paragraph hits the point no con can ever respond to: why place a different reproductive criterium on gays but not straights? The right wing is the group that wants to redefine marriage by requiring couples to reproduce.

          • Boo

            Because, according to people like Martin, infertile straights can “mimic” fertile straights to the degree he considers acceptable but gay couples cannot. That this “mimicry” is nowhere found in law is beside the point. He’s spouting Catholic dogma and demanding we all live by it.

          • Martin Rizley

            I disagree with your claims in point one based on an historical-linguistic-culturally informed interpretation of the ninth amendment, and what it requires of governing bodies. Because natural law sets limits on what governing bodies may do, governments may not force society to change established definitions of words at the whim of a federal judge if those definitions are in keeping with a rational understanding of natural design and the established usage of the language. A strong case can be made that the term “sexual union” by definition, means the coming together of the two component sub-systems of the human reproductive system through the ‘uniting’ of two persons of the oppose sex. That is how the term “sexual union” has been understood historically, and it is rational understanding of that word based on understanding of the facts of biology and anatomy.
            Since marriage by definition is an institution involving the sexual union of persons, there is no logical reason why society must be compelled by a judicial oligarchy to recognize that as a marriage, which does not involve a true sexual union, as defined above. There is nothing unjust about a state defining marriage as “the union of a man and a woman,” therefore, and judges are overstepping their legitimate authority when they arbitrarily impose their own preferred definition of marriage on states contrary to established linguistic usage and custom.

          • Clive Johnson

            The argument remains to be made, given your definition, for why sexual union can be the only basis for marriage. As it stands now, your argument takes the form of: It has been done historically, therefore we should continue this practice now.

            We may disagree with the power arrogated to the court in the American system, but just because judges are ruling against traditional marriage exclusivity, does not on that ground alone make them a “judicial oligarchy.” Nor are they “arbitrarily impos[ing] their own preferred definition of marriage…” The definition of marriage that includes same sex marriage is not arbitrary, it reflects the legitimate rights and interests of same sex couples to be treated equally under the law. The cultural, legal and ethical discourse on this is much broader than that of jurists sitting in the confines of their chambers willy nilly inventing new rights.

          • Martin Rizley

            The burden of proof must be on a federal judge to demonstrate how a state’s definition of marriage violates natural law, so that a redefinition of marriage is required to bring our laws into conformity with natural law. Judges who reject the concept of natural law which the ninth amendment obliges them to recognize and respect, however, feel no obligation to demonstrate or prove that marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution violates natural law. Rather, they take an altogether different approach to the law that doesn’t even recognize the concept of natural law, natural design, or universally valid, self-evident truth discernible to men as rational beings.

            They are operating on the premise that governments must allow people to do whatever they like unless their behavior causes measurable harm to someone else according to the “latest scientific research” interpreted by the scientific experts (that is, themselves, the intellectual elites). So if there is a special interest group loud enough, and vociferous enough, and skilled enough at gaining public sympathy for their cause, which demands in the most imperious manner that words be redefined, long-established meanings be cast out and new definitions supplied, in order to bring things “up to date” in accordance with their desires and imperious demands and the alleged findings of modern science, well, then of course, they must have their way! After all, we live in an “anything goes” society where people should be able to have their way and live any way they please, unless “the latest scientific research” interpreted by the ruling oligarchy proves that some form of conduct inflicts “measurable harm” on others.

            That is where our justice system has gone– in the direction of turning the United States into a practically atheistic scientocracy, so that judges no longer have any obligation to demonstrate to a rational citizenry just how particular institutions are violating natural law, natural design, self-evident, God-given natural rights, well-established linguistic usage, etc., by any reasonable standard of judgment. They simply impose their will, pure and simple, by slipping in revised definitons of words ‘under the radar,’ contrary to well-established linguistic usage; then they allegedly “apply” the 14th amendment to the case at hand, but only after they have made this linguistic exchange, unilaterally imposing their own preferred definitions of words in the place of well-established definitions, without argument and without justification.

          • Clive Johnson

            1) There is no agreement on first, what constitutes natural law (on some issues people can arrive at diametrically opposed positions, both based on “natural law”), and second, how to weigh competing interests from a natural law standpoint. As a result, it strikes as untenable any notion that natural law can be a definitive arbiter of law.

            Again, I’m not a legal scholar, but I question your claim: “Judges who reject the concept of natural law which the ninth amendment obliges them to recognize and respect…” There are several legal theories at the ready for any jurist to choose from – critical legal theory, original intent, positivism… How is any judge under obligation to natural law? The Constitution’s text itself doesn’t tell us how to interpret it in terms of preferred legal theories.

            2) Your second paragraph could equally well apply to women’s rights, civil rights to correct racial injustice, and the rights of the child, for starters. Are these also manifestations of an “anything goes” ethos?

            That phrase “anything goes,” I have to assume stems from a reactionary discourse that views the relaxation of sexual mores as an excess, as immoral or amoral, etc. You can bias your view of same sex marriage and LGBTQ equality in any way you like, but only some will adopt your framing.

            3) In your third paragraph, first sentence, you make a claim that seems easily refuted. All one has to do is read the judge’s opinions. You use the phrase “Without argument,” which is absolutely belied by the actual evidence of these court decisions, which rest on…argument. This is what judges typically do, please recall. When you write, “simply impose their will, pure and simple,” implying, well, just what you wrote, you’re committing the same mistake, the same rhetorical exaggeration.

            “Under the radar” is a continuation of this rhetorical strategy, designed as it is to distort the image of judicial review to something nefarious. You may disagree with same sex rulings, but this doesn’t mean the judicial review process is shady.

            When you toss in a phrase like “God-given natural rights,” you’re obviously setting up criteria or standards you wish judges had to follow, but they’re are under no obligation to do so, certainly no Constitutional compulsion. You’re assuming criteria you have yet to demonstrate the necessity of.

          • Martin Rizley

            Recognition of rights based on natural law and discerned by reason is clearly assumed to be an obligation of government officials in the ninth amendment. If you say all talk of natural rights is confusing or unnecessary in the government, you have to explain to me then how the ninth amendment is to be applied.

            I did not mean to say that these judges who use the fourteenth amendment to overturn state marriage amendments are not using arguments at all; but rather, they are building their argument on a ‘linguistic exchange’– that is, a ‘switched’ definition of words which they have simply assumed and imposed on the state whose marriage amendment is under review, and that switching of definitions is truly made without argument (it is simply assumed to be a true and valid definition).

            As I have argued elsewhere, “Although these judges claim to be enforcing the 14th Amendment when they overturn state marriage amendments, they are by no means merely “enforcing the 14th amendment”; instead, they are engaging in an act of judicial tyranny by imposing a revised vocabulary on society through the use of a rhetorical tactic known as “bait and switch.” The way it works is this: 1) First, these judges “bait” people by asserting a Constitutional principle no one can reasonably disagree with– the principle that all people deserve equal protection under the law; 2) Second, they secretly smuggle in, by an arbitrary act of judicial imposition, their own redefinition of marriage, ‘switching’ it with the historical definition of marriage rooted in natural law (in their own minds, they define marriage as “the union of any two consenting adults” in place of the historical definition, “the union of a man and a woman”); 3) then, combining the Constitutional principle in step 1 with the “switched” definition of marriage in step 2, they ask the question, “Are these two men or two women who wish to “marry” consenting adults? If so,” they conclude, “then the right of these two men or women to “marry” cannot be denied them, for it is guaranteed to them by the fourteenth amendment which secures equal protection under the law.”

            .This is clearly a piece of logical sophistry, for the judge had no right in the first place to smuggle in a revised definition of marriage in step 2 arbitrarily.

            A truly sound logical argument would be for him to say, “The fourteenth amendment requires equal protection under the law. Therefore, no person should be denied the right to marry in accordance with the statutory definition of marriage and the eligibility requirements for marriage that this state has adopted, as long as it conforms to natural law. Since man-woman marriage is agreeable to natural law and this state has defined legal marriage in that way, the federal government has no authority to overrule that definition. Homosexuals in those states may not marry each other legally, though they have access to the institution of marriage as it has been defined by the state. If their sexual preference means that they have no interest in that institution, that places no burden on the state to accommodate their sexual preferences by changing the definition of marriage.” Now, that is a logical argument that implies no deceitful, dishonest use of rhetorical devices and the subtle, unjustifiable replacement of established definitions of words with new definitions, as the three step rhetorical sleight of hand outline above does.

          • Clive Johnson

            1) I don’t hold to the view that all talk of natural is mired in intractable problems, only some of the time. I want to emphasize the tendency to see decisive argument-ending certainty where sometimes there is only partisan passion. Natural can’t “demand” anything, actually. Aren’t you arguing with the is/ought fallacy? We have to employ other values and arguments, other frameworks of theory and evidence, to legitimize a claim of natural law. We as humans both find warrant both in external and internal human realities, the observations of behavior seen and understood by internal reflection. This is a necessary emphasis I feel because you want to find a trump card external to or pre- human judgment in order to defend heterosexual-only marriage.

            2) Your argument about “linguistic exchange” still seems to reduce to whether a rational thought process was used or not. If you have some other idea in mind I’d be happy to hear it.

            What you refer to as sophistry very much rather seems the operation of logical deduction, the necessary shift in concept that occurs through a process of resolving conceptual contradiction. The 2? legal decisions I’ve read (and don’t ask me which ones, it’s been a while)—and several others I’ve read about—are directly concerned with clarifying the rational applicability of marriage to same sex couples. I struggle to find this legerdemain you claim is inherent in these judicial arguments. Labels, words, concepts contract and expand based on rational analysis in light of new reason or evidence. This happens all the time as we gain greater clarity, as we replace hidden assumptions, unseen implications, and past prejudices with greater clarity and rational consistency.

            Is heterosexual marriage the necessary and sufficient criterion for marriage? You have yet to argue for this other than to automatically assume a definition—the very definition that’s in dispute—namely that “sexual union” must be defined as consisting of procreative-potential intercourse, and next that this particular definition must be the pivotal notion at heart of marriage.

            The old and familiar argument of “Gays can get married anytime they want, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex,” rests on a fallacy, that of switching the terms of discussion. The question is whether homosexuals can marry each other, not whether they can marry someone of the opposite sex. Stated in the way it typically is, as above—a kind of unlettered “bar stool” argument— it does indeed rely on a logical fallacy—one that’s easy as pie to spot. It didn’t stop Utah attorneys however from using it in their appeal. The judge in the case I’m thinking of actually took it more seriously than it was worth, accepting its crudeness and treating it as though it had substance.

            In sum, if we assume your definition of sexual union, and if we assume that that definition determines how marriage is defined, then you’re argument is valid. If we disagree on the meaning of sexual union or disagree on whether your definition of sexual union should be at the heart of marriage, we’ll, we’re in disagreement.

          • Martin Rizley

            Natural law thinking does not support the idea that whatever is, is right. It assumes beings can fail to align themselves with the design of nature as they ought to do. Some mixed-up bird, owing to a defect in its brain, may fly north for the winter instead of south. A tyrannical ruler may fail to exercise authority in the way that rulers are “designed” to do so. The founders believed that natural law had to do with morality– that is, the way society ought to function, the way nations ought to run, the God-given rights governments ought to respect. Though they did not believe or permit the formation of a sectarian government; neither did they believe that government should act in an irrational manner, by failing to consider the “design” of things or bringing our laws into conformity with the design the “the laws of nature and nature’s God” require.

            “Labels, words, concepts contract and expand based on rational analysis in light of new reason or evidence.” I am not sure if what you are describing here is the domain legitimate of justices. They are to respect linguistic usage, not alter it arbitrarily in a way that disrespects established usage, if that usage is reasonable– if it respects natural law. How can anyone say that to to define sexual union as coitus or a relationship involving coitus is not a reasonable definition of the term, in light of established usage and the clear and unmistakable design of the sexual (reproductive) system in man? How can anyone consider it unreasonable for a society to base its marriage laws on that understanding of sexual union, which is perfectly in line with societal interest in marriage as a means of regulating procreative activity for the benefit of society, men and women, and especially, children. It would seem to me a judge would have to committed– deeply committed, in fact, to a political agenda involving a radical restructuring of society, in order to declare a state’s marriage laws based on the concept of sexual union as coitus as “unreasonable.”

            That is why so many conservatives see these rulings as based on an abuse of ‘raw judicial power’ aimed at a particular social and political agenda– judges trying to be the “moral conscience” of society according to their own ideas of what is right, even if it means trampling on established usage under the claim they are “expanding” the meaning of words. Baloney! Such expansion of meaning reduces the linguistic option of bakers and photographers, for example, to express in legally acceptable terms the type of ceremonies they are willing to provide services for. If they say the provide services for “weddings,” they are told weddings no longer mean a ceremony celebrating the union of a man and a woman. If they ask, what word can I use then, that means what “wedding” used to mean– a marriage ceremony between opposite sex couples? They are told, there is no such word any longer in our vocabulary. A federal judge changed the meaning of the word marriage to mean ‘a sexual relationship between any two people, regardless of their sex.” In other words, this alleged expansion of a term results in a reduction of linguistic richness– a linguistic diminution– as a means of social control. How dare any judge think he has the right to expand words in a way that actually impoverishes the English language by taking away a well established meaning of a word and providing no other word to take over the meaning of the word whose meaning he is destroying!.

            I don’t see what you mean when you say the argument, “Gays can marry anytime they want, they just have to marry someone of the same sex” involves a switching of terms. I see it as a redundancy of terms. It is like saying “gays can marry anytime they want, they just have to marry” (which by established linguistic usage means, a legally recognized sexual union, that is, a relationship with someone of the opposite sex on which a particular legal status is conferred.)

          • Clive Johnson

            Hi.

            1) I never asserted that natural law thinking requires the conclusion that whatever exists is good.

            2) Regarding your second paragraph. First, you can continue to make the claim that natural law is a requirement of judicial review, but I’m not convinced of it after reflection, and I’m fairly certain that most judges would be surprised to discover that there’s a generally agreed upon set of moral deductions to be drawn from natural facts—a kind of one-stop answer for helping to assist with judicial reasoning. As a rule, we humans often disagree over moral interpretation of natural facts—their significance, their priority in the moral order, etc.

            Judicial review’s role is precisely that of interpretation of word meanings and how to interpret the text of law. Isn’t that more or less correct? For sure, much of the time standard usage is required for meaningful discourse among people. But if there were no disagreement on various concepts and definitions, then really why would we need judges in the first place? Language isn’t that clear or precise,, depending on the context.

            Back to “sexual union.” You believe, if I understand you correctly, that marriage requires the definition of sexual union at its core. And sexual union has historically been considered heterosexual sexual intercourse. You then wonder why it is unreasonable for society to “base its marriage laws on that understanding of sexual union…”

            I suppose this depends on the weight one accords to equality in society.

            But, your argument seems to be nothing more than an argument from history. When same sex couples demand entry into this institution, it won’t do to simply reassert historical definitions. Change is continuous in history, so appealing to history as a source of authority is invalid in itself. We can equally appeal to history and tradition for the defense evil as for good.

            Your argument thus far seems to be “Here’s my definition of marriage, which consists of this component—heterosexual sexual intercourse.” But this isn’t convincing to me because you’re really just repeating a definition. It isn’t convincing to many judges apparently, because they, and I, and supporters of same sex marriage, ask, “So what if the institution of marriage has been restricted to heterosexual couples. What do justice and equality demand?”

            3) You write, “That is why so many conservatives see these rulings as based on an abuse of ‘raw judicial power’ aimed at a particular social and political agenda– judges trying to be the “moral conscience” of society according to their own ideas of what is right, even if it means trampling on established usage under the claim they are “expanding” the meaning of words.”

            The judges aren’t inventing anything. There’s no judicial usurpation here. Rather, they’re responding to arguments that come from outside their chamber from society at large. They’re not making anything up. They’re taking legal arguments from others—from the society at large if you will—and deciding if they are sensible. It’s a myth that there now exists a runaway judiciary on this issue. That charge reflects in part, I think, a kind of conservative obliviousness to what’s going on in culture. For decades now we’ve had innumerable books, essays, theories, legal writings, and academic work on same sex marriage, on homosexuality, bisexuality, gender issues, sexuality in general, and more, all working out the conceptual and moral basis for understanding, and yes, supporting same sex marriage. This information, this discourse, isn’t under the radar. It’s not part of some subversive insurgency. It’s been there all along, ready to be engaged with. Now that this discourse and its related arguments are reaching the courts, that fact that some conservatives think it has appeared as if out of the blue, or to the point—that it’s come whole cloth from the hands of judges, is simply not true. Blaming judges makes for an easy target. Understanding the rich thought behind this movement is more difficult.

            “…bakers and photographers…” who might now be required to serve homosexuals—why is this a problem? Under public accommodations laws discrimination against a number of classes of people has been illegal for decades now. Are you arguing that those laws should be tossed out? Should it once again be legal to discriminate against Jews, for example, in employment and business?

            3) Regarding your last paragraph. My apologies for the typo here: “Gays can marry anytime they want, they just have to marry someone of the same sex.” Replace “same” with “opposite.”

            It’s a common “street argument” if you will that there is no marriage discrimination against gays and lesbians because they can get married to someone of the opposite sex any time they want. But this ignores the hypothetical context—a same sex couple asking why they can’t marry each other, not why they can’t marry someone of the opposite sex. To repeat, if the question is, “Why can’t same sex couples get married?” then it introduces a logical irrelevance to then say, “You can get married to someone of the opposite sex.” That wasn’t the question to begin with.

        • Boo

          Except experience shows you are incorrect. Men can have sexual unions together and women can have sexual unions together. That they may not meet your personal definition of a sexual union in beside the point. You’re not really making an argument that’s any different from all those people in the thousands of years before you who claimed that natural law supports slavery and the subjugation of women.

          • Martin Rizley

            Self-evident truths can stand up to testing and rational demonstration. It is not just my opinion that the reproductive system in man is the only biological system that is not found whole and entire in a single individual– that is an objective fact. In fact, the unique feature about the reproductive system, and what makes it different than other biological systems, is that it is made up of two component sub-systems, the male and the female reproductive systems, which are made to complement each other in their function. The entire system exhibits structural unity only when the two opposite and complementary component systems are brought together in a sexual union with each other. That is not my opinion. That is a self-evident fact. Therefore, it is perfectly rational to restrict the word “sexual union” to that act on the part of two persons by which the sexual system in mankind is brought to structural unity and ‘completion.’ The mere fact that two people with the same sexual parts can stimulate each others’ sex organs to the point of orgasm, does not mean that by that act they are engaging in a true sexual ‘union’ with each other in that a way that a man and a woman do who ‘complete’ each other sexually in an objectively obvious manner, by coming together in a way that brings structural unity to the reproductive system in the human being. That is a completely rational understanding of the term “sexual union;” any other definition is not defended with rational argument, but with emotion, accusation, and angry words of offense..

            The point I am making is this. No federal judge has a right to say that a state which defines sexual union as I have defined is being irrational, or that it is irrational to see marriage as involving a sexual union between persons. In fact, it is tyrannical for a judge to impose a different definition of marriage on a state, contrary to the state’s own laws, simply because he prefers it, or because he thinks the definition of the word marriage must be changed to “any legally recognized sexual relationship between any two consenting adults, regardless of their sex,” simply because he personally feels that is the way “society must go” in order for society to show compassion to the homosexual community. Who made him an expert on what compassion requires of society? Others may disagree with him, not on the need to be compassionate, but on the issue of what compassion requires of the society. In any event, his job is not to impose his own notions of compassion on society in such a way as to overturn laws that are in keeping with natural law, but to interpret the law in a rational manner in keeping with a rational understanding of words, their meaning, and the facts of biology, not making up his own revised version of the law by imposing revised definitions of long established words at his pleasure. That is tyranny and an abuse of judicial power, no matter how ‘well intentioned’ it may be..

          • Boo

            Why is reproduction the litmus test for a “true sexual union”? Because you say so? Why should anyone care what your definitions are? Why are your claims about self evident truth superior to the claims of the people who said that slavery and female subjugation were self evident truths? Why don’t you stop dodging those questions and answer them for once?

          • Martin Rizley

            When I say that the term “sexual union” refers specifically to that act by which a male and female bring together the component parts of the human reproductive system so that it is made “complete” and exhibits structural unity as a system, I am using terms in a rational manner and according to the established usage. It can be demonstrated from a perusal of various dictionaries, that this is not just “my definition.” It is the established historic definition of the term. Various online dictionaries give the same definition of sexual union as “the act of pairing a male and female for reproductive purposes” and give as a synonym “sexual intercourse” or “coitus” which is specifically defined as “the physical union of male and female genitalia.” So I never said that it is only when a couple successfully engages in an act of reproduction and conceives a child that there is a true sexual union. What I did say is that a true sexual union exists when the complementary organs involved in reproduction– the male and female sex organs– are brought together in sexual intercourse in accordance with self-evident natural design– the way the reproductive system in man has been “sculpted.” That is what is meant, historically in our culture and by long-established usage which is even in dictionaries, by the word ‘sexual union.’

            If that is so, then it follows that no federal judge has the right to judge that definition of “sexual union” to be irrational or contrary to established usage. Consequently, if a state defines marriage, for the purpose of statutory law as a “legally recognized relationship between persons who are in a sexual union with each other,” thereby establishing marriage as a heterosexual institution involving a man and a woman, no federal judge has any legitimate basis on which strike down that state law as unconstitutional. The definition established by the state, is in agreement with natural law, with long-established usage of the word ‘sexual union,’ and in fact, is a definition that follows logically from an understanding of sexual union as involving sexual intercourse or coitus. The only possible justification the judge could have for striking down the law is based on his own political biases and his own subjective opinion of what marriage “ought” to be and how its definition “ought” to change so that society shows greater compassion or humanity to homosexuals. But that is his subjective opinion of what compassion or humanity requires. It is deceitful to say that such a change in the definition of marriage is required by the 14th amendment to insure “equal protection under the law.” He can only make that claim by first imposing through judicial fiat a radical redefinition of marriage as “the ‘union’ of any two consenting adults, regardless of their sex.” Such a unilaterally imposed redefinition of marriage runs roughshod over established usage of the term “union” or “sexual union.” He is not simply enforcing the 14th amendment. He is changing definitions, then using the 14th amendment as a pretext for writing his new definition into law.

            Race-based slavery had no basis in self-evident truth, reason, or common sense, for no evidence can be offered that will hold up to any close investigation that people of white descent have a natural right to rule over people of black descent. Recognition of the complementarity of the two sexes, however, is a self-evident truth that will hold up to investigation. The differences between men and women anatomically, biologically, etc. (unlike the racial differences between blacks and whites) are not superficial, insignificant or unrelated to the issue of human reproduction and child raising. Men and women are profoundly different from each other in undeniable ways that transcend time and culture, and each contributes something unique to the care and nurture of children whom they conceive– something that children need for their optimal development in a society made up of people of both genders.

          • Boo

            An infertile
            heterosexual couple cannot bring together the component parts of the
            reproductive system so that it is made “complete” and exhibits structural unity
            as a system. Being infertile means that at least one of the parts on at least
            one of the partners is missing or defective, so by definition it isn’t “complete.”
            Can you provide me with a dictionary reference to where reproductive sex is
            defined as the only “true” sexual union? The Medical Dictionary defines sexual
            intercourse as 1. “Coitus between humans.” And 2. “Sexual union between
            humans involving genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis.” I
            think you’d also have a very hard time getting the majority of the population to
            agree with the claim that nonreproductive sex isn’t a sexual union. The fact is that sex serves other purposes
            besides reproduction and there is no reason for anyone else to accept your
            opinion or anyone else’s opinion that sex which can lead to reproduction is the
            only kind that can be “true.” That may be Catholic dogma, but our secular laws
            are not governed by Catholic dogma. Our laws already allow marriage between a
            couple when one or both members lack one or more parts of a complete sexual
            reproductive system. You have not established that your definition of sexual
            union is in fact the “established” one. It is also ridiculous to argue that no
            judge can overturn laws just because the law in question uses an “established”
            definition. Marriage being a union of a man and a woman of the same race used
            to be the “established” definition and this was overturned.

            Whether you like it or not, for most of human history the claim
            that some people were born to be slaves was accepted as a self-evident truth. Your
            claim that black people are not inferior to white people contradicts what our
            Founding Fathers believed was a self-evident truth, as they made plain that
            their claim of the self-evident truth that all men are created equal did not
            apply to black people by officially designating them 3/5 of a human in the
            Constitution. They saw plenty of evidence to support this claim, as Europe
            thoroughly dominated Africa. We know now through experience and reason that
            their claim was incorrect. You, however, have even less justification for your
            claim of self-evident truth than they did for theirs. Your assertion that only straight
            couples are complimentary to each other is contradicted by the fact that gay couples
            find themselves to be quite complimentary to each other. There is no reason for
            gay couples to bow to your or anyone else’s opinions on how complimentary their
            unions are. There is no reason for anyone else to bow to your beliefs about
            what constitutes a profound or a superficial difference. Segregationists
            certainly believe that the differences in the races are profound. So far all
            you are arguing is that I should accept your beliefs about what is a profound
            versus a superficial difference over those of other people simply because you
            consider your own beliefs to be self-evidently true. I do not. There are many
            beliefs about differences between men and women that have been widely held
            throughout all history that we have discarded. We allow women to vote and be in
            positions of authority over men even though it was considered self-evidently
            true that this was not women’s proper place. Disallowing gay couples access to
            legal marriage harms these couples and their children and benefits no one,
            except for the “benefit” of you getting to feel good that your opinions are
            being reflected in law. You can find profound whatever you wish to find
            profound, but you cannot force others to find profound what you find profound,
            and our laws are not justified solely on what some people happen to think is
            profound or not profound. Your belief about the self-evident truth of your
            position is not based on evidence, but your own subjective opinion of which
            evidence is profound and which is not. You have not provided any reason to why
            everyone else should accept that you are the arbiter of what is and isn’t a
            self-evident truth or what is and isn’t profound.

          • Martin Rizley

            The problem with your whole way of reasoning, based as it is on a radical postmodern deconstructionism of all institutions, established definitions, values, and ideals of our culture, is that it proves far too much. Taken to its logic conclusion, it would lead to the dismantling of our society by the denial of any transcendent moral value system and the wholesale sweeping away of all established values in our society based on a Judeo-Christian way of reasoning– a way of reasoning which is reflected by our founders (even those who were not Christian) in their references to one Almighty Creator who is the Supreme Lawgiver, Righteous Judge, and Giver of Rights. If there are no transcendent moral values, if everything is relative and the strong (numerically or otherwise) have a natural right to impose their will on the weak (regardless of whether or not that will conforms to a transcendent moral order) then it is really absurd to talk about right or wrong or human rights in the first place.

            You yourself are appealing to a sense of “what is right” when you ask me to be moved by what you allege to be the “harm” done to the children raised by gay couples when the two same sex partners raising those children are not allowed to “marry.” But by what objective standard do you measure harm? What if I tell you I don’t see any harm in such children being made aware of the fact that society does not view their home situation as “abnormal.” In fact, instead of doing them harm, it may do them a great deal of good to be exposed to a value system different from the one the couple who is raising them is instilling in them. Certainly that is what liberals believe about children raised in Christian homes– it does them good to be exposes them “multiculturalism” and “moral relativism” in the public schools. By what criteria, therefore, are you judging that denying that homosexuals possess ‘marital rights,’ “harm” is being done children? The psychological distress of those children, their sadness, a feeling that their home life may not be normal? By what moral standard do you judge that to be wrong ?

            We could go on and one forever debating particular issues, but I first want you to tell me by what transcendent, self-evident, universal moral standard you would would judge my attitudes and actions. It is simply hypocritical to say, “Laws cannot be based on your idea of morality” or “You can’t impose your values on other people,” when you then turn right around and impose your values on me.

            Infertile heterosexual couples do not undermine the reproductive purpose of marriage (which is really the whole reason for society’s interest in regulating marriage by legal statutes— it is the ideal matrix for conceiving and raising children in a stable environment); in fact, such couples reinforce the reproductive purpose of marriage because, even though they themselves may be incapable of conceiving children, their heterosexual romantic relationship reinforces the value of heteronormativity in our culture and serves as a model for young people who are fertile to aspire to and follow after. Their infertility does not undermine the “default understanding” in our culture of the family as an institution founded on heterosexual marriage; it does not erode the value of heteronormativity that a sane society wants to instill in children, in order to secure its own future blessedness, cultural stability and economic prosperity. As Adam Kolasinki pointed out, bestowing societal benefits on heterosexual unions alone makes rational sense, “Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest.” Even though it is true that “a small minority of married couples are infertile. . . few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate.” What is certainly rational is that a nation’s marriage laws should “ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.” In this regard,
            “Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.” Neither do most people who accept the patently absurd proposition that children do not really need a mother and a father, only two adults who get along with each other, for their optimum maturation and socialization. Most people believe, as a matter that seems too obvious for dispute, that little boys need dads as role models, and little girls need moms, and both genders really need, for their ideal nurture, the input of a mother and father who represent the two halves of humanity.

            I don’t expect you to buy a word of what I have said, but as I see it, that is owing to your intense commitment to deconstruct all the traditional values of our culture regarding human sexuality, family, the needs of children, self-evident truth, natural law, God-given unalienable right, common sense, Constitutional authority, etc. etc. Your intense commitment to this revolutionary agenda, I believe, hinders you from seeing the logic of the arguments I am using. What else can I say? I only wish you would tell me by what transcendent moral standard you are judging right and wrong, and expect me to get on the side of what you believe is “only right.”

          • Boo

            And once again you construct your strawman. I’ve never
            denied the existence of transcendent moral systems. I’ve just said that I don’t
            believe you are a good arbiter of them. If you want your claim of transcendent
            morality to be enforced in law, you need to be able to back it up with
            something other than blind appeal to authority and your subjective opinion,
            which so far you have utterly failed to do. It isn’t simply that you believe your
            moral system is the true one, it’s that you want the secular government to
            enforce it. The standard I use for measuring harm in the case of children being
            raised by same sex couples is already accepted in our legal system (and
            tellingly, even the defendants in the Prop 8 case weren’t able to dispute it).
            Children having a legal relationship to both parents and the security that comes
            from knowing their parents are married benefits their overall wellbeing. This
            is something that has never been disputed in court. If you wish to do so, you
            can try to make your case in court, but I doubt your arguments would be found
            credible. Certainly your blanket claim about what “liberals” believe about kids
            being raised in Christian homes cannot be backed up with evidence, not least
            because many liberals are Christians. Even stipulating that some people
            somewhere no doubt believe this, the government does not enforce this belief,
            so I’m not sure what your point is. The courts aren’t interested in whether
            their judgments happen to be in line with the moral system of you or of me, so
            this has nothing to do with me trying to impose my values on you. No one is
            trying to force you to marry a man. You are free to live out whatever values
            you wish so long as you respect the rights of others. (Because that is a value
            of our legal system, not simply because it also happens to be one of my values)

            Infertile
            heterosexual couples do not undermine the reproductive purpose of marriage
            (which is really the whole reason for society’s interest in regulating marriage
            by legal statutes— it is the ideal matrix for conceiving and raising children
            in a stable environment); in fact, such couples reinforce the reproductive
            purpose of marriage because, even though they themselves may be incapable of
            conceiving children, their heterosexual romantic relationship reinforces the
            value of heteronormativity in our culture and serves as a model for young
            people who are fertile to aspire to and follow after. Their infertility does
            not undermine the “default understanding” in our culture of the
            family as an institution founded on heterosexual marriage; it does not erode the
            value of heteronormativity that a sane society wants to instill in children, in
            order to secure its own future blessedness, cultural stability and economic
            prosperity.

            Gay couples do
            not undermine the reproductive purpose of marriage (which is really the whole
            reason for society’s interest in regulating marriage by legal statutes— it is
            the ideal matrix for conceiving and raising children in a stable environment);
            in fact, such couples reinforce the reproductive purpose of marriage because,
            even though they themselves may be incapable of conceiving children, their
            romantic relationship serves as a model for young people who are gay or
            straight, fertile or infertile to aspire to and follow after. To claim that
            people would stop marrying and having babies if they saw gay couples being
            allowed to legally marry is bizarre and completely unsupported by evidence, as
            is your assertion that they will only see heterosexuality as a good thing if it
            is presented as better and more privileged than homosexuality. You are
            essentially trying to claim that straight couples marry in order to feel
            superior to gay people, which is nonsensical. There is no reason to believe
            that young people would find it more difficult to learn the value of marrying
            and having children if they know their gay friends can do the same. Also,
            unless you’ve been living under a rock, you ought to know that the default
            understanding in our culture has already changed, and heterosexuals are finding
            it no more difficult to marry and have children. If anything, seeing the gay
            community fight desperately for marriage reinforces how important it is to
            everyone.

            Marriage between
            two people of the same sex can also result in a family with children, and in
            fact already does across the country. To say those children being raised by gay
            couples don’t deserve to have the rights and security that comes from having
            legally married parents violates their right to equal protection of the law. Polling
            consistently shows majority support for gay couples being allowed to adopt (at
            an even higher majority than the majority support for gay couples being allowed
            to legally marry) so your claim that most people agree with you needing a
            mother and father specifically as opposed to two mothers and two fathers is
            simply not true. It is also, as I have pointed out to you on multiple occasions
            before, not supported by the evidence. Studies have consistently shown that
            kids raised by gay couples fare just as well as kids raised by straight couples.
            (And before you try to pull the Regnerus nonsense out, if you read that study
            you will find that only two kids in it were actually raised by same sex couples
            and they scored as well as the kids raised by their biological parents.) Unless
            same sex couple raise their children in complete isolation, they will have
            plenty of opportunity to learn from role models of both genders.

            The idea that I
            have some sort of intense commitment to deconstructing and overthrowing all the
            traditional values in our culture is yet another absurd strawman you have
            constructed. So far I have only disagreed with you about two things: same sex
            marriage and your ability to be the true arbiter of self-evident truths. I have
            no problem at all with tradition values per se, I only have a problem with
            those that cause harm and have no justification other than preserving the
            privilege of one group over another. As I pointed out to you elsewhere, the
            traditional values of the first 1746 years of Christendom disagree vehemently
            with the values our nation was founded on. We have no hereditary rulers or
            legally enforced social classes. The traditional view of family that you are
            defending only exists because we discarded traditional ideas about family, such
            as polygamy and the wife being the property of the husband. And the people
            defending those traditional values made the exact same appeals to self-evident
            truth, natural law, and common sense that you have made here. I don’t disagree
            with the traditional values you have expressed here because they are
            traditional, I disagree with them because they cause harm to some for no
            benefit, and your arguments to support them have no basis in fact. So, for the
            umpteenth time, yes I do believe in natural law, I just don’t agree with some
            of what you believe about it.

          • Martin Rizley

            Apparently, your moral standard– correct me if I am wrong here– seems to be based for the most part on a “live and let live” principle, with the one qualifier being “don’t do anything that harms someone else.” The problem is, by what rational, immutable standard do you judge what is harmful, and is it always possible to avoid harming people when correcting a bad situation that has been brought into being by poor choices?

            Consider a man who is a bigamist, and has kept both of his spouses in the dark as to each others’ existence for years. (This has actually happened in cases with men who hose jobs kept them travelling back and forth between two cities, where they spent equal amounts of time.) Let’s say that this bigamist had children by both wives, until one day, his bigamy was brought to light, and the law said, “You cannot be married to two women at the same time.” Your second marriage was invalid when you contracted it; therefore, it is now nullified. How do you think that man’s children by the second wife are going to feel? Are they not going to be upset that their dad deceived them, and that as a consequence of that deception, he is no longer married to their mother? What should the authorities do in this case? Allow this man to remain legally to both spouses at once, for the sake of the children involved, in order to preserve their sense of security or well-being? If the state nullifies the man’s second marriage, and the children suffer as a result, who is to blame for that suffering?– the state for being cruel, or the man for being self-centered and narcissitic?

            I am unmoved, and frankly appalled, when homosexuals use children as their ‘human shields’ to defend the rightness of the state recognizing their allegedly self-evident, natural, unalienable “right” to marry each other. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you are right that if the state does not permit homosexuals to “marry” that may cause some distress to the children they have adopted. Whose fault is that? Is it the state’s fault for not recognizing the self-evident “marital rights” of homosexual couples? Is it the fault of homosexual couples for adopting children when they are not legally married? Or is it the state’s fault for allowing this situation to develop in the first place by letting unmarried homosexuals adopt children, which LGBT activists then use as a tool of emotional manipulation to get leverage for their cause by playing on the heartstrings of a sympathetic, but shallow and all too easily manipulated American public?

            If homosexual couples who are raising children are really concerned about those children having a sense of security and well-being based on the “marriage” of their two “parents,” the two men or two women involved can arrange some sort of “commitment ceremony” before the children in which they make vows of lifelong faithfulness to each other– a commitment ceremony doesn’t at all depend on what the state does or does not recognize as having legal status. They have the same civil liberty that atheists have to teach the children in their care the values they think best. You may know that some atheists send their kids to “atheist summer camp” where children are indoctrinated in attitudes of unbelief, doubt, and skepticism.

            Quite frankly, I would consider a commitment ceremony of the sort I mention blasphemous, for I believe that God only recognizes as solemn and binding those vows which concern relationships that He has divinely ordained, relationships which fall within the parameters of His moral will for mankind. Not only is it blasphemous to make a vow of commitment to pursue an immoral course of action; it is even worse to attempt to carry out that vow. But then, that shows how completely at odds we are in our value system. Because blasphemy is not a crime against the state, I could not attempt to prevent you from teaching the kids you raise things I might consider blasphemous. I certainly would consider the things that atheists or Muslims teach their children blasphemous. But then, as I said, blasphemy does not violate a civil law, as grievous as it is to me– so I could not charge you or anyone else with having broken the law for teaching kids values that contradict my religious beliefs.

            On the other hand, I do not have to accept for a moment the argument that homosexuals have a ‘natural right’ discernible to reason or common sense, to contract a legal marriage with each other that society must recognize. I do not grant for a moment that there is any rational argument in defense of that proposition. I deny that homosexuals have a self-evident right to impose a revised definition of marriage on the whole of society– a definition that serves to erode a rational understanding of the state’s interest in marriage– which has to do with regulating reproduction and the raising of children. (I already explain why I believe the marriage of infertile couples does not undermine that state interest, bu the so-called ‘marriage’ of homosexuals does.)

            I agree with Adam Kolasinski that homosexual partnerships do not promote society’s future prosperity in any rationally discernible way; for which reason, they are by no means entitled to the same treatment as heterosexual relationships. The fact that homosexuals depend on surrogates to provide themselves with children is no argument in favor of legalizing so-called ‘gay marriage’– for why should society agree that it is a good that planned surrogancy is a good thing? Why should people believe that it furthers the interests of society to promote a situation in which children will be systematically being ‘created’ by modern reproductive technologies and separated from one of their biological parents at birth, so that homosexual couples can ‘be supplied with children to raise? How does that benefit the children, who are deprived of a mom or dad at birth, then told later they were deprived of nothing of value, since boys do not really need dads and girls do not need really moms as role models– they only need any two adults raising them who have a positive relationship with each other, since gender roles are nothing at all but an oppressive societal construct that harm children?

            Same-sex marriage do not serve to reinforce heteronormativity in the culture, which is a very important value for societies to instill in children,. On the contrary, the public school propaganda which inevitably follows government-driven efforts to normalize homosexuality in the culture tends to promote gender confusion in young people and an amoral, anything goes, sexual ethic that more easily leads to sexual experimentation among young people, blurs gender distinctions and behavior appropriate to each gender,, and can only harm society in the long run.

          • Boo

            “Apparently, your
            moral standard– correct me if I am wrong here– seems to be based for the most
            part on a “live and let live” principle, with the one qualifier being
            “don’t do anything that harms someone else.” The problem is, by what
            rational, immutable standard do you judge what is harmful, and is it always
            possible to avoid harming people when correcting a bad situation that has been
            brought into being by poor choices?”

            No, that is the
            only moral standard that the government has an interest in enforcing. I think
            it’s immoral to harm your body by habitual overeating, but the government has
            no business legally enforcing a particular diet. I don’t want all of my personal
            moral standards to be the immutable ones for everyone else because I could be
            wrong about some of them.

            Society has
            determined that polygamy is harmful. If bigamists want to change that law, they
            have the same right to petition the court to overturn those laws as anyone
            else. The situation you’re describing involves a man betraying the trust of
            several people and committing perjury, so I’m not sure how it’s relevant. If
            the only arguments mustered to defend antipolygamy laws are as vague and
            nonsensical as those mustered to defend laws against same sex marriage, then
            the days of laws against polygamy are indeed numbered. I don’t claim to be a
            legal expert, but I don’t think it would be difficult to make the argument that
            a theoretically unlimited number of partners of both sexes would create a
            tangled legal mess of conflicting rights and responsibilities that would put an
            undue burden on the state in trying to sort them all out.

            I am unmoved, and
            frankly appalled, when antigay activists use children as their ‘human shields’
            to defend the rightness of the state denying same sex couples the right to
            marry.

            “Let’s say, for
            the sake of argument, that you are right that if the state does not permit
            homosexuals to “marry” that may cause some distress to the children
            they have adopted. Whose fault is that? Is it the state’s fault for not
            recognizing the self-evident “marital rights” of homosexual couples?
            Is it the fault of homosexual couples for adopting children when they are not
            legally married? Or is it the state’s fault for allowing this situation to
            develop in the first place by letting unmarried homosexuals adopt children,
            which LGBT activists then use as a tool of emotional manipulation to get
            leverage for their cause by playing on the heartstrings of a sympathetic, but
            shallow and all too easily manipulated American public?”

            The exact same
            argument can be made against interracial marriages, or indeed for any other
            form of discrimination. The state has children who need homes, and gay couples
            willing and able to provide good homes for them (and as I have pointed out
            previously, your subjective belief that a gay couple can’t make a good home for
            children is not borne out by the facts). I’m sorry you have such contempt for
            the American people, although this is a Constitutional issue, not a public
            opinion issue.

            “If homosexual
            couples who are raising children are really concerned about those children
            having a sense of security and well-being based on the “marriage” of
            their two “parents,” the two men or two women involved can arrange
            some sort of “commitment ceremony” before the children in which they
            make vows of lifelong faithfulness to each other– a commitment ceremony
            doesn’t at all depend on what the state does or does not recognize as having
            legal status. They have the same civil liberty that atheists have to teach the
            children in their care the values they think best. You may know that some
            atheists send their kids to “atheist summer camp” where children are
            indoctrinated in attitudes of unbelief, doubt, and skepticism.”

            Ah yes, the old Separate
            But Equal. Because that worked so well the last time we tried it. Sorry, but
            the children would still be denied their right to equal protection of the laws
            and our legal system considers that to be inherently harmful. Not having legal
            ties to both parents creates the potential for more concrete harms to children
            for reasons I trust are obvious if you think about them.

            You don’t personally
            have to accept anything that you don’t want to accept, but the state does
            whether you like it or not. And you didn’t explain anything, you asserted
            something and I pointed out that your assertion is just based on your personal
            opinion which there is no reason to force anyone else to accept. There is no
            reason or evidence for believing that kids growing up seeing their gay friends
            able to marry each other will have any detrimental effect on their commitment
            to the idea of marriage and parenting. You can claim heteronormativity is an
            important value to instill in children all you want, but that is simply your
            opinion which you have no business enforcing on anyone’s children but your own.

            “I agree with
            Adam Kolasinski that homosexual partnerships do not promote society’s future
            prosperity in any rationally discernible way; for which reason, they are by no
            means entitled to the same treatment as heterosexual relationships.”

            Of course they
            do. Partnered people live longer and work harder, contributing to society’s
            prosperity. Partnered people make better homes for children. See? That wasn’t
            so hard.

            “The fact that
            homosexuals depend on surrogates to provide themselves with children is no
            argument in favor of legalizing so-called ‘gay marriage’– for why should
            society agree that it is a good that planned surrogacy is a good thing.”

            Society already
            has agreed. Surrogacy is legal. Good to know it’s the reproductive lives of everyone
            you want to control, not just gay people. My grad school chaplain found out he
            couldn’t biologically father children so he and his wife had to use donor sperm
            to have a baby. You can dislike their actions but there is no reason your
            dislike should affect their legal status.

            “Why should
            people believe that it furthers the interests of society to promote a situation
            in which children will be systematically being ‘created’ by modern reproductive
            technologies and separated from one of their biological parents at birth, so
            that homosexual couples can ‘be supplied with children to raise? How does that
            benefit the children, who are deprived of a mom or dad at birth, then told
            later they were deprived of nothing of value, since boys do not really need
            dads and girls do not need really moms as role models– they only need any two
            adults raising them who have a positive relationship with each other, since
            gender roles are nothing at all but an oppressive societal construct that harm
            children?”

            Why does it
            further the interest of society to create children and raise them in loving
            homes? You really need an answer to that question? I’m not sure who said that
            gender roles are nothing but an oppressive societal construct that harms
            children (although some, repeat, some, of what we used to enforce as gender
            roles undeniably did) so I take it this is just another one of the strawmen you
            are so fond of constructing. Your claim that not being raised biological
            parents is inherently harmful is, once again, simply not borne out by the
            evidence. This has been studied numerous times. We do not base our legal system
            on your gut feelings.

            “On the contrary,
            the public school propaganda which inevitably follows government-driven efforts
            to normalize homosexuality in the culture tends to promote gender confusion in
            young people and an amoral, anything goes, sexual ethic that more easily leads
            to sexual experimentation among young people, blurs gender distinctions and
            behavior appropriate to each gender,, and can only harm society in the long
            run.”

            Again, these
            claims are simply not borne out by the evidence. The teen pregnancy rate was
            cut in half between 1991 and 2012, despite increased societal acceptance of gay
            relationships. (It did blip up briefly while abstinence-only education was a
            thing, but fell again once we started moving away from that) According to the
            CDC, gay friendly Massachusetts has a lower STD rate than gay unfriendly Texas,
            Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and I’m sure many other red states I didn’t have
            the time to look up. And like it or not, most people do not look to you to know
            what sort of behavior is appropriate to each gender.

          • Martin Rizley

            The basic difference in our thinking is that you take an approach to American law that leaves God entirely out of the picture. I believe our founding documents call government leaders to respect God-given unalienable rights by recognizing them and ruling according to them. T
            hese God-given rights are referred to explicitly in the Declaration of Independence and implicitly in the Constitution when our government is told to respect rights not enumerated in the Constitution, but retained by the people, without disparaging or denying them. If that is not a reference to natural rights (which in turn rests on the concept of natural law) then what is it a reference to? If government is expected to know what those rights are, even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution, what is that but an invitation for legislators to use reason, to reflect on the order of nature, and to discern what those rights are.

            The Constitution by no means prohibits legislators from recognizing and respecting ‘natural design’ as the foundation of our laws, nor does it permit the federal government to nullify state laws that are based on respect for design– such as marriage laws based on a recognition of the natural union of male and female in the human reproductive system. After all, the state’s interest in marriage is all about promoting society’s procreative activities in a way that protects the best interests of men, women, and children, as well as the future of society.

            For that reason, federal judges can only legitimately overturn state marriage amendments if those amendments ignore self-evident design in nature, which the amendments in question do not do. Those marriage amendments are based on a rational understanding of marriage as an institution in which the state has an interest; they uphold long-standing linguistic usage, that a marriage is a relationship involving ‘sexual union’ (a sexual union being understood as or and a relationship involving coitus.) This is a definition of sexual “union” that conforms to natural law, and since marriage laws have always been based on the concept of sexual union, with the purpose of giving privileged legal status to sexual relationships based on that union, then it is perfectly lawful according to our Constitution for those states to keep their amendments and laws concerning marriage. They may not lawfully be overturned by the federal government. ,

            This is a positive approach to law which says, if a law is agreeable to a rational understanding of natural design, it is a valid law, and the federal government may not overturn it.

            Your approach to the law is much more negative and destructive of a rational foundation of law, for you seem to take the view that government must take an
            “anything goes” approach to human behavior, looking to no higher authority for truth than the latest research study conducted by some scientist somewhere, who is assumed to be the paragon of wisdom on the issue at hand, and whose judgment trumps that of a rational society as a whole reflecting on natural design. It the latest research evidence proves no ‘measurable harm’ from some behavior in the opinion of a scientist, it must be assumed to be innocuous, and society must accept it, until another ‘research study’ comes along to offer conflicting evidence.

            What is that but to establish a scientocracy, a government by ruling elites, who alone are equipped with the scientific tools and knowledge to tell everyone else what is right or wrong, good, or moral. The scientific elites have all the knowledge; the masses know nothing, and their consensus understanding of natural design means nothing. This is an approach amenable to Communist leaders in China, who recognize no “design” in nature, no God-given, self-evident, rationally discernible unalienable rights belonging to man.

            Our founders had in view a different form of government, which allows for lawmakers to come together as rational beings in order to discern self-evident principles of design in the natural order, and to establish laws on the basis of that design. It was a form of government that held the view that certain rights are God-given and are to be recognized and respected by lawmakers in the fear of God– even though those lawmakers may hold to different creeds and attend different churches. It is a pity we have so far departed from our roots, and are swiftly heading in the direction of a rootless, godless, amoral scientocracy ruled by an intellectual elite who proclaim themselves to be the rulers of society by virtue of their superior scientific knowledge, which trumps all ‘ignorant’ notions that reasonable men who lack those scientific credentials may have about right and wrong, based on the “order of nature.”

            You may deny my description of our differences is accurate, but I am talking about my impressions, based on the whole drift of your argumentation.

          • Boo

            You know,
            repeating your same flawed arguments over and over again does not somehow
            strengthen them. The Constitution never once mentions God and the Declaration
            specifically mentions a generic “nature’s God” rather than the God of
            the Bible. The assertion by the Founders that all men were created equal
            (except black men, of course) was a radical departure from what was accepted as
            self evident truth in the previous 17 centuries of Christendom- a point that I
            have repeatedly made and that you have studiously ignored. You have not demonstrated that your claims
            about “natural design” are the correct claims about “natural design” and merely
            repeat them over and over. You claim that the state is justified in recognizing
            some nonprocreative unions but not others because some nonprocreative unions
            mimic procreative unions closely enough to be allowed in, but this principle of
            mimicry is found nowhere in law and there is no reason why we should accept
            your standards of what does and does not constitute close enough mimicry to
            procreative unions to be allowed. The state’s interest in marriage goes beyond
            procreation whether you like it or not. Society’s interest in promoting stable
            homes for children argues in favor of same sex unions, not against them. You
            blindly repeat your assertion about what constitutes a true “sexual union”
            while ignoring the fact that society and linguistic usage does not, in fact,
            agree with your definition and you cannot demonstrate your claim about natural
            law. You offer no reason for why your beliefs about natural design should be
            the ones we accept in law instead of the belief about natural design that says
            African Americans are inferior, which seemed perfectly rational to its
            proponents, other than that you do not agree with it. Tellingly, on that
            question you were satisfied to allow evidence to overturn that belief, but then
            you go on to denounce the concept of allowing evidence to overturn beliefs (or perhaps
            more specifically, YOUR beliefs). You
            continue falsely accusing me of promoting anything goes approach which I never
            have, I assume because this helps you construct the strawmen you so love to
            knock down. I never said we must blindly bow down to whatever the latest study
            to come down the pike is, but when we are faced with mounting evidence that
            something we want to believe is not actually true, we should have the courage
            to face it. If people never did that, the “traditional morality” you are
            defending would not exist in the first place. You owe the society you exist in
            to people who questioned the “self-evident” truths propounded by others and
            were not afraid to question what they had been taught and to accept evidence,
            and you have the unmitigated gall to denounce the process that got you where
            you are? You want to go back to burning witches and beating slaves as we serve
            a divine-right king? Of course not, because it’s ok to question those claims
            about self-evident truth, but not your claims about self-evident truth. If you
            are sure the “self-evident” truths you believe in are the correct ones, why are
            you so afraid to let them stand up to scrutiny?

          • Martin Rizley

            I suggest you read again some of the arguments I put forth. You are stating them in an overly simplified manner. They are really much stronger arguments than your presentation of them would seem to suggest. And I have nothing to add to them in order to strengthen them– they are stated strongly enough, and stand on their own.

            I will say this, however. I never said that people cannot mistakenly perceive unreasoning prejudice for self-evident truth. I have said that if something really IS self-evident truth, it will hold up to closer investigation. I believe the self-evident complementarity of the sexes, their distinctive biologically based characteristics of the two sexes, and the fact that children need the input of a mom and a dad– and not simply two loving adults– for their optimal socialization and maturation are self-evident truths that stand up to investigation.

            You say that people in the past viewed it as a self-evident truth that blacks were inferior to whites. You seem to use that to disparage the idea that we can no self-evident truth, or that arguments f design put forth by non-credentialed non-scientists based simply on common observation, reason, and common sense are invalid (or should be invalid) in a court of law. My response to that is this:, if it is a self-evident truth, it will hold up to closer investigation, analysis, and testing by rational human beings. Bring on the evidence that supports a claim. What is that evidence? I am willing to listen to any argument from natural design that supports the wild claim that one race is inferior to another or should be subjugated to rule by another. What arguments could people possibly bring forth to support such a proposition? There is too much evidence to contradict it, and the evidence is of such a nature that only credentialed scientists who conduct ‘controlled empirical studies’ and gather and analyze data have access to. The evidence is available to “the man on the straight” if he will exercise reason and common sense. You will answer, that’s what he claims he is doing. Very well, let me see his arguments. I am willing to listen to them and examine them and use my own critical faculties to judge them. But I do not believe claims of racial supremacy hold up to investigation. I believe it is contradicted by glaring evidence. On the other hand, I believe the argument that kids need a mom and a dad does hold up to the evidence. Of course, as a Christian I believe this on the basis of biblical teaching, but I believe the teaching of the Bible is confirmed by the data of experience. Small males need older males as role models, and small females need older females as role models, and it just makes sense that maximum benefit of such modeling occurs when children receive the devoted, nurturing care on a day in day out basis that only a mother and father can bring.

            You say you are open to argument, but it seems like you really find no argument convincing or valid or conclusive unless it can be backed up by the credentialed scientists doing controlled experiments to gather and analyze data. It is this ‘elitist’ of knowledge which I object to in modern jurisprudence, which elevates science above common human observation, of reason, and common sense, which the founders referred to when they wrote of self-evident truths. In modern scientism, there are no “truths”– only “present conclusions” based on the available evidence which may change tomorrow based on further research data. Thankfully, a stable society does not have to be built on such an uncertain foundation. There is another way to go, if only we will choose it. As a people, we do not have to go the way of scientism and rule by the experts- unless of course tyrannical judges, like philosopher-kings, overrule every decision made by the electorate to impose their own moral values and definitions of terms contrary to what the people themselves see and understand to be self-evident truth. I know you deny you hold to a strict empiricist view of knowledge– but since I have used many arguments, and you say I have used none, it seems to me you are dissatisfied with my method of argumentation, since I am not constantly quoting one “controlled study” after another to support my contentions. That’s why you say I have no arguments.

          • Boo

            The claim that two opposite sex parents are better for children than two same sex parents does not stand up to investigation. You have not supported this argument with anything other than your own prejudices. It has been investigated, and it is wrong. If we want to know whether this argument is correct, we need to look at the outcomes of kids raised by opposite sex couples versus kids raised by same sex couples. This has been done numerous times. Every time the answer is the same: they turn out just as well. Your bald assertion of “natural design” does not overturn that fact. You have not referenced any form of investigation other than blanket assertions of self-evident truth, natural law, or natural design. That is not investigation, it is simply a restatement of your own a priori beliefs. In that, it holds no more weight than the claim that racial superiority is a self-evident fact of nature’s design. All you have really said is that you believe your own assertions of natural law because you believe them, and you do not believe the assertions of natural law from segregationists because you do not believe them. Leaving aside for the moment the undeniable fact that parenting fitness has never been a criteria for getting a marriage license in the first place. Two law abiding citizens who marry undoubtedly provide a better parenting environment for children than a single mother who marries a death row inmate, yet the single mother is allowed to marry the death row inmate. Your position holds that the latter case is more worthy of legal marriage recognition than a same sex couple because, in your mind, the single mother and death row inmate can model your vision of an ideal union better than a same sex couple, but you can give no reason for why this should be regarded as a better model or why the cutoff point for what constitutes an unacceptable model should be drawn at same sex couples other than your repeated bald assertions about self-evident design and natural law. I ask again, as I have asked so many times before, why should anyone accept your assertions about self-evident design and natural law as the true ones? You cannot back them up with actual evidence. Science is not on your side. The majority of public opinion is not on your side. Historical claims of natural law differ drastically from yours. What, exactly, do you have on your side besides your own bald assertions?

          • Martin Rizley

            Of course, we all find certain forms of evidence more convincing than others, and that inevitably reflects the presuppositions that govern our thinking. If you believe you have a completely ‘neutral’ mind, devoid of presuppositions, then not only are you blind to the state of your own heart and how it affects the way you reason, you are always unaware of what sort of evidence your biases will allow you to accept as legitimate or convincing. You claim to be a Christian, but that doesn’t mean your way of reasoning begins from presuppositions that reflect a biblical worldview, or even a theistic worldview.

            I freely grant that my presuppositions are those of a Christian who believe the Bible is the self-authenticating Word of God, and those presuppositions govern the way I reason, just as an atheists’ presuppositions govern the way he reasons. Let me explain. Since an atheist does not believe there is a personal God behind the world, he does see knowledge as a matter of receiving knowledge from God by means of general and special revelation. He does not believe God has endowed men with the ability to use their critical faculties to “discern” principles of design in the world indicating how things “ought” to function. In fact, he does not believe that we can know ultimate truth at all. We cannot know the world as it is “in itself,” which remains a great mystery. We can only know through the tools of empirical science, how the world is “to us,” that is, how it appears to our five senses, filtered through the categories of our mind, which enable us to make some sense of the sensory data bombaring us from the outside world. His presuppositions do not allow him to believe that an acknowledge of the world in the form of absoltue, fixed “truth” revealed by God to men, is even possible. All we ever have are “conclusions,” not truth, conclusions drawn from the available data based on the latest research. Such conclusions allow us to make provisional statements as to which courses of action appear to cause measurable harm to people, and which do not. But those conclusions are never final– they are never held in the form of dogma as fixed “truths”– they are simply provisional conclusions based on the available research data that are valid “for now,” conclusion which do not allow us to make any dogmatic statement about universal truth, morality, right or wrong, etc.

            Now, obviously, since I am not an atheist. I do not reason in that way at all. I reason like a theist, which means, first of all, that while I accord the modern scientific method and research by “credentialed” scientists as ONE avenue by which the God who made universe expands our knowledge of how He has made it, it is by no means the only avenue. He communicates to us by other means as well– by general revelation, as He opens people’s minds by His Spirit to see His truth revealed in the self-evident design of the world around us, and special revelation, as He opens our minds to see His truth revealed in the pages of Scripture. God is a God of truth, and He is in the business of revealing fixed, self-evident, certain, and final truth to men about the world in which we are living– not just tentative and provisional ‘conclusions’ about the world as it “appears” to us at the present moment based solely on the methods of empirical science.

            So our way of reasoning is admittedly very different, and that inevitably effects both the kind of evidence and the amount of evidence we find either permissible or persuasive to support a certain proposition concerning the nature of the world we are living in.

            The fact that I hold to the Bible as my supreme authority, however, does not mean that I do no evidential support for my beliefs in the world, or that I eschew using evidential arguments based on scientific research or natural design that support certain propositions that I personally accept, first and foremost, because of my commitment to the supreme authority of Scripture as the Word of God. For me, it just makes sense that if the Scripture is true, you will expect to find its truth confirmed by the evidence of science, logic, philosophy, history, common human experience, and self-evident design in nature.

            Take the issue of sodomy. The Bible teaches sodomy is morally wrong– that it goes against God’s moral will for mankind. But is that just an irrational belief with no confirming evidence in the world itself to support that teaching of Scripture? Of course there is confirming support, based on self-evident design. The penis belongs to the reproductive system in man; the anus to the digestive system. They clearly were not designed to go together; and one piece of evidence to be offered in proof of that proposition, is that sodomy is an inherently dangerous act, from the standpoint of health. Fecal matter can be a source of very serious and deadly infections and tears in the wall of the rectum can be a portal through which deadly STDs are transmitted, which is one reason why transmission of STDs, particularly the AIDS virus, is higher among homosexual men than any other group. If a form of activity cannot be engaged in safely without special protections being taken– and even then, it is not 100% safe– can that be seen as evidence that human beings were not “designed” to engage in that activity. The same statement about inherent danger is not universally true of ‘unprotected’ coitus between a man and a woman. That’s why a married couple does not have to be concerned about bacterial infections while engaging in coitus, the way that homosexual have that concern while engaging in sodomy. The one act is “according to nature,” therefore; the other act is contrary to nature. Now, that argument would not carry much weight with someone whose personal lifestyle makes them resistant to seeing the danger in a form of conduct they personally enjoy and do not want to see as dangerous. So they will require, probably, a whole slew of research studies conducted under the most ‘controlled’ conditions to convince them of the danger of sodomy, whereas someone without that bias will be convinced by more ‘everyday’ arguments based on common experience and what appears to be self-evident design.

            When it comes to children raised by homosexuals, there are a number of boys, for example, who have been raised by lesbians who do testify later in life that they felt they were deprived of something for not having a dad. One such testimony I read was that of a man raised by two lesbian moms who said that his upbringing left him with a sense of social awkwardness, because other children seemed to have a sense of gender appropriate behavior or intuitively know how to relate to sexes of both peers with an ease or understanding of social norms that eluded him. In other words, he struggled with his own gender identity and felt somewhat “genderless” or incapable of fitting in as fluently to social norms and picking up on social clues as other children, with a mom and a dad, were able to do.

            Now, let’s say that man’s testimony is in the minority? Does that make it unimportant? Does that mean it can be discarded as a meaningless statistical anomaly? What if his testimony represent only 30% of children raised by “two moms” or even 20% Do we conclude, therefore, that because 70-75% experience “no measurable harm” in the opinion of the researchers, therefore, the evidence proves that being raised by two parents of the same sex puts no child at a disadvantage.

            The problem with the social sciences, generally, is that human beings are much more complex than inanimate objects whose chemical properties can be determined with relative ease in a laboratory setting. There are so many countless factors that go into how children “turn out,” one questions the degree to which certain questions about social structuring can even be answered conclusively by these “research studies.” If people weren’t present to see first hand all the conditions in a child’s home, etc., how can he be 100% sure he knows all that factors that account for the answers a child might give to certain questions in an interview. Are we simply to take the data of these researchers at face value, and accord to them greater trust than we put in our own observations of life, and that of many other people.

            Our way of reasoning is different, but I reject your claim than I am not reasoning or not putting forth arguments drawn from observation of the world itself, and saying nothing more than “the Bible says” or “it seems to me” without explaining at all why “it seems to me.”

          • Boo

            So we go through all that, only to finally get back to yes, indeed, you want the government to enforce your religious beliefs. Let me ask you a very simple question, knowing that you will likely dodge it as usual: Is every claim made by anyone (or let’s even say any Christian) of what is a fixed, self-evident truth to be trusted? The Bible condones slavery, and as a result it was considered a fixed, self-evident truth by a great many people for a very long time that some people were naturally meant to be slaves. Do you agree with this claimed self-evident truth? Were the ancient Israelites wrong for practicing it (and do remember that the indentured servitude kind of slavery was only for Hebrew males who went into debt, everyone else got good old fashioned slavery)? Do you agree or disagree with the judgment of most of human history that it is a fixed, self-evident truth that women are always meant to be under the authority of men? Since it was considered self-evident truth for the first 1746 years of the history of Christendom that kings rule by divine right, do you agree that this truth is self-evident? Why or why not?
            I suppose it was inevitable that sooner or later you would have to start talking about anal sex, none of the anti-gays on this sight seems to be able to avoid it for long. Here you simply repeat the same mistake you always have, that since sex can be used for reproduction, that must be it’s only “true” function, because it seems self-evident to you and because it can be risky. Yes, if you don’t do anal sex right it can be risky. If you don’t do vaginal intercourse right it can also be risky. Leaving aside for the moment that your comments only apply to gay men and not all of them have anal sex, if you seriously mean your claim that if an activity cannot be taken part in without precautions then humans were not designed to engage in it, then I take it you do not engage in flying, driving, crossing the street, riding a bike, undergoing medical care, or a multitude of other activities.

          • Martin Rizley

            Humans were not intended to fly– the proof is this. Jump off any building and use any bodily organs you wish to use in the effort to fly. You will soon discover as a “self-evident truth” that human were not ‘designed’ to fly and so should not attempt to do so. An altogether different question is whether God ‘designed’ human beings to use their rational minds to develop scientific technologies in order to “subdue the earth”– that is, the exploit the earth’s resources and understand how the universe operates in such as way as to benefit human beings. If so, then it follows that among those technologies which man is clearly ‘designed’ to develop might be the construction of machines designed to fly according to the laws of aerodynamics for use in transport across great distances. It is a self-evident truth, I believe, that humans being with their rational minds were designed to do that very thing.

            You say, “You want government to enforce your religious beliefs.” Rather, what I want government to do is respect the Constitution, with its concepts of self-evident unalienable rights which are fixed and immutable and which reasonable men can discern through reflection on the design of nature– a concept that can only be understood correctly in light of the context provided by the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist papers. I want the federal government to respect the limits imposed on it by the Constitution and by established linguistic usage of words, and to refrain from imposing empiricist criteria of ‘proof’ on the court system that claims no other evidence is rational or valid other than that backed up by research studies by credentialed scientists. Where you see that in the Constitution. Why should the will of the electorate be overturned by judges who operate according to that criteria of ‘knowledge’ and ‘proof’?

            What I want government to do is to apply the law as it is written and to stop charging people with being “irrational because the reasons they give for taking a certain position on the issue of homosexuality do not fit an atheist’s strictly empirical epistemology and judgment as to what constitutes admissible proof.

            Justice Paul J. Kelly, Jr., who wrote a strong dissenting opinion in the ruling that struck down Utah’s gay marriage ban, admitted that’s what federal judges are doing at the present time, in striking down state marriage amendments.

            Creating a national mandate for gay marriage, he said, even in states where it is unpopular, “turns the notion of a limited national government on its head. . .We should resist the temptation to become philosopher-kings, imposing our views under the guise of constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment.”

            Notice what he charged justices with doing– imposing their views under the guise of constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment. He knows there is nothing in the Constitution itself requiring courts to throw out as inadmissible state laws based on a societal consensus regarding natural design, as long as arguments can be put forth which a reasonable person can recognize as lending support to that societal consensus. I believe judges are arrogant who say in their rulings to the states, “Sorry, folks, your societal consensus does not meet my atheistic, empiricist understanding of what constitutes proof, and it does not fit understanding of social evolution and where we “ought” to be heading as a society, so I am going to change the definition of marriage for all of you and disqualify you ignorant people in your backward state from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.” Such a judge ought to be impeached for railroading his opinions under the guise of upholding the fourteenth amendment. That is what I want government to do– to respect the God-given limits on its power.

          • Boo

            You completely
            missed my point. Using technology to fly is inherently risky. Does that
            indicate that it is against nature’s design for us to use technology to fly?
            The standard you promoted was that if you need to take precautions to do
            something, that indicates we were not designed to do it. Do you stand by that
            standard or not?

            “You say,
            “You want government to enforce your religious beliefs.” Rather, what
            I want government to do is respect the Constitution, with its concepts of
            self-evident unalienable rights which are fixed and immutable and which
            reasonable men can discern through reflection on the design of nature– a
            concept that can only be understood correctly in light of the context provided
            by the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist papers. I want the federal
            government to respect the limits imposed on it by the Constitution and by
            established linguistic usage of words, and to refrain from imposing empiricist
            criteria of ‘proof’ on the court system that claims no other evidence is
            rational or valid other than that backed up by research studies by credentialed
            scientists. Where you see that in the Constitution. Why should the will of the
            electorate be overturned by judges who operate according to that criteria of
            ‘knowledge’ and ‘proof’?”

            The government is
            respecting the Constitution, at least in this issue. They are respecting the 5th
            and 14th Amendments. The Constitution as originally written did not
            intend black people to be the equal to white people or women to be the equal to
            men, which was considered self-evident truth, a point you continue to ignore.
            What standard do we use for determining which self-evident truths the Founders
            got right and which they got wrong? What, precisely, is your standard for
            resolving conflicting claims of self-evident truth? Your claims of self-evident
            truth and rational observation conflict with my claims of self-evident truth
            and rational observation, so what other criteria besides investigating our
            beliefs do we have? Linguistic usage of words is on my side, not yours. The
            majority considers sex and marriage between persons of the same sex to be,
            well, sex and marriage. Thus, that is how they use those words. Scientific
            evidence has always been admissible in court provided it passes the test for
            being generally accepted by the scientific community. If the court is deciding
            whether or not to strike down a law for being discriminatory, they have to
            decide whether the purported good the law is supposed to accomplish is rational
            or irrational. How else do they do that than by investigating the facts? The
            claim that same sex couples provide a bad environment for kids can be
            empirically tested, has been empirically tested, and has been found to be
            untrue. Clinging to it in the face of the evidence is irrational.

            “Creating a
            national mandate for gay marriage, he said, even in states where it is
            unpopular, “turns the notion of a limited national government on its head.
            . .We should resist the temptation to become philosopher-kings, imposing our
            views under the guise of constitutional interpretation of the 14th
            Amendment.””

            And yet this is
            exactly what the court also did in Loving v. Virginia. Interracial marriage was
            very unpopular in Virginia at the time. (Tellingly, opposition to it remains
            higher on the right than the left) What standard do we use for determining why
            your claims about natural law in regard to same sex unions are any better than
            segregationists claims about natural law regarding interracial unions other
            than investigating them?

            “”Sorry,
            folks, your societal consensus does not meet my atheistic, empiricist
            understanding of what constitutes proof, and it does not fit understanding of
            social evolution and where we “ought” to be heading as a society, so
            I am going to change the definition of marriage for all of you and disqualify
            you ignorant people in your backward state from defining marriage as the union
            of a man and a woman.””

            They aren’t doing
            that. A union of a man and a woman is still marriage. Also, societal consensus
            is on my side now. Also, the whole point of having a Constitution is so the
            rights of the minority are not subject to the will of the majority.

          • Boo

            “When it comes to children raised by homosexuals, there are a number of boys, for example, who have been raised by lesbians who do testify later in life that they felt they were deprived of something for not having a dad. One such testimony I read was that of a man raised by two lesbian moms who said that his upbringing left him with a sense of social awkwardness, because other children seemed to have a sense of gender appropriate behavior or intuitively know how to relate to sexes of both peers with an ease or understanding of social norms that eluded him. In other words, he struggled with his own gender identity and felt somewhat “genderless” or incapable of fitting in as fluently to social norms and picking up on social clues as other children, with a mom and a dad, were able to do.”
            His name wouldn’t happen to be Robert Oscar Lopez, would it? Because Lopez was not actually raised by a lesbian couple. He was raised by a single mother with anxiety issues whose on-again, off-again girlfriend was sometimes in the picture. But let’s say it wasn’t him. Do some people raised by gay parents have bad experiences? No doubt. Do some kids raised by straight parents have bad experiences? No doubt. But if you want to make the kind of blanket statement that kids are better off raised by straight couples than gay couples, then you have to look at it in the aggregate and ask if kids raised by gay couples are more likely to have bad experiences than kids raised by straight couples. Every time this has been examined in detail, the answer comes back the same: they do not. If you want to challenge that (especially in a court of law) then you’re just going to need something more concrete than claims about natural design and your gut feelings. You have no way of knowing if your personal experiences and observations are indeed universal without looking beyond, well, your personal experiences and observations. You still don’t seem willing to do that.

          • Martin Rizley

            Society is not a playground for social experiments. It is not true that, unless experiments have been done to show that a certain social pattern is bad for society, then society must allow for them, it must permit them, or its laws are invalid. What society has ever ‘experimented’ with a ban on all public decency laws to see if that has a positive or negative long-term effect on society. Not one, in my opinion. Does that mean that society is obliged to nullify all public decency laws, and experiment for a while to see what it is like living without them, before it has a right to pass such laws. No. Society has a right to determine on grounds other than “empirical research and experimentation” whether it believes permitting a certain social structure is going to benefit or harm society in the long run. Once again, I deny that empirical reseach studies are or should be the only valid basis on which society bases its laws. There is no reason for society to accept the notion that it is a playground for the social engineer to experiment and see what works. Other arguments and criteria for determining what is in the best interest of society are valid. That is why we are under no obligation to ban all public decency laws, or to allow for women to walk around in public topless, to see if society gets along “just fine” without such laws.

          • Boo

            What are you talking about? Why can’t you ever answer any of my questions?
            1. What is the standard we should use to evaluate competing claims of self-evident truth?
            2. Were the Founding Fathers wrong to hold that blacks being inferior to whites was a self-evident truth?
            3. Is owning another human being always wrong?
            4. Given the fact that public opinion is on my side on both same sex marriage and parenting, do you accept this common sense reasoning of the man on the street?
            5. Were the Founding Fathers wrong to socially experiment with such a radically new form of government rather than simply declaring Washington king by divine right?
            I didn’t say that scientific studies are the only thing we should base laws on, but if the proponents of a law are basing the rationale for that law on a factual claim, such as that children do poorly when raised by gay couples, then there is nothing wrong with conducting scientific studies to show whether that claim is true or false. This has been done, and it’s false. Hence, that claim is irrational and the courts have rightly disregarded it. This isn’t a case of playing around with social experiments to see if they cause harm. Gay couples are already raising kids and have been for some time. Equality opponents not only do not have the data to show that gay couples marrying is harmful, they haven’t even been able to come up with a rationale for what sort of “harm” it could actually cause. Every attempt to do so has been laughed out of court. Gay couples marrying will somehow cause straight couples to lose interest in marriage and families. How exactly will it do this? Well, who knows, but just accept my assertion anyway. Why don’t you try actually reading the court decisions for yourself before declaring all the judges incompetent tyrants? Oh right, because that would mean basing your judgment on facts.

          • Martin Rizley

            1) You ask, what standard should we use to evaluate competing claims of self-evident truth? I should point out that this question is not directly answered in the Constitution, so the answer depends on “worldview” considerations found outside of the Constitution.

            Some people’s worldview has no place for the existence of self-evident truth. As a Christian, I believe that God Himself is the source of self-evident truth– and that He reveals such truth to men by two different channels– His special revelation, which is self-evident truth revealed in propositional form in the Scriptures, and general revelation, which is self-evident truth revealed to all human beings everywhere through the created order. (“The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech. And night unto night reveals knowledge”– Psalm 19:1-2).

            Truth is discernible to men as rational beings, but human reason can be blinded to truth by sinful passions which incapacitates the eye of reason from seeing what ought to be self-evident to every man. Nobody can remove that blindness from us but the Holy Spirit, who enables us to understand truth and to reason rightly from the Scriptures as our supreme authority. Those whose minds are enlightened by the Scriptures are then able to see and reason correctly from the “order of nature,” as well, by pointing to evidence of order and design in the natural world that suggest how God, who is a God of order, wants us to live, and confirms the truth that the Scriptures clearly teach about the proper functioning of human life and society.

            As I said, our founding documents says nothing about the standard by which we are to evaluate competing truth claims. They only indicate that certain truths are self-evident to men through the faculty of reason, such as the fact that all men are created equal and endowed by God with certain unalienable rights. They say nothing about the basic worldview presuppositions that must govern our reason so that we reason rightly, or whether it is possible for man’s reason to be blinded through sin. Those are issues that our founding documents do not address in our founding documents; but they are addressed in the Bible.

            When it comes to specific truth claims being made about the innocuous or detrimental impact of certain lifestyles on children– such as whether children need a mom and dad for their optimal development– how you judge those claims depends on the worldview assumptions you bring to consideration of the issue. A Christian may place less importance on social science research studies than an atheist, because he believes that children are much more complex than some material object that is being tested in a laboratory to find out the effect that different environmental conditions have on its material properties. He appreciates to a greater degree than some the difficulty of answering moral questions through strictly empirical methods of research, owing to the limitations of the scientific method.

            For example, if a researcher is collecting data by interviewing a boy raised by two lesbian moms, the Christian realizes that a child may say something to a researcher for a variety of reasons. If he asks the boy questions like, “Do your two moms listen to you? Are they kind to you? Do you feel sad that you do not have a dad?” there are any number of reasons why children might answer in a certain way. Perhaps he may not want to hurt the feelings of the two moms who raised him, so he doesn’t confess honestly any feelings of sadness or deprivation he might have. He might not be old enough to think reflectively on the issue, or to be aware of areas of emotional deficit being built into his life, which he only realize down the road.

            The researchers may point to the fact that children brought up in certain conditions are doing well according to certain “measurable outcomes,” such as school performance, sociability, etc. But the Christian reasons, How can he be sure that those outcomes prove anything about the point in question? The fact that children may be “doing well ” in terms of those outcomes may have nothing to do with, or even be despite, a child’s emotional deficit do to same-sex parenting. How do certain outcomes, by themselves, really prove what is in the best interest of children?

            In the antebellum south, many slaves who were treated kindly by their masters developed a strong emotional attachment to them, and loved them; many of those slaves may have been very positive in their outlook about their life, they may have excelled in their work, and become super achievers– but does that tell anything, really, about whether slavery was good for blacks? No, because we use something beside research studies and measurable results to decide these questions. We reason on the basis of what we regard to be self-evident natural rights owed to human beings as such– and our mode of reasoning reflects our worldview assumptions. So a Christian might conclude that, even those slaves who seemed to do well under slavery and were reluctant even to leave their masters after the Civil War– even they were “victims” of a social system that was inherently unjust. They ought not to have been held permanently as slaves. We don’t base our answer to the question, “What was in the best interest of black in the ante-bellum south?” solely on the research evidence of how they were treated and whether or not they were “happy,” We base that judgment ultimately on considerations of what we believe men owe to their fellow men– considerations derived form our worldview.

            Therefore, to answer your question, I would say, that unless a person has a solid presuppositional foundation for knowledge– which I believe means starting with God and His self-revelation in the Scriptures–, he really cannot say anything with a sense of certainty about what is in the best interest of children, for he has no real knowledge. He can say, at the present time, these studies have given these measurable results– but how a person interprets those results inevitably reflects his basis assumptions he is making about ultimate reality.

            I believe that a Christian worldview is supported by the evidence, though it must be embraced by faith. But then every worldview is embraced on faith, ultimately.

          • Boo

            Well
            you’ve been dancing around presuppositionalism all this time, I figured
            eventually you would just come right out with it. Sorry, but it’s just a cop
            out. Presuppositionalism is demanding that your opponent concede victory to you
            as the condition of engaging in argument. It just doesn’t work that way. Why
            should your presuppositions be regarded as the true ones, as opposed to the
            presuppositions of those who believed that slavery was natural law, including
            the many, many, maaaannnny Christians who came before you who believed that?
            Every time I ask you this, you dance around it, and dance around it, and dance
            around it, but you never really answer it. You want people to accept your
            presuppositions because you believe them to be true. Every other human being
            who has ever existed in the history of humanity can say exactly the same thing.
            Muslims can say that only those who accept the self-evident truth about Allah
            as revealed in the holy Koran have a solid presuppositional foundation for
            discerning truth. Scientologists can say it about the works of L. Ron. Hubbard.
            And pro-slavery Christians can say it with more Scriptural evidence to back
            them up than you can. How do we determine that early 21st century
            American conservative Christians are the one group of people in all of history
            whose presuppositions are the correct ones?

            I get that social science is not your strong point (it
            actually is mine) so you can be forgiven for your misunderstanding of how
            social science research works, but these kind of studies aren’t done by simply
            asking questions of the kids. And even if they were, kids raised by straight
            parents have the exact same incentives to respond positively that kids raised
            by gay parents could have, so both potential biases would cancel each other
            out. The thing about emotional distress is, it comes out in one’s life,
            especially in children. If one group of children experienced more emotional
            distress than another group, that would show up in aggregate things like school
            performance, social adjustment, etc. There’s simply no evidence of it. You can
            claim all sorts of things no one has been able to find might be wrong with kids
            brought up by gay couples, but anyone can claim any undetectable thing might be
            happening to anyone. Courts make decisions based on actual evidence, not
            unsupported speculations. If you as a Christian feel that gay parents are doing
            spiritual harm to their children, that is your right, but the courts cannot
            enforce this religious belief, any more than they can strip parental rights
            from Satanist parents for being Satanists, or Muslim or atheist parents for
            being Muslim or atheist, or any other group of people that we Christians feel
            are not spiritually right with God.

            2 and 3. Regardless of some of the Founders being
            antislavery (Jefferson actually became more pro slavery as time went on; google
            “The dark side of Thomas Jefferson”) they all agreed that blacks were by nature
            inferior to whites. This is a belief that I do not hold and I hope you don’t
            hold it either. They wrote in the Declaration that all men being created equal
            was a self-evident truth, then they turned around and said that did not apply
            to black people. Regarding your excuses for Biblical slavery, I guess you don’t
            know your Bible as well as you think you do. Leviticus 25:44 gives specific
            instructions for acquiring slaves not through war but through buying them in
            peacetime from surrounding peoples. Your excuse about acquiring slaves so they
            could be led to God was also the exact same rationale offered in defense of
            American slavery. Not only that, but you might notice that whenever the USA has
            won a war, we have never enslaved or exterminated our foes. Are we defying God
            by not doing so? The ancient Persians didn’t enslave or exterminate their
            defeated foes, nor did the Romans, nor did, well, most ancient peoples. Did they
            somehow know better than God?

            4. At the time of Loving v. Virginia, the majority of
            Virginians were clearly opposed to interracial marriage. Do you believe that
            case was wrongly decided?

            5. Books are irrelevant. The Founders were the first people since
            the foundation of Christianity to actually set up this form of government as a
            social experiment. No one knew if this was going to work in practice. In fact
            they got it wrong the first time with the Articles of Confederation. You say
            that social experiments are wrong. Were the Founders wrong?

          • Martin Rizley

            I will try to get back to you soon to respond to your questions (don’t have the time to do so now). I just have one question for you? Are you claiming you have no presuppositions? That you began your ‘search from truth’ from a position of total neutrality, so that you did not have to make any assumption of any kind as the starting point of your investigations? If you did make assumptions, how did you judge them to be valid assumptions? How does anybody begin to seek answers to any question at all except on the basis certain starting “first principles” of thought, the truth of which must be assumed, but which the person thinking believes is confirmed by the evidence?

          • Boo

            Of course I have presuppositions. I just don’t expect the government to enforce them.

          • Martin Rizley

            You do expect the government to enforce your conclusions regarding same-sex ‘marriage’ as a fundamental human right guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment– by imposing that on all fifty states by judicial fiat; but your conclusions rest on a certain reasoning process that is directed at every point by certain fundamental presuppositions– so indirectly, you do want the government to enforce your presuppositions, by enforcing the conclusion that you have reached which depends entirely on the validity on those presuppositions. The fact is, millions of Americans reject both your conclusions and the presuppositions that have guided your reasoning process to those conclusions. So neither one of us is ‘neutral’ in our thinking or indifferent as to whether the government acts in accordance with the values and the “way of reasoning” that we think is valid, just and proper.

          • Boo

            But not because they are *my* conclusions. Loving v. Virginia was also a ‘judicial fiat” and like it or not these “fiats” are how the Founders set up our judiciary. The fact is, the majority is with me so appealing to millions doesn’t mean anything since I have more millions on my side. If you want to claim that millions means something.

          • Martin Rizley

            The judgment of millions does mean something in a Constitutional Republic, especially when those millions form the majority of the electorate in certain states. But the views of the people mean nothing at all to those who want to concentrate all government power in hands of the federal judiciary, a thing that Thomas Jefferson feared and denounced. Look at these quotes from Jefferson:

            “If the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, then . … the Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law …”

            “You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. ”

            “The Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. — Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823

            “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated ….”

            “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm …”

            “… there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court.”

            You say you have millions on your side. If by that you mean millions favor that federal judges exercise their judicial power to annul state marriage amendments that are in line with the will of the people in those states, in line with the state’s reasonable interest in the institution of marriage, in line with the self-evident purpose of the reproductive system in mankind, as the Creator clearly has designed it to function, in line with thousands of years of Western cultural, historical, legal tradition, in line with clearly established linguistic usage of words like “sexual union” and “marriage” (not to mention in line with the Bible, which has been foundational to our culture from the beginning, a book whose wisdom is recognized by people holding to many different religious confessions, and even by some who would do not profess to adhere to any creed or confession); if you say you have millions on your side to invest federal judges with such power and authority as to overturn state marriage amendments for the reasons you have given me, I’d rather stick with Jefferson!

            Anyway, as I see it, things will ultimately turn out in this country as God wills; He will determine whether to cast us away into further darkness, or whether to have mercy on our land by sending forth His Spirit to turn the hearts of multitudes back to Himself, as He did during the Great Awakening, in the days leading up to the War of Independence from that tyrant, King George. I will pray to that end– and that is one things judges cannot stop.

          • Boo

            So why don’t you just come right out and say the Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? You’ve been dancing around it long enough. It is the inevitable end result of your claims. Say it.

          • Boo

            Say it.

          • Martin Rizley

            I do believe the right to marry is a fundamental human right that should not be denied to people. The 14th amendment certainly would apply in making sure that that fundamental right should not be infringed for reasons that are peripheral to the basic idea, purpose, or function of marriage as a social institution. However, I agree with the following distinction made between laws prohibiting so-called “same-sex marriage and the anti-miscegenation laws struck down by Loving vs. Virginia.”

            “In the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that the “freedom to marry” was a fundamental freedom that could not be denied “on so unsupportable a basis as [a] racial classification,” thus rendering Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional.[22] Many have argued that this holding recognizing a fundamental right to marry applies with equal force to homosexual relationships as it did to interracial relationships, but does it?

            Significantly, the Supreme Court in Loving defined marriage as a “fundamental” right because it is one of the “‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Yet marriage is “fundamental to our very existence” only because it is rooted in the biological complementarity of the sexes, the formal recognition of the unique union through which children are produced—a point emphasized by the fact that the Supreme Court cited a case dealing with the right to procreate for its holding that marriage was a fundamental right.[23] The Loving Court correctly recognized that skin color had nothing to do with that basic purpose; the racial classification that lay at the heart of Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute was therefore “invidious” and could not be sustained.

            Nothing in the Loving decision suggests that the fundamental right to marry should be extended to other relationships that did not share that unique attribute. To the contrary, the Court has repeatedly cautioned against the recognition of new fundamental rights lest the Court end up substituting its own judgment for that of the people. In fact, when the very challenge presented by the current cases was first presented to the Supreme Court 40 years ago, just five years after the Loving decision, the Court rejected it.

            Baker v. Nelson, a 1972 case, was a Due Process and Equal Protection challenge to Minnesota’s statutory definition of marriage as an opposite-sex relationship, brought by two men who had been denied a license to “marry” each other. The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected their claim because it found that the right to marry without regard to sex was not a fundamental right and that it was neither irrational nor invidious discrimination to define marriage as it had traditionally been understood. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal from the Minnesota court “for want of substantial federal question.”

            Justice Scalia has pointed out that the purpose of the anti miscegenation laws that existed were directly tied to the desire to maintain white racial supremacy in the South, not so much to a desire to preserve the character of marriage itself as based on the natural design of the reproductive system in man. That’s why he said the Court had to use heightened scrutiny to see that there was an issue here that had to do with something other than preserving the reproductive purpose of marriage, which is the whole basis of society’s interest in marriage as a socially recognized institution given legal status and benefits. It had to do with maintaining white supremacy in the South. That’s why the court struct down those laws. It seems to me that was the right decision in that case– at least, it secured the right end. I admit that I feel uncomfortable with the Supreme Court striking down a statute that goes totally against the will of the people, if there is any reasonable argument the people put forward to defend their judgment. Apparently, there was no reasonable argument to defend the state of Viriginia’s desire to maintain anti-miscegenation. I would be interested to know if black and whites felt the same about those laws. if the court the whole purpose of the law was to support White supremacy, I can see why they struck it down, this has nothing to do really with the historic purpose of marriage, as widely conceived throughout the whole of Western Civilization or the Judeo-Christian values that have historically been a part of our culture. Why, even Moses married a black woman!

          • Boo

            Congratulations. You just made my case for me.

          • Martin Rizley

            Only by denying or ignoring what Loving vs. Virginia says about the state’s legitimate interest in marriage, could any federal judge find support in that decision to overturn state marriage amendments that are based on the state’s interest in marriage (amendments which define marriage to be the union of a man and a woman). The state’s interest in marriage does not have to do with maintaining the supremacy of one race over another; neither does it have to do with federal judges promoting their own personal ideas of what ‘fairness’ involves by elevating all romantic or sexual relationships between people to the same level of dignity or social recognition by declaring them all equally entitled to marital rights; rather, the state’s interest in marriage has specifically to do with the procreative aspect of social life, insofar as marriage regulates that form of relationship that characteristically (with few exceptions) leads to procreation– heterosexual unions. Thereby marriage laws protect the interests of society, the partners involved, and the children naturally produced by those partnerships.

          • Boo

            So are you admitting here that your previously expressed standard that judges should never overrule majority opinion in a state is wrong? I just want to get that nailed down before you move the goalposts yet again.

          • Boo

            Of course, asking you to stick to any one position is an exercise in futility, as we both well know.

          • Martin Rizley

            I have to admit that the subject of the limits of the legitimate power of the Supreme Court is one that I need to study more. Certain things about that subject are very clear to me; other things are not. The problem with the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review does not lie in the ideal that a Supreme Court should be able to review a state statute and determine whether or not it violates clear Constitutional principles by denying to citizens basic human rights guaranteed by “the laws of nature and nature’ s God.” The problem is when justices, instead of being governed by conservative principles– a commitment to interpret the words of the Constitution according to their original, historical-linguistic meaning, to respect long standing understanding of natural rights and moral duties, and long standing understanding of social institutions in keeping with very ancient and deeply ingrained Western values– judges feel free to declare a law in violation of Constitutional principle based on their own private judgment of the way they feel society “should” be moving. In other words, what makes the power of judicial review so threatening to democracy is a spirit of judicial activism in judges themselves, motivated by an elitist attitude toward the public and a disregard for long-standing moral tradition concerning God-given human rights and the social function of institutions like marriage and the family– especially when this spirit is exercised in a moment of history in which no well-established, nation-wide change has taken place in the entire country over a considerable period of time– such as the moment in which we are living, in which there is such profound division between (for example) northeastern states and southern states on an understanding of what marriage is– whether it is the union of any two consenting adults (an historically novel definition) or the union of a man and a women (a definition that stretches back thousands of years.)

            It is this spirit of judicial activism that makes me extremely cautious about the power of judicial review, so
            that I believe that safeguards must be placed on it. With regard to the present national debate on marriage, one writer who seems more liberal on the issue than myself admits the following: “Ordering states to recognize same-sex marriage would be a dramatically larger, and more activist, step than striking down the criminalizing of private sex in Lawrence. . . .The analogy between these laws and southern laws against interracial marriage, which were struck down in the 1960s. . . is not strong as a constitutional matter: those laws were aimed at maintaining white racial supremacy, a practice that had clearly been identified as a constitutional wrong by virtue of the amendments following the Civil War. Although there certainly are serious moral arguments in favor of same-sex marriage [in that writer's opinion!--MR], there are also serious moral and prudential arguments against it. The federal courts should not preempt this developing moral and cultural debate. . .

            In the end, sound constitutional interpretation is ensured not so much by principles on paper as by judges with certain virtues. A judge must have vision to apply the core meaning of a constitutional provision to new circumstances, and courage to apply that meaning when popular will opposes it. But a judge also must have humility to seek his primary insights from outside his own moral reasoning: from the text of a constitutional provision, its historical background, the nation’s widely recognized traditions, and the democratic body that passed the law that the judge is reviewing.”

            If Supreme Court justices could be trusted to respect “the text of a Constitutional provision, its historical background, the nation’s widely recognized traditions, and the democratic body that passed the law that the judge is reviewing,” we might not be so polarized as a nation. Groups desiring revolutionary social change in our nation would not be trying to use the courts as their ‘ultimate weapon’ to impose change.

            For that reason, I believe that the situation has become so dire we must do something as a nation to rein in the power of the courts. One proposal might be to pass a constitutional amendment which would take away from the Supreme Court (and all the other courts presumably) all power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. Therefore, if the Congress wanted to pass an act declaring that the states the have the right to pass constitutional amendments defining marriage within their states, and no decision by the Supreme Court can overrule that right, then the Congress would have the power to do that– and the courts could not prevent them from doing so.

            I know what you will say; if the Congress had done that in the sixties, it would possibly have prevented the Supreme Court from overturning anti-miscegenation laws in the South, had southern states elevated prohibition of racially mixed marriage to the level of state constitutional amendments. You may be right, there– and here we see the imperfection of every human government system. Sometimes, nations must choose a lesser evil over a greater one– they do not have the option of an “ideal” situation.

            The question we must ask is, which is a greater evil– allowing for moral error (or even what some regard as a violation of Constitutional principle) to be enshrined into law by democratically passed state amendments (which the people in those states can certainly strike down later), or allowing moral error to be enshrined into law by the rulings of unelected judges who have no respect for “the text of a Constitutional provision, its historical background, the nation’s widely recognized traditions, and the democratic body that passed the law that the judge is reviewing,” and who are willing to use their judicial office to impose their own moral vision, without respect to the Constitution.

            Both situations are lamentable– both represent an evil. The question is, which evil is likely to unravel our Constitutional form of government with greater effectiveness and swiftness, leading to the overthrowing of limited government and our Constitutional Republic? Is it a greater evil to allow states to secede from the union or to permit states to pass laws that many outside those states feel violates an ‘evolving’ understanding of Constitutional principles and their application to questions of modern life? Or is it a greater evil to place unchecked power in the hands of an unelected judiciary that is willing roughshod over long-established usage of words and long-established understanding of social institutions, natural rights, and moral obligations? There is question in my mind that the latter represents a a greater evil, in terms of the preservation of our Constitutional government with the strict restraints on centralized government power that it establishes.

            With regard to Loving vs. Virginia, then, I believe that as far as the end achieved by that decision, it was certainly the right end; but I have one question regarding the means. To your knowledge, had any of the southern states written into their state constitutions amendments against inter-racial marriage? Or were these simply state statutes that had been passed? I would be interested to know, because if they were simply state marriage statutes, rather than amendments, that presents us with a rather different situation to the one we are facing now with same-sex ‘marriage;’ for many states have passed amendments to their Constitutions defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman– showing the depth of moral conviction that lies behind this issue on the part of the people in those states. Federal judges are declaring state constitutional amendments to be invalid. That is a very serious matter, and one that rightly raises so much concern about the unchecked power of the courts.

          • Boo

            In the 2012
            elections, one of the issues up for vote in Alabama was whether to remove the
            segregationist language mandating separate schools for whites and blacks in the
            state constitution. (It failed, but for somewhat complicated reasons) So
            yes, the Supreme Court’s decisions on racial equality did overrule
            state constitutions. If you strip the power of judicial review from the courts
            you destroy how our system of checks and balances is supposed to work and leave
            Congress free to ignore the Constitution. A Democratic majority in the Senate
            can refuse to seat newly elected Republicans. Not only that, but as long as the
            President’s party maintains a majority in either the House or the Senate, the
            President is free to act as he or she pleases. Is this a situation you
            want to create?

            Again I get the
            feeling you haven’t read any of these court rulings, if you are under the
            impression that judges are making them on their own private judgments of how
            society should be moving. The 14th Amendment says that States cannot
            deny equal protection of the laws to any US citizen. There’s no asterisk that
            says “except for gay people.” If a male citizen can marry a woman, there is no
            reason to prevent a female citizen from marrying a woman. The plaintiffs in
            these cases made the case that they were being denied equal protection and due
            process, the defendants failed to make the case that they were not. Were the
            authors of the 14th Amendment thinking about gay people when they
            wrote it? I doubt it even remotely came into their heads. Did the authors of
            the 2nd Amendment write it with assault rifles in mind? It literally
            couldn’t have come into their heads. Does this mean you think Congress or
            States have the power to ban all firearms except front-loading black powder
            muskets? If the writer you quote is under the impression that serious moral and
            prudential arguments have been made against same sex marriage, then I get the
            impression they haven’t read the trial transcripts, because that really just
            isn’t the case.

          • Martin Rizley

            I know that ingrained in your thinking is the idea that marriage by definition is a contract that gives legal status and benefits to any “sexual relationship between consenting adults.” I freely grant that if marriage is that–”a contract giving legal status and benefits to any sexual relationship between consenting adults,”– then the only question, is “Are two men or two women consenting adults?” If they are, then their “right to marry” must not be denied” according to the fourteenth amendment

            What I challenge, however, is that very definition of marriage you are assuming. Historically, marriage has been conceived as involving specifically a “sexual union” between persons, and it can be demonstrated, I believe, that according to long established linguistic usage, the concept of ‘sexual union’ in our legal system has had in view the concept of two persons coming together in a way that ‘unites’ the two component sub-systems of the human reproductive system– the male and the female. This has been the meaning of “sexual union” in our culture from the beginning of our nation’s history.

            Moreover, from the standpoint of law, a legally recognized ‘sexual union’ has always been a matter of state interest because of the procreative purpose of such unions. The state’s interest in the ancient institution of marriage, which predates government itself, has never had to do with ‘affirming’ every sexual choice made by persons by granting equal rights to the wide variety of sexual relationships that people can establish, by treating them all as deserving of equal status or equal benefits.

            The state has a legitimate interest to be concerned about both the quantity and quality of persons who will make up the future citizenry of the nation– that is the reason for its interest in marriage; and the state has always promoted by its laws stable, monogamous sexual unions between men and women as that which leads naturally to the creation of many stable families that provide the optimal nurturing environment for children— a matter of compelling state interest.

            It is not convincing to say the state is obligated to give the same legal status to homosexual relationships or other forms of consensual adult sexual relationships (such as polyamorous relationships), simply because modern reproductive technologies make it possible for people to have children without having an opposite sex partner. The fact is, homosexual relationships do not naturally lead to children, in the same way that heterosexual relationship naturally do (with relatively few exceptions). In order to bring children into the picture of a homosexual relationship, homosexuals have to bring a third party into that relationship as a ‘donor’ mom or dad, along with costly medical procedures– like artificial insemination– that may prove far too expensive for the average citizens.

            It costs nothing, on the other hand, for heterosexual couples to conceive children through sexual relations with one another, and that is the ‘natural’ result of such marriages as a general rule, Since children are not a ‘natural’ result of homosexual relationships, society has no ‘natural’ obligation to view such relationships as being identical to heterosexual relationships, or to grant the validity of the claim that they are ‘naturally’ entitled to the same rights. Some federal judges may hold to the personal belief that it is ‘unfair’ not to elevate all sexual relationships between citizens of the United States to the same level of equality– but that is most likely because they view homosexuality as a “congenital condition” that people are born with, like their race or eye color, so they imagine that it is only as a matter of being humane and kind and civilized to allow every citizen to “marry” (allowing for an obvious modification of meaning in the word ‘marry’) to accommodate each citizen’s ‘sexual orientation.’

            If the idea of homosexuality as an innate congenital condition is simply false, however, and homosexuality is seen as a form of conduct that a person chooses to embrace, then the whole argument that society is obliged to modify the word “marriage” to mean something it has never meant, out of humanity, kindness, or civility, falls to the ground. There is no reason then to change the word marriage from what it has always meant– a sexual union between persons– and the fourteenth amendment , in that case, simply requires states to allow all citizens equal access to obtaining a legally recognized ‘sexual union’ with another person (as the term ‘sexual union’ has historically been understood).

          • Boo

            You realize that you’re only running around in circles at this point, don’t you? You’re just turning from discredited argument back to discredited argument back to discredited argument. Whether you like it or not, your nonsense about what constitutes a “true sexual union” is your personal opinion only, and is nowhere reflected in law or popular opinion. Whether you like it or not, infertile heterosexuals do not possess all the components of a complete reproductive system, and there is no legal support for your claims that they can sufficiently mimic fertile heterosexuals but homosexual couples cannot. No matter how many times you choose to repeat this discredited argument, it remains Catholic dogma and not US law. You are now free to turn to yet another discredited argument, such as your false claims about what is best for children or your lack of knowledge of Biblical rules about slavery.

          • Martin Rizley

            You obviously do not agree with my arguments based on established linguistic usage of the word “sexual union” in standard American English, or my argument from self-evident natural design as to what constitutes a such a union, as traditionally understood, and how that excludes viewing two men or two women as capable of being in a “sexual union” with each other (although I would not deny the possible of two same-sex partner being in a sensual relationship with each other involving mutual stimulation of each other’s genital organs.)

            Your failure to see the logic in my reasoning does not surprise me, given the particular set of presuppositions that form the starting point of your thinking. Of course, justices who share your presuppositions would probably come to the same conclusions as yourself, so they, too, would probably view my arguments as “discredited.” Other justices, perhaps Scalia, would not view my arguments as so completely lacking in validity, as you do– but then in your view, Scalia himself probably is “discredited” as a serious interpreter of the Constitution, since he refuses to view the Constitution as a “living document” as you most likely assume all educated, enlightened, rational people must.

            So why don’t we just leave it there– admitting that our differences in reasoning ultimately stem from a different epistemology and different philosophy of Constitutional interpretation and different underlying worldview assumptions The differences are too great for either one of us to be convinced by the other’s arguments unless one is “converted” to the other’s worldview– which at the present moment does not seem to be happening.

            By the way, to set the record state, I am not Roman Catholic. (You referred to my views being in line with “Catholic dogma,” which is why I say that.)

          • Boo

            That’s because established linguistic usage about what constitutes a sexual union is not on your side. I already demonstrated that to you. See: Medical Dictionary and common usage. This is why I accuse you of just dancing around in circles. It isn’t that we just have differences in how we approach the Constitution (though I do not consider it a living document) but because you have made several errors of fact in your posts, and you just keep repeating them as if that will somehow turn falsehoods into truth. You were wrong about linguistic usage, you were wrong about Biblical rules for acquiring slaves, you were wrong about the Court not overruling state constitutions, and other things. I discredit Scalia as a serious interpreter of the Constitution because he literally struck down an act of Congress one day (the Voting Rights Act) and then the very next day asserted that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to strike down acts of Congress. He has no consistent method of interpretation other than what he wants to do. Also, whether you are Catholic or not your arguments do in fact have their origin in Catholic dogma, which has no place in our secular laws.

          • Martin Rizley

            Your comments are quite “over the top.” To say linguistic usage is not on my side is pretty ridiculous, when you consider the way marriage has been defined for centuries in the English language. Apparently, the first dictionary in all of human history to add to its definition of marriage a ‘secondary’ definition of marriage as “A relationship between persons having the customary but not legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage,” was the American Heritage Dictionary in the year 2000– in other words, fourteen years ago. Prior to that all English dictionaries defined marriage as “the union between a man and a woman,” with the first dictionary to include ‘common law marriage’ and ‘plural marriage, or polygamy’ being the Century dictionary of 1891.

            Now the English language has been around for many centuries. If the first dictionary to include any reference to “same-sex marriage” came out fourteen years ago, and if even now, it is listed as a secondary definition, and sexual union is recognized as something other than coitus only as a secondary definition even in the Medical Dictionary you quote, which recognized heterosexual coitus as the primary definition, then your words that I do not have established linguistic usage on my side seem a ‘bit over the top.’ No one can claim that the long-standing, established usage of the word ‘marriage’ in American law is ‘the union of any two consenting adults, regardless of their sex.’ Although now, fourteen years after the American Heritage Dictionary was published, we cannot say that definition is non-existent in our language in some quarters, spoken by some people, it can hardly be considered the historically rooted, established, common definition of marriage even today– except in red states like Massachussetts, perhaps, which is located on another planet than Texas.

            I was not wrong about biblical rules for slaves– that, too, is an over the top statement. I may not have said everything about slavery in the Old Testament, but what I said was not “wrong.”

            It seems to me that when any justice wants to interpret statutes honestly, he has to look at the established usage of words when that statute was written. By that standard, states that have long defined marriage as ‘the union of a man and a woman,’ (a definition in keeping with universal established usage of the English language throughout the entire universe until the year 2000– the first time any public dictionary added ‘same-sex marriage’) should not be told they are violating the fourteenth amendment, if they are applying the law equally to all the citizens in their states according to the established usage of the word ‘marriage’ when the statute was written. How can that be seen as ‘unequal’ application of the law?

            Look, Boo, we are not going to agree, and your desire to paint me as speaking out of ignorance just isn’t going to fly with me. You can keep right on doing that, if you want, but I have a different understanding of the established usage of words than you have when it comes to the application of the 14th amendment and the guarantee that state statutes are being equally applied to all citizens according to the established usage of words and their meaning when those statutes were written.

          • Boo

            Well yes, it won’t fly with you since you don’t care about facts. If history is your standard, then you must agree with racial supremacy and divine right of kings. If current usage is the standard, then I win. You just refuse to stick to a consistent standard.

          • Martin Rizley

            Your reasoning is absurd– the only reason some dictionaries have added “same-sex marriage” as a secondary definition of marriage in the last fourteen years is owing to all the screaming by the LGBT community trying to drill that novel definition, without any pre-21st century lexical history, into the heads of people as a legitimate definition, and one that must be given legal recognition. Since those activists have had the leftist media, Hollywood, the U.S. government, George Soros and other liberal millionaires pouring miilions and millions of dollars into propaganda specifically aimed at brainwashing the public into talking “newspeak” pushing that artificially ‘created’ definition through every form of printed media, t.v. broadcast, movie, television show, public school textbook, etc., how are the most recent dictionary makers going to ignore this development in our culture (however artificial a development it may be? But to say that because a word has found its way into print in recent history owing to deliberate, well-funded efforts to make it ‘normative,’ I hardly call that ‘established usage.’

            If a dictionary had been published in Germany in the 1930s with the word “untermensch” (sub-human), it probably would have included as a “secondary definition”– “Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs,” and those in favor of the social agenda behind that lexical change would have said, “See! This is now established usage!” Do you see how, just because a phony definition of a word, totally contrary to hundreds of years of consistent unchanging usage, is suddenly invented and through aggressive brainwashing efforts and generous funding is pushed on the public for a decade, it is hardly legitimate to say that definition represents “established” usage in the culture and among the people.

            Why even Barack Obama himself defined marriage as “the union of a man and a woman” in 2008, and he did not declare his ‘evolution’ to a new, genderless definition of marriage until 2012, just before his re-election. MacMIllan dictionary online just changed its definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage in 2013– last year. So a change last year is “established usage” in your book?

            The fact is, this novel definition of marriage has NO pre-21st century lexical history in the English language, and gives every evidence of being a phony definition tied to an ideological movement that is of incredibly recent origin. I am 53 years old; believe me, a definition is not going to be established in mind as having legitimacy just because a minority group with a lot of political clout and funding has used that phony definition in the last 14 years to push an ideology. I recognize newspeak when I see it, and refuse to absorb it into my vocabulary.

            I’m really tired of this conversation Boo. We’re not going to arrive at agreement. You can keep painting me any way you wish. I’m signing off.

          • Boo

            And there it is. Finally, your “reasonable” mask drops and the bigot comes out. Yes yes, everything is a conspiracy. Well, no, it isn’t. The reason the American public changed their mind about gay people isn’t because of screaming and media conspiracies. It’s because actual real life gay people came out and lived their lives openly, and changed hearts and minds. (Except for bigoted ones like yours, of course) You even managed to pull out the Goerge Soros boogeyman! I’m disappointed you didn’t go right for Saul Alinksy, you know, the guy who helped blacks register to vote and in doing so became an unforgiveable sinner in the eyes of the modern right.
            You poor deluded fool. You so desperately cling to your delusion that YOUR PARTICULAR definition of “natural law” is the correct one. Despite it not being close to the one accepted by human history. You are okay with rejecting the historical judgment of humanity on the issue of racial equality. (Well, maybe you aren’t. Maybe you just realize that white supremacy sounds bad when advocated openly. Or maybe not. Who knows with you, since you have no consistent philosophy.) But on the sole issue of homosexuality, you demand adherence to tradition. The same tradition that would reject the founding of America. That would reject racial equality. That would reject sexual equality. No wonder you’re tired, bobbing and weaving so much.

          • Martin Rizley

            What I’m tired of is your tone– especially your ‘over the top’ declarations that are so clearly unsupported by a reasonable look at the evidence. I mean, if Barack Obama only changed his view on what marriage is in 2012, then how can you claim that THE established definition of marriage has no reference to the gender of the parties involved. Apparently, Obama didn’t know that two years ago. That’s what I mean by over the top; for a definition to be established in the culture– especially a definition of a long standing, fundamental cultural institution of marriage that is hundred, even thousands of years old, it would have to have been in common use the general public for a considerable length time.

            DOMA was signed by Republicans and Democrats in 1996 defining marriage for the purpose of federal law as the union of a man and a woman. They obviously would not and could not have done that, if the established definition of marriage at that time was understood to be “the union of any two consenting adults, regardless of their sex.” Remember Bill Clinton– no conservative– was the one who signed DOMA with an overwhelming majority of D’s and R’s. So when I say established definition, I am not talking about in Shakespeare’s day. So when did the definition of marriage you claim to be the established definition become established? In what year? Obviously, It would have to have been sometime after the passage of DOMA– I hope you would admit that at least.
            So it is your accusatory tone, and now your ad hominem arguments that are making me tired. You just cannot expect a person to keep up a dialogue with you if you are going to call them “bigot” “fool” and such– no matter how much you disagree with them. Also, you yourself need to ask if a dialogue is going anywhere, or if it is simply becoming repetitious.

          • Boo

            Anyone who paid any attention at all knows that Obama was for gay marriage all along. He was on record supporting it earlier in his career, then flip flopped as a political convenience. Once he realized it wasn’t going to harm him politically, he came out for it again. Marriage equality has existed for over 10 years in Massachusetts and in Europe. And once again, the exact same argument you’re making could have been made in Loving V. Virginia, as racial segregation was in this country’s DNA since its founding. The culture has changed. Get over it.
            And if you rant bizarre conspiracy theories about George Soros brainwashing people, then expect to be called a deluded fool, because that is what deluded fools do. Marriage equality has always been a grassroots movement. The big gay rights organizations didn’t get on board until relatively late in the game.

          • Martin Rizley

            I would like you to quote a single dictionary of the English language in which race has ever been made a defining feature of marriage (I am not saying that one cannot be found, but I have never heard of any dictionary that mentioned race as a defining feature of marriage.) By contrast, all English dictionaries published ever since modern English was spoken have always defined marriage as “the union of a man and a woman.” No dictionary ever breathed a word about same-sex “marriage” until the American Heritage dictionary came out with that as a secondary definition– by no means its primary usage– in the year 2000.

            Moreover, there never was any dispute historically among speakers of the English language concerning the legtimacy of the traditional definition. All English speakers from the beginning have always affirmed that a marriage is “the union of a man and a woman.” Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, all agreed on that when they passed DOMA in 1996. By contrast, the legitimacy of the phony definition of marriage created by the LGBT community to promote its cause– marriage defined as “the union of any two consenting adults”– has been under constant dispute ever since that redefinition first came out in recent history, with vast hordes of Americans refusing to absorb the newspeak into their vocabulary or recognize its legitimacy. Proof of that is the fact that over half of the states still define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman,” and many states have passed marriage amendments rejecting the artificially engineered redefinition of marriage. The LGBT movement has only made the strides it has made by activist judges overruling the will of the people expressed in those marriage amendments and imposing so-called same-sex marriage on the states by what amounts to “marshal law.”

          • Boo

            I’m glad you can at least admit the dictionary agrees with me. Like it or not, our culture did define marriage as segregated, until we didn’t. We used to define marriage as a man essentially owning a woman, until we didn’t. Congress agreed that black people didn’t have human rights when it passed the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850, and then 15 years later slavery was gone. We used to define marriage as a man and a woman, now we don’t. Democrats went along with DOMA to head off a federal marriage amendment. Has it occurred to you that literally every single historical claim you’ve made in this entire discussion has been incorrect? Much like the next one you made about activist judges. Like it or not, marriage equality went 4 for 4 in the last election. 5 for 5 if you count Iowa, where the voters had their chance to express disagreement with one of the judges who struck down their marriage amendment and chose not to. The anti-gay side ran some very effective scare campaigns in the mid 2000s, but you can’t keep people stoked up with irrational fears forever. Support for marriage equality passed the 50% mark some time ago and is now nearing 60%, and it’s only going to continue to rise. (I also have the funny feeling that no matter how long majority support for marriage equality exists you’ll always want to claim it hasn’t been long enough to count.)
            We have a long tradition in this country of not recognizing the human rights of certain groups of people, and then we do. Like it or not, that’s what’s happening now in regards to LGBT people. And for someone who expresses so much concern about dictionaries, trying to coin new terms seems… well, of course it’s inconsistent. Being inconsistent is about the only thing you’ve been consistent about.

          • Martin Rizley

            But you haven’t shown me a single dictionary that ever included race as a part of the definition of marriage. Historically, marriage was defined for at least four centuries exclusively as “the union of a man and a woman”– without any mention of the race of the parties involved. Not one dictionary, to my knowledge, ever defined marriage as “the union of a man and a woman of the same race.” Although within certain sub-cultures of the English-speaking world, certain groups may have felt that interracial marriage was inappropriate or wrong, it is significant that that belief never found its way into the definition of marriage in any dictionary, as far as I have been able to determine. Race was never a part of the lexical definition of marriage, but gender always was.

            In the late nineteenth century, some dictionaries began to mention ‘plural marriage’ (polygamy) and common law marriage as secondary definitions of marriage, but the primary definition remained, and I would argue, still remains “the union of a man and a woman.”

            The fact that a word may have a secondary definition does not mean necessarily that a law should be based on that secondary definition– because the secondary definition may refer to something that does not exist other than on the level of imagination. For example, one secondary use of the word “horse” may be to refer to a mythical horse-like creature, such as a “winged horse” or pegasus. No one argue, that because in some piece of ancient Greek mythology, a hero may jumps onto his ‘horse’ and begins to fly away into the sky, therefore, winged horses must exist.

            The fact that certain sub-cultures have absorbed into their vocabulary the term “same-sex marriage”– which accounts for its inclusion now in some dictionaries– does imply, therefore, that the concept of “same-sex marriage” is rooted in reality, rather than fantasy. It would certainly be absurd for a law to be passed protecting the rights of winged horses, simply because a secondary meaning of the term “horses” includes winged horses and other mythical creatures. If a group of legislators did that, they would obviously have lost their sense; and in like manner, just because the term “same-sex marriage” may be included now in some dictionaries as a secondary definition, it is absurd to argue on those grounds that laws must be passed protecting the imaginary rights of couples wanting to contract a “same-sex marriage.” The fact is, homosexual relationships lack the distinguishing feature that makes heterosexual relationships a matter of compelling state interest– their naturally procreative function. If in the opinion of society, the best way to guard that procreative function of marriage is by basing marital laws on heterosexual complementarity, society has a right to do that. No rational argument to be put forth that homosexual relationships are entitled to the same rights.

            The fact is, 31 out of our fifty states still have same-sex marriage bans in place, which tells me that a lot of people in our country still see the concept of “same-sex marriage” as belonging to the category of myth and fantasy, just like the concept of “winged horses;” that is, despite whatever presence the term may now have in some dictionaries, many people still view this concept as a totally inappropriate concept on which to base actual marriage laws in the real world. Since nations need to live, continue, and flourish in the real world, not in the realm of imagination, myth, and fantasy, they need to based their marriage laws on a concept of marriage that is rational and rooted in the needs of society and children– not the desires of some adults.

          • Boo

            Is there even a microscope powerful enough to see the nits you’re trying to pick? First it’s wrong because it’s not in the dictionary, then it’s wrong even though it is because it’s a “secondary definition.” Maybe you didn’t notice, but YOU are the one who keeps bringing up dictionaries. I’m not arguing that marriage equality must be legalized on those grounds, I argue it must be legalized because our country is founded on the principle of equal rights for all, which does not mean all except for . Do you truly not see how bizarre your attempts at argumentation are? The law defined marriage as people of the same race. The Supreme Court overturned that definition. The fact is that a greater percentage of the population opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court overruled all the states that had banned it than oppose marriage equality for same sex couples now. Horses are a physical object. Civil marriage is a civil institution and as such it is defined by the government. Civil marriages between same sex couples exist in 19 states and DC. For you to simply stamp your little foot and insist that they somehow don’t exist when they do is absurdity. To suggest that the government somehow can’t define its civil institutions in a way that doesn’t line up with how dictionaries used to define something is absurdity. Villain used to be a word for peasant, now it means something else entirely. Marriage used to be a property arrangement between one man (aka the father of the bride) and another man (aka the husband). Once men and women gained equal status in marriage there was simply no logical reason to restrict it based on gender. Allowing couples of the same gender to marry serves the interests of society and children, as the courts have found repeatedly.

          • Martin Rizley

            In the nineteen states you mention, how many actually adopted so-called gay marriage by a vote of the people? Very few. In most of those states, ‘gay marriage’ was imposed by the courts– in many cases, contrary to the expressed will of the people in marriage amendments. The arguments of Ryan T. Anderson in the article I earlier cited (Marriage: What it is, why it is important, what are the consequences of redefining it?) are completely rational, clear, and persuasive. If you do not agree with them, I have nothing else to say. I cannot improve on them. I believe the case for federal judges exercising self-restraint and refusing to overstep their legitimate authority by becoming legislators, instead of judges, in this matter of how each state defines marriage, has been fully proven.

            If people will not be persuaded by reason and common sense, then it does no good to keep repeating oneself. Anyone reading Mr. Ryan’s article who says, “He is being irrational. His arguments are ridiculous” is clearly governed by a commitment to a political agenda– even if that person is a federal judge.

            Mr. Ryan reasons in very fair-minded in his reasoning. He understands the state’s legitimate interest in marriage, and the people’s right to base their marriage laws on the obvious function of marriage as a social institution serving a public good. Marriage is not just about society affirming or accepting or celebrating the equality of all “loves.” The state has no interest in that. It has interest in children, and in protecting their interests by upholding an institution that ties biological parents to the babies they conceive and insists that they take responsibility for those babies as a societal expectation, and as a duty owed to the children they conceive. And as Mr. Ryan says, there is no such thing as ‘parenting.’ Rather, there is ‘fathering’ and ‘mothering’ and children need and have a natural right to both. So-called same-sex marriage undermines that interest, by denying the need for ‘fathering’ and ‘mothering,’ and subsuming everything under the genderless term ‘parenting.’ But children are not genderless beings. Boys need to learn how to be men from their fathers, and girls how to be women from their mothers. Gender is not just a social construct, but something rooted in biology. (That’s not denying the possibility of society creating unfair gender stereotypes– only affirming that gender itself is not a ‘mere’ social construct; it is rooted in real biological differences between the sexes.) But Mr. Anderson says all this much better than I can, with a number of supporting arguments and references to social science data. I am convinced by his arguments; and since I cannot improve on them, I won’t attempt to reproduce all of them here.

          • Boo

            And here you go
            dancing around in a circle yet again. We already covered this. Whether you
            like it or not, judicial reviews is part of our Constitutional process and is a
            legitimate authority of judges. If you are correct then Loving vs. Virginia (and
            every case involving segregation from Brown on) was illegitimately decided. You
            can’t have it both ways (and the way you want to have it is wrong anyway).

            Also whether you
            like it or not, Mr. Anderson’s arguments should be rejected because they are
            simply not true. EG— “And as Mr. Ryan
            says, there is no such thing as ‘parenting.’ Rather, there is ‘fathering’ and
            ‘mothering’ and children need and have a natural right to both. So-called
            same-sex marriage undermines that interest, by denying the need for ‘fathering’
            and ‘mothering,’ and subsuming everything under the genderless term ‘parenting.’
            But children are not genderless beings. Boys need to learn how to be men from
            their fathers, and girls how to be women from their mothers.”— We know from
            evidence that this claim is factually wrong. We know from evidence that what
            children need are two committed parents in a low-conflict relationship. We know
            from evidence that children raised by such parents even if they happen to both
            be the same sex turn out fine. This has been pointed out to you before, and
            your continuing to choose to avoid these facts will not somehow magically make
            them go away. Also whether you like it or not, the state does not require an
            intent or ability to procreate in order to get a marriage license, and your
            continuing to choose to avoid that fact or rationalize it away with your
            personal opinion about which couples who cannot procreate together sufficiently
            mimic the ones who can, which is found nowhere in our laws, does not make it go
            away either. The studies Anderson references to try and support his claim that
            married biological parents make better parents that gay couples are all
            available online. Guess what? They don’t actually mention gay couples at all.
            They compare kids raised by married biological parents to kids raised by single
            mothers, stepparents, and the like in heterosexual households. Well, actually,
            one does mention gay people. That would be the completely debunked Regnerus
            study. Problem is, only two kids in the Regenerus study were actually raised by
            gay couples and they both did just as well on his measurements as the kids
            raised by their married biological parents. Regnerus deliberately goosed his
            data to get the result that he wanted (and that NOM told him to get, as we now
            know from certain emails between those two parties). For kids with two straight
            parents, he carefully separated out the kids raised from birth by their married
            biological parents from all the others- children of divorce, foster kids,
            whatever. The proper comparison group would then be kids raised from birth by
            gay couples. However, since those kids turned out fine and that would not
            support his agenda, he did something else. He deliberately lumped in every kid
            who had at least one parent who had ever had a gay relationship together- again
            whether they were children of divorce or foster kids or whatever. Instead of
            trying to make his two groups as similar as possible on all other variables in
            order to isolate specifically the effects of the gender of the parents, he went
            out of his way to make his two groups as dissimilar as possible. That’s a VERY
            big nono when doing social science research, and that is why his study gets
            laughed out of court.

            You’ve tried
            these arguments before, and I keep showing you that they are false. Judicial
            review is indeed part of our Constitutional process and what you are decrying
            as illegitimate is the same judicial review process used in all civil rights
            cases. There is no evidence that gay couples make poor parents and a great deal
            that they are just as good as married straight parents. (In fact a recent large
            study out of Australia showed that kids raised by gay couples are actually
            better off on certain measures, such as physical health. That’s likely less to
            do with the parents being gay per se than with the fact that kids now being raised
            by gay coupes are more likely to have been planned for.) Repeating these
            factually incorrect arguments over and over again will not somehow magically make
            them true.

          • Martin Rizley

            Actually, Anderson cites other studies besides the Regnerus study. There is nothing in our Constitution which says judges must consider only those arguments which are based on “social science research,” as if scientific research conducted by credentialed scientists were the only thing that could produce the fruit of knowledge. That would only be true if there were no Creator behind the universe who had made clearly discernible principle of natural law evident to rational creatures through the order and design of the natural world He had made. The Declaration of Independence says the very opposite The great irony in claiming science alone can give us knowledge is that science cannot actually produce “knowledge” at all, if by knowledge you mean “fixed” or unshakable truth. That’s because all science can ever yield are “conclusions” drawn from currently available (and always limited) research data, gathered by research methods that are open to question by reasonable people. Today’s conclusions may be overruled by tomorrow’s research, making science a pretty poor foundation on which to based the institutions of our culture that bind us together as a people.

            Our American republic was not founded on the potentially mutable ‘conclusions’ of scientific research but on certain “self-evident truths”– fixed, certain, immutable truths discernible to rational beings. The first self-evident truth on which our Republic was founded (fully consistent with a Judeo-Christian worldview, I might add) was the self-evident truth that “all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Because our nation is founded on that truth, and on the recognition of natural law as the basis of our civil law– and because natural law is discernible to rational people generally (not just credentialed scientists) who are capable of making well-considered, rational, “common sense” judgments about the ‘long term consequences’ of changing laws and dismantling time-honored institutions– judges are perfectly free to consider other arguments than those derived from the social sciences.

            Judges who respect the limited power of the judiciary do well to respect the rational judgments of the people based on natural law, instead of granting ‘ruling authority’ to scientific researchers to determine everything we do as a nation based on the data they gather and the conclusions they draw from that data. We are not ruled by an oligarchy of scientists or intellectual elites who bow at the altar of science and look to men in white coats as the ‘priests’ of the new state religion. We are a democratic nation based on the principle of limited government, and if the clear aim of a federal judge’s ruling is to undermine the Constitution, ignore natural law and God-given unalienable rights, and to impose a political agenda on the people that does violence to the common judgment of the people and has no solid foundation in reason, common sense, science, or cultural tradition, governors of the states do well to ignore it and to nullify federal mandates which assault state constitutional amendments.

          • Boo

            Was it wrong for the ancient Hebrews to buy slaves from their non-Hebrew neighbors? Yes or no?

          • Martin Rizley

            The CARM website (the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) contains several articles on slavery in the Bible. I agree with the perspective of that website that God’s toleration of slavery in Old Testament times among His covenant people, and His willingness to regulate the way slavery was conducted, instead of simply abolishing it outright, was based on a number of considerations.

            The Bible nowhere suggests that if God tolerated or even regulated in Old Testament times an existing institution that was already a part of the social fabric of society, that means that He heartily approved of that institution as representing His ideal of how society should be structured. Jesus corrects that false equivalence of tolerance with approval in Matthew 19 with respect to divorce, and the principle he sets forth there shows us how we are to regard God’s attitude in ancient regarding various social structures or institutions which He later openly declared to fall short of His ideal– slavery, polygamy, and divorce without adequate grounds were all social evils that God tolerated in His people in the Old Testament, and to some degree regulated. Those structures were temporary, and as I said, God calls His new covenant people in New Testament times to live by a higher standard, and to put behind them these customs.

            So your question is miscast. You should ask,”Were the ancient Hebrews living according to the highest possible social norms when they bought slaves from non-Hebrew neighbors? No, they were not. Was God right to tolerate their practice during that period of history? Yes, he was. Did their actions constitute an unmitigated evil? Although slavery was a social evil, the evil of that institution could be aggravated by the manner in which people treated their slaves.

            In Israel,the Hebrews were commanded to treat their slaves much more humanely than in other societies of the day. For example, while the Bible did acknowledged the slave’s status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:21; Lev. 25:46), at the same time:
            The Bible restricted the master’s power over the slave. (Ex. 21:20)
            The slave was a member of the master’s household (Lev. 22:11).
            The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14).
            The slave was required to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).
            The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17).
            The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
            When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14).
            Slavery was not a part of the original created order, and with the coming of Christ, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, believers are to leave behind them any social structures that were not a part of God’s original created order– which would include slavery, polygamy and divorce (although Jesus permits divorce in cases where unrepentant adultery or desertion on the part of one spouse effectively brings an end to a marriage relationship. The injured party, in that case, is permitted to get a bill of divorce and remarry.)

          • Boo

            Ohhhhh. So God compromised. Interesting excuse.

          • TBP100

            But marriage isn’t, and never has been, exclusively about procreation. For many people, marriage isn’t about children at all and they voluntarily go childless. Others might be wish to have children but cannot. These people are nonetheless allowed to get married and always have been.

            You keep you using the phrase “self-evident.” I don’t think it means what you think it means.

          • Martin Rizley

            By self-evident truth, I mean truths the discovery of which does not depend on some specialized knowledge, credentials or funding, but which are obvious to men as rational creatures endowed with the power to reflect upon the basic structures and design of the world itself, life, and human relationships. These truths may not always be immediately apparent to everyone, because the eye of reason can be blinded by pride, passion, and personal prejudices. But they can be rationally demonstrated, like the truth 2 + 2 = 4, or the moral truth that human beings should not willfully and with malice aforethought, injure, steal from, or murder their fellow human beings. The speed of light is not a self-evident truth. It takes specialized scientific research, with specialized instruments and funding to determine what the speed of light is. But the fact that fish swim and birds fly, and that their bodies are equipped or designed for that very function, is a self-evident truth.

            The state’s interest in marriage is about procreation. What compelling interest could the state have in marriage as a social and legally recognized institution apart from the issue of procreation? The state has a compelling interest to be concerned about both the quantity and quality of persons who will make up the future citizenry of the nation; and one way to promote that interest is for the state to promote by its laws stable, monogamous heterosexual relationships between men and women which lead naturally to the creation of stable families that provide the optimal nurturing environment for children.

            It is not convincing to say the state is obligated to give the same legal status to homosexual relationships or other forms of consensual adult sexual relationships (such as polyamorous relationships), simply because modern reproductive technologies make it possible for people to have children without having an opposite sex partner. The fact is, homosexual relationships do not naturally lead to children, in the same way that heterosexual relationship naturally do (with relatively few exceptions). In order to bring children into the picture of their relationship, homosexuals have to bring a third party into their relationship as a ‘donor’ mom or dad, along with costly medical procedures– like artificial insemination– that may prove far too expensive for the average citizens. It costs nothing for heterosexual couples to have children through sexual relations with one another, and that is the ‘natural’ result of such marriages. Since children are not a ‘natural’ result of homosexual relationships, society has no obligation to view such relationship as being identical in every way to heterosexual relationships, or to grant the validity of the claim that they are ‘naturally’ entitled to the same rights. Some federal judges may hold to the personal belief that it is ‘unfair’ not to elevate all sexual relationships between citizens of the United States to the same level equality, or bestow on them the same benefits, but he cannot argue that on the basis of natural rights. It is his personal opinion, likely rooted in his view of homosexuality as an innate, inborn, genetic condition like race, instead of being a chosen lifestyle.

            Infertile sexual couples often do not know they are infertile until after they are married, and it is too expensive to expect all engaged couples to take fertility tests. Moreover, infertile homosexual couples support the procreative purpose of marriage in that by modeling loving heterosexual relationships, they inspire other people who are fertile to enter into such relationships by setting an example for them, and their heterosexual relationship reinforces the cultural value of heteronormativity, which advances the state’s compelling interest in marriage.

          • TBP100

            Sorry, in legal terms marriage is contract between two individuals, nothing more. Of course, most people invest it with emotional and/or religious meaning, but that is not a matter of law. There is no rational reason two adults of the same sex cannot enter into that contract.

          • Martin Rizley

            Marriage is not any type of contract, however, but a private contract between persons that has a public purpose in society, which is why states set all sorts of eligibility requirements with regard to who can marry whom, and limit the number to two and only two persons. Those persons must be unrelated by blood, they must both be of a certain legal age, and they must be of the opposite sex. The state has every right to set those eligibility requirements for statutory marriage, and to limit the number person who made enter a legal marriage to two and only two. If three people claim they love each other desperately and want to be a married trio, the state has every right to tell them, “No way.” Why? Because marriage is not just any contract. It is a very specific type of contract, with a purpose in which the state has a legitimate compelling interest— so the society may establish eligibility requirements as to ‘who is qualified to marry whom’ based on that state interest. Two people of the same sex have no ‘natural’ right to marry each other, for the same reason that three people have no ‘natural’ right to marry each other. Those type of sexual relationships do not promote or advance the state’s interest in marriage as a public institution.

          • TBP100

            “The procreative purpose has to do with what secures the interest of the state.” And yet there is no jurisdiction in the United States which makes the ability and/or willingness to procreate a legal prerequisite for marriage. As far as I know, this has never been a requirement in the US. As others have said over and over again, marriage is about a lot of things, and children are only one of them. That you consider this the primary raison d’être for marriage doesn’t mean I do, or that the government does. You keep asserting it, but not demonstrating why it should be so.

            The state is involved in every contract, if nothing else in enforcing contracts when there is a breach, or mediating when there is a dispute. There are some that cannot be legally entered into, regardless of the willingness of the participants (murder for hire, to name an extreme example). Marriage is no different and you still haven’t put forward a rational reason for denying the benefits of that contract (inheritance,the automatic assumption that one spouse is the person best qualified to make decisions when the other is unable, insurance and retirement benefits, etc.).

  • BadKarma

    Homosexual marriage is just a means to an end. With the homosexuals, it’s all about gaining access to the children to gratify their sexual perversity. The homosexual agenda of trying to pass itself off as just another family down the street, while indoctrinating our children, beginning in kindergarten, into the ridiculous concept that homosexual perversity is acceptable behavior, is obvious on its face. Not everyone is fooled by the homosexual propaganda, and see’s it for what it really is.

    • Red Mann

      Absolute, and hateful, lie. Read the 9th Commandment.

      • BadKarma

        Failure to know the Word of God allows a person to exist in a
        deceived state, and to believe the lies of Satan.

        Reality is the absolute truth, not the Satanic propaganda of homosexuals in their quest to enslave our children into the evil of homosexual perversity.

        • luyten

          psst … Um…

          you’re the one with the demon avatar.

          • BadKarma

            You can not have a demon without first believing in the Word God. You can not have it both ways.

            Have you ever seen a real demon?

            Other than some Hollywood created caricature, please describe what a demon looks like.

          • luyten

            You sound demented on top of being hypocritical.

            Do you plaster pentagrams and goat heads on your basement walls?

          • BadKarma

            In other words, your demon comment reveals your contradictory belief system. The only retort you have remaining is to attack those who point out your hypocrisy.

          • luyten

            My demon comment was in reference to your glorifying demon avatar. You like pictures of demons. That’s your particular fetish. I get it, but ugh. Anyway, you’re definitely a hypocrite.

          • fredk

            Exactly. I have neither demons nor gods. Makes life much simpler. You might want to try it.

        • Red Mann

          Sorry, your personal religious beliefs have, or should have, no influence on the law or other’s behavior. Hot flash, billions of people do not believe in your book.
          Your last paragraph is pure codswallop, it’s religious inanity.

          • BadKarma

            Religious beliefs have nothing to do with my original post. Nowhere did I mention religion. Other commentators were first to bring up religious issues.

            Do try to keep up.

          • Red Mann

            I was responding to

            “Failure to know the Word of God allows a person to exist in a deceived state, and to believe the lies of Satan.”
            Sounds like religious belief to me.
            As for your first post, 99 44/100 of the objectors to anything homosexual are religious since there is no rational ground for such behavior. Besides your words are parroting the words of dozens of fanatical religious groups.
            Walk, talk, duck.

    • ErickMN

      Pure garbage. A complete waste of words, punctuation and spaces. Get some help for your mental illness, and get it now.

      • BadKarma

        Revealing the truth of the homosexual agenda leaves its supporters with the only possible retort of attacking those who expose them.

        • ErickMN

          Every major medical, psychological and psychiatric organization in the western worlds calls your post PURE GARBAGE. How does it feel to be exposed as a lying freak?

          I sure hope you whine and moan about gay people every day of your miserable life. You deserve it.

        • Dealing-with-idiots

          Truth usually can be verified. Bad karma just spouts old prejudices and pretends they are true. Gay people do jot prey on children for sexual outlets. Gay people like to have sex with other consenting gay adults. Big difference.

          • BadKarma

            Then why the need to indoctrinate children at an early age to accept homosexual behavior, with no mention of heterosexual relationships? The bias is on parade in our schools

          • Dealing-with-idiots

            Obviously you have no idea what ACTUALLY goes on in schools. Stop relying on the propaganda. Well, on second thought, better that you stay away from the schools…

          • penguin_boy

            Tell you what. I will agree to a ban on discussions of human sexuality until the age of 12, when kids need to learn things, if you agree to a ban on discussing religion for the same period.

    • Nell Webbish

      You had your hand down your pants the entire time you were typing that, didn’t you?

  • Clive Johnson

    Great news. The momentum is unstoppable, legislatively, judicially, and in the court of public opinion.

  • Don Hignite

    If these two states feel like revenge maybe all those who feel strong about this will refuse to work, thus limiting federal tax revenues.. If that fails then think about the Patriots who blatantly suffered prior to FIGHTING the good fight for theirs and our Independence. If you allow this, what will this tyrannical government do next… Time to stand up and fight back or lose all.

    • luyten

      calm your jowls

      • Don Hignite

        And the voice of logic or Tinker-Bell has spoken. Now move on..

        • luyten

          Logic and rationality is what forms civil society – and it’s no wonder the fringe such as yourself is losing.

          You’ve lost.

          Bye troll.

          • Don Hignite

            Might I ask, who besides the criminals has the Guns? Try telling them they lost.. Why do I even give you or the likes of you the time of day.. Bye Tinkerbell

          • luyten

            Tinkerbell?

            What are you elderly? Old, lame anti-gay slurs don’t work anymore. It only makes YOU look like an idiot.

          • Don Hignite

            And when did your opinion count? You are still the minority no matter what this crack smoking 1/2 breed legislates.

          • luyten

            You’re a fringe lunatic who has nothing but bigotry and discrimination for an opinion. Gay marriage is here to stay. The majority agrees with me.

            You’re old. I get that. Wouldn’t it be better to live the remaining few years you have left not being such a crude anti-social troglodyte?

            lol who am I kidding?

    • penguin_boy

      So, they don’t work, can’t afford shelter or food, and starve to death in the streets.

      Hundreds of dead bigots who died from stupidity? Works for me!

      • Scott Lanway

        Can I have my dead bigot to go?

        • penguin_boy

          You want flies with that?

          • Scott Lanway

            Sure. And you know what, how about you Super Size me.

          • penguin_boy

            Well, bloat will take care of that!

  • Justin Eiler

    “Civil disobedience”? Those who engaged in civil disobedience stood up against their rights being impaired. Precisely which of your Constitutional rights is impaired by these rulings?

    • Kyle

      They believe that they have a right to infringe on the rights of others…

      • dawn1257

        And, they will never answer the question Justin asks, either. Because they cannot.

  • Kyle

    Congratulations to all the very happy couples of Utah and Indiana. Haters are going to hate, just ignore them and eventually they will tire themselves out…

  • docrt925

    …because expecting that all Americans be required to live by the teachings of your chosen religious lifestyle IS Constitutional and representative of democratic freedom?

  • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

    ➡︎ America has a bi-sexual muslim who supports child molestation, sitting in the oval office.

    ➡︎ Homosexuals and lesbians have been given legal access to our children in the boy-scouts
    and girl-scouts so they can sexually molest them.

    ➡︎ The homosexuals and lesbians control our educational system.

    ➡︎ Homosexuals and lesbians control America’s legal system.

    ➡︎ God’s Word is now called hate material.

    ➡︎ Talking about God’s Word and telling the truth is now called hate speech.

    ➡︎ What is good is now called evil and what is evil is now called good.

    ➡︎ In America, and around the world, it’s legal to murder a child in the mothers womb.
    Each year over 1 million children are murdered in their mothers womb.

    ➡︎ All over the world God’s children are being murdered and persecuted.
    The so-called ‘Hate Crime” laws have been enacted to silence God,
    God’s children and anyone who dares speak the truth.

    ➡︎ Our food & water has been altered and loaded with chemicals that
    cause birth defects, cancers and early death.

    ➡︎ As we all know Islam is taking over the world.
    The Qur’an teaches muslims that it’s ok to rape babies,
    children and women. The Qur’an teaches muslims to murder
    anyone who refuses to bow to islam. Please remember,
    Barack Hussein Obama & Eric Holder are muslims.

    ➡︎ The government is treating our veterans like trash.

    ➡︎ What is this all leading to? Have these things been prophesied in God’s Word?

    My Bible Prophecy website answers these questions and many more.
    itshallcometopass dot org

    • garybryson

      spam

      • Boo

        Spam has a point. Ray is just painting the walls with his poo.

  • Scott Lanway

    I knew there was a reason I came here today. You BarbWire “writers” always deliver the very best in butthurt.

  • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

    “The light of morality and freedom is being brutishly snuffed out right before our very eyes. It’s…”

    —… another example of Jeff Allen’s hyperbolic tragedy of an article unfolding nonsense at an accelerating pace. lol

  • garybryson

    spammer

  • LynnTTTT

    The majority of Americans accept gay marriage. It’s been one of the swiftest changes in American history. Most of us have come to the decision that we don’t have the right to decide who people will love. Live and let live is an old axiom and it still works.

    • thisoldspouse

      No they do not. Not according to the true polls of ballot initiatives.

      A few activist judges don’t a “majority” make.

      • LynnTTTT

        I didn’t say that people who come out and vote for an issue have passed many such laws. But there is a reason that civil rights issues like inter-racial marriage and non-discrimination laws aren’t up for popular vote. I really doubt that the Southern states would have passed such laws in the early part of the last century

      • Nell Webbish

        The fact that you think the people who bother to vote in ballot initiatives is a majority of Americans makes it pretty clear you have no clue what you are burbling about.

  • Lindoro Almaviva

    Scream all you want Matthy. Today I married my husband and there was not a thing you could do. In the end, this is like that 4 year old that throws a tantrum at bedtime, but end up in bed anyways. The inevitability of it all is the biggest weight you have on your shoulders.

    • Clive Johnson

      Congratulations! :)

    • vorpal

      Awwwww!!! That is fantastic. Congratulations to both of you!

    • jim

      Congratulations. hope you enjoy lots of dirty sticks and Hemorrhoids

      • Lindoro Almaviva

        Actually, how a marriage is consummated, according to what my momma told me, is not a topic you discuss with anyone. Since my momma taught me well, I will forgive the question and part from the premise that you did not have the kind of mamma I have.

        Oh, by the way, I did get the email from your original text, and here is my response as well: May you be rewarded ten-fold what you wish on me.

        • rocketmahn

          Mazol Tov!!

      • ErickMN

        Why do you want to know, freak? Ish.

    • ErickMN

      Congratulations to both of you!

  • jim

    With all these comments from the trolls of the huffington post make me realize that the truth still offends those with reprobate minds and barbwire has indeed something important to say.

    • Boo

      Jim’s comment makes me realize that Jim has a diseased mind and will have a very hard time with reality indeed.

  • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

    From Utah, an excerpt from the verdict:

    “Appellants’ fourth and final justification for Amendment 3, “accommodating religious freedom and reducing the potential for civic strife,” fails for reasons independent of the foregoing. Appellants contend that a prohibition on same-sex marriage “is essential to preserving social harmony in the State” and that allowing same-sex couples to marry “would create the potential for religion-related strife.”
    Even assuming that appellants are correct in predicting that some substantial degree of discord will follow state recognition of same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court has repeated held that public opposition cannot provide cover for a violation of fundamental rights.

    Appellants acknowledge that a state may not “invoke concerns about religious freedom or religion-related social strife as a basis for denying rights otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution.” But they argue that the social and religious strife argument qualifies as legitimate because a fundamental right is not at issue in this case. Because we have rejected appellants’ contention on this point, their fourth justification necessarily fails.

    We also emphasize, as did the district court, that today’s decision relates solely to civil marriage. See Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1214 (“[T]he court notes that its decision does not mandate any change for religious institutions, which may continue to express their own moral viewpoints and define their own traditions about marriage.”). Plaintiffs must be accorded the same legal status presently granted to married couples, but religious institutions remain as free as they always have been to practice their sacraments and traditions as they see fit. -”

  • WhatIsWrongWithEquality

    I don’t understand how anyone’s “FREEDOM” is being snuffed out in this country due to this ruling. Whose freedom is being taken away? Regarding: “The light of morality and freedom is being brutishly snuffed out right before our very eyes.”

  • Joseph Andrew

    Someone should probably point out to him that we’re not a democracy, and we never have been. The founding fathers went out of their way to make sure it wasn’t a democracy.

  • Brett Koehler

    Here’s hoping the lawsuit in Georgia goes as well! Congrats to all the people who are now able to marry.

  • edav38

    Government has NO Business having anything to do with Marriage, Government controlled marriage DID NOT EXIST, until the early 1900s, push for by the Eugenics Movement, in order to Birth a Master Race, the Exact Same movement that Hitler was part of. That is according to History

  • Arthur Adams

    Prophecy is bunk.

  • Nell Webbish

    Civil disobedience? Exactly what are you going to do? Stop going to Broadway shows? Boycott Modern Family reruns? Hold your breath and stomp your little footsies?

    Or is this where someone injects veiled threats of violence because they are buttsore and whiny that they aren’t being allowed to stick their noses into other people’s private lives?

    • TBP100

      This is not the first time I’m seen a call for “civil disobedience” against same-sex marriage, but I have yet to see anyone say what it would consist of. I like your hypotheticals, though.

      Civil disobedience consists of publicly disobeying a law you consider unjust, taking the consequences and hoping that your moral example will persuade others of the justice of your cause, and get the law changed. Since laws permitting same sex marriage don’t REQUIRE anyone to get married, or do anything at all, I utterly fail to see how one can “disobey” them.

      • Boo

        Maybe they’ll block the entrances to clerks offices and wave pictures of bloody… I dunno, married couples?

  • tatoo

    I agree. Let’s all boycott gay weddings. Or not have one.

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!