« Climate policy after Mass v. EPA | Main | Climate Change: A Prediction »

April 05, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Lackawanna Blues

"In the end, the goal, in my view, should be to enlighten all Americans to understand that the legal recognition of equal rights for gays and lesbians is an appropriate extension of the American ideal of equality and the proper next stage in the nation's long and admirable struggle to provide equal treatment to all persons, regardless of race, religion, gender, national origin, disability, and now sexual orientation."

Please let's turn the University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog into a teach-in on the left-wing homosexualist agenda! Sounds like a great idea.

There is only so much historicism I can take -- just because people used to believe one thing and increasingly today believe something else does not mean that the later-held belief is the better one. Given that the Left controls two very important institutions in our country -- education and popular culture, it is not suprising that their pro-homosexualist thinking has started to rot minds. Stone's call to action (reminiscent of the earlier stated need for a federal journalist shield law NOW), makes me shudder.

His "elightenment" is the nihilistic tripe that MTV, public school teachers, and Entertainment Weekly give us.

Why does Stone never answer the quite articulate criticism of the homosexualist agenda? E.g. that the nations furthest down the path Stone favors have declining heterosexual marriage rates and other social pathologies that might very well be linked to the devaluation of traditional heterosexual relationships that comes with the great "elightenment" of Professor Stone.

But now, back to the teach-in:

It may have been Camelot for Jack and Jacqueline
But on the Che Guevara highway filling up with gasoline
Fidel Castro's brother spies a rich lady who's crying
Over luxury's disappointment
So he walks over and he's trying
To sympathise with her but he thinks that he should warn her
That the Third World is just around the corner
In the Soviet Union a scientist is blinded
By the resumption of nuclear testing and he is reminded
That Dr Robert Oppenheimer's optimism fell
At the first hurdle
In the Cheese Pavilion and the only noise I hear
Is the sound of someone stacking chairs
And mopping up spilt beer
And someone asking questions and basking in the light
Of the fifteen fame filled minutes of the fanzine writer
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forwards
Jumble sales are organised and pamphlets have been posted
Even after closing time there's still parties to be hosted
You can be active with the activists
Or sleep in with the sleepers
While you're waiting for the Great Leap Forwards
One leap forward, two leaps back
Will politics get me the sack?
here comes the future and you can't run from it
If you've got a blacklist I want to be on it
It's a mighty long way down rock 'n roll
From Top of the Pops to drawing the dole
If no one seems to understand
Start your own revolution and cut out the middleman
In a perfect world we'd all sing in tune
But this is reality so give me some room
So join the struggle while you may
The Revolution is just a T-shirt away
Waiting for the Great Leap Forwards



you say "E.g. that the nations furthest down the path Stone favors have declining heterosexual marriage rates and other social pathologies that might very well be linked to the devaluation of traditional heterosexual relationships that comes with the great "elightenment" of Professor Stone."

Isn't declining heterosexual marriage rates a good thing, or rather declining reproduction rates? Have you seen the divorce rates these days? It is pretty clear that the globe is overpopulated, is it not? Have you been to a country like India or China recently? (I'm guessing you may have never actually left the country) Heterosexual marriage is alive and well there, and I'd rather be the rich person, the middle class person or the working class person in the Netherlands than India ANY DAY.

What social pathologies are you referring to?

My favorite was your saying: "just because people used to believe one thing and increasingly today believe something else does not mean that the later-held belief is the better one"

Well duh. But all things being equal, I'll put my money on the latter held belief. The Earth is round and it does orbit the sun. Women are human beings worthy of equal rights, political, economic and physical autonomy. Black people are not inherently inferior, should not be slaves and are worthy of equal rights too! The world in which people believe in electricity is better than the one without it. Progress happens, and I promise you Lackawanna, you believe in 99% of teh latter-held beliefs in this world when it comes to your daily life, and it is for your own benefit.

So Lackawanna, perhaps it is you whop needs to take his or her head out of the sand and buck up! Progress is inevitable and it is happening all around you. Just becasue people are different and upset the rigid comfort zone you have carved out for yourself doesn't mean you should tacitly support discrimination against those people. Sure not all off change is good, but equal rights for all is certainly good. No one is asking you to be a homosexual, no one is asking you to approve of it morally. Just don't discriminate when it comes to basic rights and duties in the public sphere. Allow a gay couple to have the same succession rights as hetero ones. You know gay couple do exist whether you like it or not. Don't discriminate or allow others to discriminate when it comes to housing or employment. That is not much to ask.

Hell, I'm like you Lackawanna. I think homosexuality is largely a symptom of capitalist alienation, of the severely polorized gender construct and the alientation that results in our culture. I'm no fan of mass capitalist media either, or entertainment weekly. However, where you and I diverge is you willingness to allow teh state to discriminate against people living their own lives privately. It is wrong, whether you believe in homosexuality or not, to deny a gay couple who actually lives together monogamously the same marriage rights that heteros enjoy, or to not hire someone based on whether they like men or women in their romatic lives.

Can you see how, even if you don't believe that homsexuality is moral or good for society in its current, almost trendy, cultural form, whether to grant homosexcuals equal rights is an entirely distinct issue? You see how I can support gay marriage rights, even though I believe that homosexuality is afucntion of capitalism, alienationa and class society? It is a far more sophisticated political view to distinguish your understanding of civil rights and political freedoms from you moral and ethical beliefs.

UC Alum

"E.g. that the nations furthest down the path Stone favors have declining heterosexual marriage rates and other social pathologies that might very well be linked to the devaluation of traditional heterosexual relationships that comes with the great "elightenment" of Professor Stone."

Lakwanna's flawed assertion lacks empirical support. If anyone on here wants to read about how recognition of same-sex partnerships has affected marriage and birthrates in Europe, I suggest the newest book by William Eskridge & Darren Spedale, and also the works of M.V. Lee Badgett on the topic.

The main proponent of Lackwanna's point of view, Stanley Kurtz, has pretty much been crushed by the weight of empirical evidence against his position.

Lackawanna Blues

Yes, let's trust William Eskridge -- career apologist for homosexualists.

No thanks.


If you repeat a lie long enough, people may start to believe it.

There is something queer in Stone suggestion above that gay rights is a matter of justice with little negative consequence. We're told, "Who really cares about gay marriage?" Straights have their own, well-established norms. People are not suddenly going to change their practices just because gays can get married and follow their traditionally more sexually loose practices.

I'd respond in two ways. First, the unraveling of sexual morality that has led to the current push for gay marriage began in the Sixties, with the heterosexual "sexual revolution." Who would have thought a bunch of dirty hippies and draft-dodgers cavorting in upstate New York would lead to legally sanctioned gay marriage from the highest court in Massachusetts?

Secondly, I'd make an analogy involving my Catholic faith. I would argue that Catholic marriage has been weakened in the U.S. by easily available civil divorces. In the Catholic Church--and other Christian religions--marriage is truly "'til death do you part." Annulments were infrequent until recent times. The civil law once tracked this norm.

But now many Catholics get civilly divorced, civilly remarried, and act like nothing happened, even though they're still married in the eyes of the Catholic Church and their subsequent marriage is technically an act of adultery. In their eyes and in the eyes of the public, though, the civil marriage has equal dignity as the religious marriage. This view persists among many Catholic even though marriage is supposed to be a Sacrament defined by Church rules and procedures, and only available and only "annulable" under those procedures.

The widespread availability of civil divorces have created pressure on the American Church in particular to grant annulments that are probably not theologically sound and that are based on fraudulent testimony by the couple seeking the annulment. Because both religious and civil marriages are called "marriage" and have the same attendant civil rights, I think it's plain that the easy standards of civil marriages are corrupting the practices of individual Catholics and of American Catholic Church leaders.

These two institutions existing side by side and having the same name and same legal benefits tend to resemble one another more over time. This is highly predictable. One can only imagine how the widespread description of legally recognized gay couples as "marriages" would affect heterosexual practices.

That many want gay "marriage" to change and liberalize heterosexual practices is pretty much undeniable. Gay advocates have said as much:

Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! magazine, has stated their goals is tow in:

"... the fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely. To debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of marriage altogether." (Out! magazine, Dec./Jan., 1994)

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness."(Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society´s view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn´t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? Marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. (quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I´d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada´s Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or *number* of persons entering into a marriage unit."

We've been here before. Stone's gay rights proposal--one in which he lacks all objectivity--has many of the same features of other aspects of the liberal program. First, rights are demanded by some group that says it's "just like us." Women, for example, want access to the military, private clubs, and various professions; this (often reasonable) demand is based on their abilities and willingness to do the job. Non-Europeans want to immigrate; they say they're no different, and no less assimilable, than previous generations of immigrants. The demand is made in terms of basic fairness; people that are the same, should be treated the same. Gays say they should be allowed to memorialize their serious, romantic relationships through traditional marriages.

Once these demands are met, however, a new narrative emerges. Women are not "just like us," they're different. They'll add intuition, good sense, maturity, sensitivity, and a different-but-better-way to whatever institution they were previously excluded from. Whatever standards were used to distinguish excellence between men--PT standards in the army, commissions among a sales force, billable hours--should be discarded because they do not do justice to the inchoate skills that have now been brought to the table.

The new immigrants, far from assimilating, demand that we celebrate their differences and not require them to furl (?) their foreign flags, speak English, and otherwise behave like everyone else.

Gays ask that we adopt a broader view of marriage that does not require monogomy. And when this comes to pass, people like Stone will dismiss this objection as retrograde and not in keeping with the times, even though now he will dismiss this objection as alarmist and not in keeping with the likely reality of the social changes he is proposing.

The reason for this situation is the parallel leftist contempt for the inherited culture. The exclusion of some group from some benefit of that culture in the recent past does not prove to such people that an objectively good thing has not been fairly distributed, and that its wider distribution "as is" would be just and beneficial, but that the dominant culture and its institutions are demented and oppressive and need to be destroyed.

This bait-and-switch is the reason why leftism is so corrosive and why conservatives have the sometimes-difficult task of resisting change: lying behind discrete demands for justice--that are often reasonable standing alone--are a series of ever-increasing demands for change that aim ultimately to destroy western civilization. The liberalism of someone like Geoff Stone is a Trojan Horse. It is a slick, dishonest, and seductive mechanism to destroy social mores while labeling their destruction a type of progress.

PS, Isn't this use of flowery and suggestive language--"enlightenment" "progress"--and the strawman description of one's opponents beneath a person of Stone's intelligence. Apparently not. Or, as he would say, "Apparently NOT."


Mr. Lackawanna Blues, your suggestion that gay marriage is corrosive to society is devoid of empirical evidence. And in fact the empirical evidence that does exist works against you: the Scandinavian countries have some of the most liberal attitudes towards gay marriage, and they also have much better social behavior statistics then the USA.

Mr. Roach, I have previously sworn off responding to your nonsense, but I'll make an exception to point out (for the benefit of others) that your diatribe is a textbook example of slippery slope reasoning. At no point do you actually address the merits of gay marriage itself -- instead, your argument consists of hellfire-and-brimstone warnings about what the gays will want after they get gay marriage. Substitute "pool halls" for "gay marriage" and you could write a musical about it. The fact that you cannot address the issue itself is the best demonstration of the absence of any logical basis for opposition to gay marriage.

Lackawanna Blues

At the same time that you accuse Roach of not addressing the merits of gay "marriage" (which he has, here and on his own blog), you do not refute the slippery slope argument that Roach makes -- other than to call it a slippery slope argument.

If you don't think that gay "marriage" will lead to legalized polygamy, bestiality, and the ultimate end of marriage as an institution I'd like to know why you think "progressives" such as Geof Stone and his ilk will stop with gay "marriage." They won't. Already articles appear in the law reviews and progressive journals about polygamy. It won't be long before some other group thinks that they are the next "gays" and need to be protected.


No, I don't think that gay marriage will lead to "legalized polygamy, bestiality, and the ultimate end of marriage." You ask why all that "ilk" will stop with gay marriage. Maybe they won't. Indeed, I'm sure that the Sheep Lovers of America will come out of the woodwork wanting to marry their ovine lovers. However, I'd like to point out that the Sheep Lovers of America don't have that many votes. Remember, we're still a democracy. The people decide, remember? You are assuming that, if the American people decide to permit gay marriage, then they'll automatically permit cross-species marriage. I find your assumption very questionable. Have you any empirical evidence to support your assumption?


I'd like to add a question: you and many of the opponents of gay marriage insist that gay marriage will be the end of conventional marriage. I have never understood the reasoning behind this claim. How does the existence of gay marriage threaten conventional marriage? I simply cannot imagine the following conversation:

Romeo: Ah, Juliet, if the measure of thy joy
Be heap'd like mine, and that thy skill be more
To blazon it it, then sweeten with thy breath
This neighbor air, and let rich music's tongue
Unfold the imagin'd happiness that both
Receive in either by this dear encounter.
Juliet: I'm sorry, Romeo, but I cannot.
Romeo: And why not, light of the morn?
Juliet: Because some gays down the street got married.

UC Alum

Since other people have already said what I'd like to say in very compelling ways, I'm going to make another reading recommendation: "Same-sex Marriage and Slippery Slopes" by Eugene Volokh.


Volokh explains why fears of same-sex marriage causing a slippery slope are largely unfounded.

Lackawanna, Volokh does not usually write on gay rights (as does Eskridge). So, given what seems to be your criteria for selecting literature, maybe you'll give this article a try.


LAK said, "I think homosexuality is largely a symptom of capitalist alienation..."

I haven't heard this exact idea before. What do you mean by homosexuality? Homosexual acts, homosexual love, homosexual self-conception, etc?

I think we have evidence that all of those things predated capitalism. See Louis Crompton's "Homosexuality and Civilization."
Or hell, just go to Wikipedia to get a few dozen examples of ancient same-sex love and sex.

Regarding Roach's comment about gay marriage leading to changed in straight marriage: yeah, probably. So?

If a gay guy talks his friends, a straight married couple, into trying anal sex, I don't think the world will be worse off.

Can you say more about what changes for the worse you expect?



No doubt homosexuality predates capitalism. Human beings as far as I can tell are omnisexual and learn to assign sexual desire to particular types of people or even objects as they are socialized. They can sexualize men, women, farm animals, housepets, children, even some kinds of fruits and vegtables and the ocassional houseplant.

But the cultural phenomenon we are experienceing today, which I have observed in college, on TV, living in SF, is largely a function of capitaist alienation in my book, and has more to do with homosexual "identity" and the notion of a unique homosexual "culture," more than it has to do with any sexual act. Our culture and mass media have so polarized genders for the sake of profit in such an extreme manner, and have sexualized almost everything in sight, creating the illusion that everyone is having great sex all the time with hot people, that there is such intense pressure at an early age for people to fit into these rigid polarize gender norms that it creates widespread sexual alienation as well as widespread self - alienation.

If you are born a man with a high voice or a love of dance instead of sport, you are pretty much pigeon holed in to feeling unmanly in our culture, which creates problem at an early age in terms of sexual self esteem and one's conception of one's value in the heterosexual marketplace. If you a woman born athletic or agressive, same deal. Or did you not noticed how "unattractive" women marginalized in the hetero marketplace at an early age tended to become lesbians in college at a much much higher rate than did the girls who looked like women do on TV?

Now I don't think capitalism is soley responsible for any individual's sexual choices or identity, but one's percieved self worth in the hertosexual marketplace does loom large in my mind, along with the dynamics of the parental relationship among other social influences in determining a person sexual "identity" in our culture.

As a normative matter, and as a dreamy mystical idealist, as an ethical thinker, I'm inclined to believe that heterosexual erotic love monagamous relationships have more to offer any indvidual than a homosexual one. Sex is the only meaningful human differentiation in my book and there is something mystical and naturalistic to me about the polarity of sexual differentiation and the systematic differences in how men and women feel and think about the world (but this difference certainly doesn't have to play out into the grotesque gender norms that exist today). But that is an idealism. Our culture is so flawed, there is such alienation out there and a lack of self-awareness, that on average most heterosexual relationship I've obserevd are less healthy than most homosexual relationship I've observed, probably having to do with the type of people with the courage to overcome very flawed sexual and gender norms in our society.

But more importantly, no way would I ever impose my beliefs on others or deny homsexuals equal protection of the law and freedom from discrimination, which is the real issue here.



You say:

"First, the unraveling of sexual morality that has led to the current push for gay marriage began in the Sixties, with the heterosexual "sexual revolution." Who would have thought a bunch of dirty hippies and draft-dodgers cavorting in upstate New York would lead to legally sanctioned gay marriage from the highest court in Massachusetts?"

You contradict what I think you were trying to demonstrate. Indeed your quote suggests that it was the changes in heterosexual norms and laws that changed our norms with repect to homsexuality, not the other way around. So whatevr you are scared of with respect to gay culture and legal protection eroding hetero norms and laws, already was happeneing without the influence of the vast homsexual conspiracy.

Then you say:

"Secondly, I'd make an analogy involving my Catholic faith. I would argue that Catholic marriage has been weakened in the U.S. by easily available civil divorces. In the Catholic Church--and other Christian religions--marriage is truly "'til death do you part." Annulments were infrequent until recent times. The civil law once tracked this norm."

So what? This worry about your religious faith is between you and your church. You are esentailly arguing that the law should consider and protect your particular religion over equal rights and justice for all. Ever hear of the establishment clause? I would consider it before you advance your next arugment that some people should be denied equal protection of the law becasue it undermines the credibility of your 2000 year old cult.

Joan A. Conway

From my own experience the social regulations within companies and states comes upon a poison well.

Works are just that words. Behavior and acceptance are much harder to achieve.

If it were not so then the words would not have been needed in the first place.

Beware of social documents stating the tolerance of a company or state, in order to save its face, when its practices are anything but inclusion, usually by other obscure and deceptive means.

Lies and rather big lies are very common with corporate and government entities.

They say that they reflect the times, but as usual they are way behind the times. Gays beware of what is being sold to you in the name of being modern.

They give with one hand and take away with the other, because of resistence to change in a Republic form of government.

This is a very deceptive policy.


Lak I was employing a technique called an analogy. If non-Catholic norms can influence Catholics, it is reasonable to suppose that homosexual norms will influence heterosexual ones.

As for the so what point above. This is a legitimate position; who cares if heterosexuals become a bunch of swinging, nonmonogamous degenerates. But this development is downplayed now as unlikely and will be downplayed in the future as unimportant. There is kind of an honesty issue here; if you mean for heterosexuals to behave like a bunch of sex addicts on Christopher Street, you should at least admit this is something you're indifferent to.

Todd Fox

Here is a report on how most Massachusetts marriages are now on the verge of collapse, now that gays and lesbians have the right to marry.


Lackawanna, Roach, you just may be right. LOL.


Roach, you conveniently didn't respond to my first point, in which you admit it was the heterosexual dirty hippies casting off the repression of the 50s that is to blame for the unravelling of the ridiculous institution of marriage and of repressed sexuality. It seems we heteros don't and didn't need any help at overcoming outdated norms of sexuality and marriage, which you admit. So you kind of lose that argument, don't ya? Yea, you do. But I know, you so desperately want to blame homosexuals for what is occuring naturally as a function of progress and personal freedom.

I mean for people to behave any way they please so long as it doesn't hurt me or others, but I sure as hell am not going to impose my morals on others who are simply trying to live freely and equally,like you would. You should be ashamed of yourself for advancing such bullshit arguments as to why you think you can impose your 2000 year old cult rules on the rest of society.


Chums, you're wasting your time trying to reason with Mr. Roach. His responses are unresponsive; his reasoning is illogical; his supporting evidence is not evident. Until Mr. Roach demonstrates a willingness to discuss the matter with intellectual integrity, you might as well be arguing with a chimp throwing feces.


The 2000 year old "Cult" happens to be the religion of most Americans. There is no reason a bunch of secularists, weirdos, and people with perverse desires should define our norms as against this majority sentiment. After all, Stone made an appeal to majoritarian sentiment above; let's just see what happens as these gay marriage initiatives continue to face the ballot box. They seem almost always to lose.

I did respond. It's true, heterosexuals have made a mess of things due to the counsel of people like you. Now we have a significantly bastardized society where tons of people spend tons of money on therapy because they don't know who their daddy is, or they lack self esteem, or self control, or because their oversexualized mothers' boyfriends have a habit of molesting them. These are the fruits of your run-amuck libertine freedom.

But yes, it can get worse, which is why I oppose the extension of marriage to sodomites. There is at least now two warring ways to live: traditional and the narcissistic/amoral/modern way. I oppose the continued advances of the latter. I would no more allow two men and two women to get married than a man and a child or a man and a sheep or three men and a woman or any other number of combinations that serve no social purpose other than the hedonistic desires of the participants.

There is completely lacking from the left on this issue any notion that we're part of a broader community, that individual behaviors have social effects (the moral equivalent of global warming), or that induldging in every wayward and unregulated impulse is not the key to individual happiness or social stability and order.

I'll say one last thing. I can't predict the future. Neither can you all. Conservatives are wary of the unintended consequences of change. It seems to me the various negatives from sexual license since the sixties were not fully forseen by the Douglas Ginsberg/Abbie Hoffman/Masters & Johnson crowd.

Prove to me the alleged train of horribles from gay marriage--i.e., the further breakdown of marriage and the normalization of what are now the minority polyamorous behaviors of homosexuals--won't come to pass. I don't see why the burden of proof is on me, who simply wants to defend in recognizable form a 10,000 year old social institution rather than those who are embracing a faddish ethic of sexual "equality" that's only been around since the 1960s.

PS Lak, I did respond to your first point, by mocking its obtuseness and reminding you that my original point was an analogy.



Your argument was that you have an interest in banning gay marriage and to prevent equal protection of the law for homosexuals becasue doing so would undermine the Christian understanding of marriage. What was your analogy? I don't see one. You then admit that we secular heterosexual types were to blame for the erosion of Christian marriage norms. Huh? Which one is it buddy?

And since when as a legal matter does the law protect the establishment of religion over personal freedom and equal protection? It doesn't. Just becasue the falsity of your 2000 year old cult is finally becoming obvious and its dated, primitive, ignorant norms are eroding naturally as they should, doesn't mean that you are free to establish your cult rules over basic equal protection and non-discrimination.

It would be one thing if somehow gay marriage as a legal matter eroded hetero marriage rights. It doesn't. What you are arguing is that it undermines the religious foundation for it, which, if you were worth a tenth of what your U of C education costs as a lawyer, you would understand is neither here nor there when it comes to the law. You simply seek to impose your religion on others at cost to funadamental nontions of equal protection and fairness captured in the constitution and anti-discrimination laws.

Indeed, it is your burden if your argument relies on the rules of your cult, rather than some tangible harm it could do to the legal reality of hetero marriage. Since you can point to nothing other than your cowardly fear of the erosion of your precious religious institutions as the basis for denying people constitutional righst and freedom from discrimination, you are nothing but a two bit bigot and a shitty legal thinker.


Careful now LAK . . .

Far from "imposing his religion on others" Roach made a direct appeal to the ballot box. The only people advocating forced "enlightenment" here are you, Stone, Eras, and your ilk.

Let Sweden embark on the great gay marriage experiment. If in 100 years the Swedes are thriving, we too can take the great leap forward.


yea, the constitution trumps the ballot box. That's why we have a Constitution and Courts and even the executive branch some times. That's why we are actually attempting to discuss the purported reasons one might have to continue to deny equal protection of the law to homosexual couples (who actually exist) and to allow discrimination in employment and housing on the basis of their sexual orientation.

No matter how hard they vote, Christians can't impose their religion on the rest of us, even if they are the majority. That constitution is a bitch now isn't it? So you'd better come up with a reason other than "Jesus would be pissed" or "that's the way the Catholic church has done it for 2000 years."

Is it "irony" if Roach is right about the whole God thing yet nevertheless ends up in Hell? Or is that something else?


Temper, temper LAK.

When was the Constitutional right to gay marraige invented? The abortionists might tell you that impatiently jamming your innovations down the voters' gullet might not be the best long term strategy.

And, for the record, I made no reference at all to religion in my post. Not one word.

Frederick Hamilton

Equal protection in the Constitution has nothing to do with same sex marriage. That societal issue is up to hmmm... society. If indeed equal protection applies to same sex marriages, it also as Scalia notes applies to multiple partner marriages, et al. So far, only the Supreme Court of the State of Massachusetts was willing to give same sex couples the "right" to marriage. It appears the issue will be on the Massachusetts ballot this fall so the people will get to decide the issue. Ergo, people trump courts. Same with the federal Supremes. If they are loony enough to tread into the "right" of same sex couples to marry, I suspect a Constitutional ban on same sex marriage may be given to a plebiscite answer. Just a guess. The Supremes screwed up abortion (bad decision, no pnumbra there), now some want the Supremes to wade in on the "right" of John to marry Robert, or Sally to marry Margaret. I don't think the Supremes will jump into that abyss any tiem soon and it will be left up to the states to determine their own marriage laws. Interestingly, I think the natural culmination of the marriage rights argument doesn't end with the same sex aspect and therefore the federal law prohibiting multiple wives (or husbands for that matter) is now into play from a "rights" perspective. Why should Roach, BAC, LAK or Stone tell me who I can love and marry?


It has everything to do with equal protection. Yea sexual orientation is not a protected class yet, but either were women at one point. And yea, discrimination aganst people based on their sexual orientation is as bad for the country as discriminating in housing or employment based on religion or skin color. What happend to freedom and equality?

Multiple partner marriages? Whaaaa? Maybe if heteros could marry multiple partners. If two men live together it is an equal protection issue that they do not get the same sucession rights as married heteros. If they adopt a kid together, it is an equal protection issue if they do not get the same rights as heteros with respect to custody. Of course this is an Equal Protection issue.

Married homsexual couples exist in large numbers in our country. That is the reality. They raise kids and have the same issues as hetero couples with respect to all the rights that presumptions heteros get by virtue of marriage.

Don't be so short sighted Frederick.

Honestly, regardless of your moral compass on homosexuality, there is no legitimate reason other than appealing to religion to deny people who live togther as a married couple the same rights as hetero ones, and appealing to your reigion, even if it is the majority one, is no basis in U.S. law or in ethical inquiry to deny people equality of opprtunity in hisuing and employment and very real legal rights that would be benficial to them.

You all shuld be deeply ashamed of your bigotry and your inability to rise above your religious and moral beliefs in the name of freedom and equality. SHAME.

The comments to this entry are closed.