READ IT HERE: Prince William County Circuit Court Clerk Michele McQuigg’s reply brief in Bostic v. Schaefer at Fourth Circuit
May 1, 2014
LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials
The latest filing, via Kathleen Perrin and Equality Case Files, is a reply from Prince William County Circuit Court Clerk Michele McQuigg, who intervened to defend the ban. McQuigg is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) an anti-LGBT organization.
The first brief can be found here. The second brief can be found here. The third is here. The brief filed by the Bostic plaintiffs is here. The brief filed by the Harris plaintiffs is here. Norfolk County Circuit Court Clerk George Schaefer’s reply brief is here.
You can read the latest brief here:
14-1167 #212 by Equality Case Files
For more information on Bostic v. Rainey (formerly Bostic v. McDonnell)from The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, click here.
123 Comments
1.
davep | May 1, 2014 at 12:01 pm
Meh. Same pseudo-'arguments' as always. A lot of it reads like a response to someone who is trying to PREVENT other people from marrying, not to someone who is trying to ACCESS marriage.
It goes on and on about how important marriage is and what important purposes it serves. No kidding. That's why people who are needlessly denied access to it are taking the law to court. They got nothin'.
2.
Bose_in_SP_MN | May 1, 2014 at 1:03 pm
Oh well, again the "logic" that people in same-sex relationships have relinquished their gender, making their lives together "genderless."
Because, y'know, the same applies to NFL teams, right? They're genderless!
3.
Ragavendran | May 1, 2014 at 5:55 pm
Hearing tomorrow on combined motions for preliminary injunction and summary judgment in Indiana's Baskin v. Bogan proceeding at lightning speed (the TRO expires on May 9):
http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/federal-judge-…
4.
Mike in Baltimore | May 1, 2014 at 7:28 pm
The Indiana judicial system has never been known for acting quickly (unless there is a political reason [usually the reason determined by the governor] to act quickly. Indiana's current governor is very CONservative, even more CONservative than the previous governor, who was considered CONservative.).
That this case is in Federal court makes a difference, but even though Federal court judges should not be influenced by 'community attitudes and 'values' ' but by law, in Indiana the judges are influenced by the 'community attitudes and 'values' ' to a very great extent.
5.
Tim | May 1, 2014 at 8:10 pm
Arkansas state court ruling expected by 5/9.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/430247095715/perm…
6.
davep | May 1, 2014 at 8:38 pm
Can't access that link (I'm not 'facebooked'). Do you have another link? Thanks!
7.
Tim | May 1, 2014 at 8:54 pm
Try this.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/221482765/60cY-13-2662-…
8.
Eric Koszyk | May 1, 2014 at 10:42 pm
This is awesome!
The openly lesbian judge who presided over King County's first same sex marriage has just been appointed to the Washington State Supreme Court!
http://theseattlelesbian.com/interview-judge-mary…
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/05…
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12…
9.
Rose | May 1, 2014 at 11:19 pm
My issue with this brief is that they keep mentioning Baker vs Nelson as if it is more than it is and if they are so concern with the welfare of the children…why have they NOT prevented DIVORCE?
My other issue is this procreative responsible garbage……I mean denying Gays and Lesbians the right to marry ISN'T going to make heterosexuals more responsible or make them want to get married before having babies……..that argument has failed repeatedly and YET here they are trying it again!!!
10.
bayareajohn | May 2, 2014 at 1:06 am
Be happy they are recycling losing theories. It's all they have, and they lose. That's a good thing, right?
11.
TKinSC | May 2, 2014 at 3:08 am
"I mean denying Gays and Lesbians the right to marry ISN'T going to make heterosexuals more responsible or make them want to get married before having babies…."
Care to prove that? Actually, don't bother, because it's irrelevant. The question is, why is there marriage in the first place, and would it make sense to grant it to opposite-sex couples but not to same-sex couples. And that answer, as the brief explains, is yes. Namely, marriage helps make sure that those couples who are likely to produce children have an incentive to stay together.
Your objection is rather like saying "I mean, denying 15-year-olds the right to vote isn't going to make 18-year-olds more responsible or more likely to be informed before casting a ballot." or "I mean, denying 15-year-olds the right to drive isn't going to make 16-year-olds more responsible or more likely to buckle up before pulling out onto the road."
12.
JayJonson | May 2, 2014 at 6:40 am
Hate to break it to you, TKinSC, but gay couples also have children and their children also benefit from having married parents. As Justice Kennedy pointed out, the children of gay parents need protection, both legally and also from the kind of stigma people like you visit upon their parents. For all the talk about "family values" and "protect the children," the opponents of marriage equality demonstrate again and again that they don't care a fig about gay families.
13.
TKinSC | May 3, 2014 at 1:02 am
Why do the children of gay families need protection? As the people on your side are fond of pointing out, gays never have unwanted children. Every child raised by a homosexual family is wanted. Therefore, the state has no reason to give benefits to incentivize gay couples to stay together; they will naturally do so for the sake of the children.
Marriage is for making sure that couples that *do* produce unexpected children will more likely stay together and provide those children with a stable family, with the added benefit that the two parents, who are both (obviously) biologically related to the child, will be legally related to each other.
14.
Rakihi | May 3, 2014 at 1:27 am
This post does not even merit a response.
15.
Michael | May 3, 2014 at 1:51 am
We should not be giving special rights to those choosing the heterosexual lifestyle just because they sleep with the opposite sex. Loving, patriotic, gay taxpayers pay the same taxes as those choosing the heterosexual lifestyle and should, therefore, receive all the same rights, benefits and privileges as these "irresponsible" heterosexuals the aggressive pro-homophobia lobby keeps telling us about.
16.
Zack12 | May 3, 2014 at 2:07 am
I have news for you pal. If a person doesn't want kids and doesn't want to be a father or mother, they aren't going to stick around.
17.
davep | May 3, 2014 at 4:02 pm
Nope. Not even close. The various laws associated with legal marriage that help to give security to the children being raised in a family are not put in place to protect children from parents who would otherwise abandon them. They codify and recognize parental rights so that those parents can fulfill their parental rights and obligations unencumbered by ambiguity about whether they are in fact the parents. Also, when laws deny rights and protections to the parents themselves, which can cause financial and legal problems for the affected couple, this directly affects the children being raised in that family.
You keep pretending that the only reason civil marriage exists is to encourage straight people to procreate more responsibly. That's just idiotic rhetoric and is entirely debunked by a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
18.
Eric | May 2, 2014 at 7:43 am
The question is not "why is there marriage in the first place?" The answer is immaterial to the law.
The question is "what compelling governmental interest is furthered by denying marriage to same-sex couples?"
19.
TKinSC | May 3, 2014 at 12:54 am
That's not the question. The term "compelling governmental interest" doesn't even come into play unless we're talking about race or national origin discrimination.
You turn the question on its head by assuming that the government bears every burden of proving why it *must* deny a benefit to some that it grants to others. That's like saying, because some 14-year-olds can drive, the government must justify why they deny driver's licenses to 14-year-olds based on age.
The government can reasonably (even if incorrectly, which can never be proven) believe that whatever benefit is gained *to the state* of granting marriage to same-sex couples isn't worth the cost of having the definition of marriage gutted and rendered void of any connection with procreation. And once the government has made that policy determination, it's not for federal judges to second-guess the legislature's (and people's) determination of what they feel is right for their state.
So long as unequal treatment is not based purely on animus (and the plaintiffs have the burden of proving otherwise, which they can't do in this case because it is demonstrably false), jurisprudence demands that the law be upheld.
20.
RSC | May 3, 2014 at 1:48 am
hmm how come you didn't bring that up during any of the trials and hearings ?
How come none of the anti-gay groups asked you to defend the marriage bans in courts ? Oh, that’s right. Silly opinions are worth less than a bag stale potatoes.
21.
Eric | May 3, 2014 at 10:31 am
Marriage is a fundamental right, of course strict scrutiny applies. A marriage license is not like a drivers license. A marriage license is more akin to registering to vote.
22.
davep | May 3, 2014 at 4:08 pm
Nope. Laws that deny civil marriage to same sex couples fail to withstand even the most lenient application of rational basis scrutiny. There's that pesky word "rational" in there. You can't just throw out any old irrational "reason" as a justification for a law and call it a day. When you offer a goal that the law is supposed to help achieve, the actual effect of the law must be at least rationally related to the stated goal. And laws that deny marriage to same sex couples fail to advance any states interest. In every single instance of the defense offering an argument to try to justify these laws, their "argument" is either 1) not rationally related to the actual effect of the law, 2) the law actually IMPEDES the stated goal rather than advancing it, or 3) it isn't even a real states interest in the first place. They have no argument. Neither do you.
23.
Rose | May 2, 2014 at 8:13 am
My comment DOESN'T need to be proven………it is already done by the mere fact that children are being born EVERYDAY without their parents needing to be married and married couples AREN'T required to have babies……as Judge Walker said to Charles Cooper when he mentioned that he had married an opposite-sex couple who were 90 and 89 years old about their chances of procreating and all Cooper could say was, " I DON'T know"!!!
Marriage exists to form legal kinship, because people want to share their life with another and marriage is important to society and to the health of the couple:-)
No, it DOESN'T make ANY sense to grant the right to marry for one type of couple, but NOT another, NOR will it guarantee that the couple will stay together……..and if the defendants were truly CONCERN for the welfare of the children as they claim……why have States NOT banned or prevented divorce?
24.
TKinSC | May 3, 2014 at 1:44 am
"children are being born EVERYDAY without their parents needing to be married "
Perhaps it should be illegal to have children without being married. But even while it isn't, that doesn't change the fact that marriage exists to encourage couples to stay together, and the state's interest in keeping couples together is inextricably linked with the notion that those couples' relationships have produced, or are likely to produce, children. Same-sex relationships NEVER produce children, hence the benefits of marriage are wasted on same-sex couples.
"an opposite-sex couple who were 90 and 89 years old about their chances of procreating "
I suppose the state could prohibit people above a certain age from marrying, but that would be impracticable because men can still reproduce at pretty much any age. Furthermore, an opposite-sex couple of whatever age can still serve as a model of a man and woman staying together, and thus contribute to the dignity and respect of marriage overall.
And at any rate, the mere fact that not all married couples have children does not take away from the fact that children are the primary purpose of marriage, nor is the state generally required to perfectly fit its policies to their purposes. Suffice it to say, *most* opposite-sex couples will reproduce, while *100%* of same-sex couples will not. That is more than enough reason to conclude that same-sex couples are not who marriage is for.
"why have States NOT banned or prevented divorce?"
A very good question. Were it not for the evisceration of the definition of marriage that same-sex "marriage" has wrought, I would have said that no-fault divorce is the worst thing to happen to the institution of marriage in its entire history. I think it should be gotten rid of. That said, States can reasonably conclude that it is better to let couples divorce (and give up the benefits of marriage) than to force them to remain in unhappy marriages, which might end up hurting the very children that marriage is designed to protect.
(Do you see what I did there? I offered a rational basis for a policy with which I disagree. Try it sometime. It will make your arguments stronger.)
"Marriage exists to form legal kinship, because people want to share their life with another"
Sure, that's one of the benefits of marriage, but it is hardly the only purpose, or even the primary one. And couples can (or should be able to) make whatever legal arrangements they need to provide for each other, without being legal kin. The only reason for legal kinship is to let children understand that the mommy and daddy to whom they are related, are also related to each other. Granted, legal kinship makes a lot of things about being a couple easier, but the state simply has no interest in making things easier for same-sex couples, and certainly not a sufficient interest to justify separating legal kinship from procreation.
"marriage is important to society and to the health of the couple:-)"
Marriage is important to society because it means something to society. When its definition is changed, its importance is lost.
Would same-sex couples be healthier if the state considered them "married"? I don't think same-sex "marriage" has been around long enough to answer that question definitively, but even if the answer is "yes", that simply becomes one benefit to letting same-sex couples "marry" that has to be weighed against all the other considerations.
I mean, I would be a lot happier and healthier if the state were to tell me next week's lottery numbers in advance. That doesn't mean the state should do so.
25.
Lolker | May 3, 2014 at 1:54 am
If marriage is important to society, than you have just proven our point, since gay people and loving gay families are part of society, too. One does not need to sleep with the opposite sex to be worthy or important to society.
26.
Steve | May 3, 2014 at 7:38 am
TL,DR
27.
Rose | May 3, 2014 at 10:08 am
All you've done is shown what a pathetic azz you are……..the first time an opposite-sex couple is denied the right to marry……TRUST ME, all hell will fly…….hence why marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT…….just read the Zablocki ruling: http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/family-law/fam…
By the way, the ENTIRE procreation argument fails because though both the right to marry and the right to procreate have been ruled as FUNDAMENTAL….they WEREN'T ruled as having to go hand in hand…….again many cases like Skinner vs Oklahoma show why!!!
People who are "MARRIED" are by far healthier and live longer…….it DOESN'T apply to just heterosexuals who are married!!!
Again people get married and either NEVER want children, CAN'T have children or are past the age of childbearing…….we DON'T deny them the right to marry and JUST because a couple CAN procreate SHOULDN'T mean they should!!!
You equate being married and opposite-sex as something that means being good parents and it simply DOESN'T……many kids are in foster care or dropped off at safe centers simply because their biological parents COULDN'T or WOULDN'T care for them……….a parent is MORE than just providing sperm, egg and a womb….IT'S about putting the needs of another ABOVE their own!!!
What you have offered is typical crap responses just because you DON'T believe Gays and Lesbians should marry……well guess what……your viewpoints are IRRELEVANT and by the way….there is NO such thing as "SAME-SEX" marriage…….it is just marriage that EITHER involves an opposite-sex couple or a Same-Sex couple!!!
28.
davep | May 3, 2014 at 4:19 pm
1. Marriage serves far more purposes than just encouraging couples who might accidentally have children to stay together. And the state, via it's civil marriage laws, treats couples who procreate unintentionally no differently that other couples who raise children. In fact, it treats both of these groups no differently from couples who don't raise children at all.
2. The state makes no differentiation between couples who raise their own biological children and couples who raise children who have entered the family by other means such as adoption or one biological parent and one step parent. The state treats all people who are the legal parents of a child the same.
3. Any given same sex couple is just as likely to decide to raise children as any other couple. And the state treats these couples the same as other couples who raise children, for all the same reasons.
Your tired old meme about 'marriage exists to deal with irresponsible procreation' is ancient long-debunked rhetoric. You have no argument.
29.
JayJonson | May 6, 2014 at 6:03 am
Yes, marriage means a great deal to society. That is why most people now realize that it should be made available to all couples–opposite-sex or same-sex–that are willing to take on the responsibilities it entails.
30.
JWinKY | May 2, 2014 at 8:32 am
The state can make a case for establishing a minimum age to obtain a driver's license or setting the age requirement to vote that applies equally across all people. These age limits are set to protect these individuals (as well as the public) from the actions of the minors. Age of reason is one of the first requirements that must be satisfied to enter into any legally binding contract. That is settled law. Your analogy falls apart because the question of treating adults and minors differently is in no way comparable to treating various groups of adults differently under civil law.
31.
Eric | May 2, 2014 at 11:26 am
And, all states allow minors to marry. Some states don't even have a minimum age requirement and other states recognize those marriages.
32.
Mike in Baltimore | May 2, 2014 at 9:53 pm
Actually, the minimum age for any party to marriage in 48 states (and DC) is 18.
It is 19 in Nebraska and 21 in Mississippi.
But yes, other states recognize those marriages, just as Indiana (which, by law, hasn't allowed any 'common law' marriages to be formed in the state since the mid-1950s recognizes 'common law' marriages that were 'finalized' in Pennsylvania before that state didn't allow them to be 'formed' early in the 21st Century).
In other words, a heterosexual couple from Mississippi, where one or both are at least 19, but not yet 21 years old (and thus too young to get married in Mississippi, could get married in any other state, return to Mississippi, and be recognized by the state of Mississippi as married.
When a state allows a minor to be married, it is almost universally conditioned on the written permission of the parent, parents (if BOTH are still living) or guardian. and many times a court decision is added to the requirement.
33.
Pat | May 3, 2014 at 12:43 am
Wow, a 20-year old man and a 20-year old woman really cant get married in Mississippi?? Thats crazy! And surprising no one has ever fought this law!?
34.
Mike in Baltimore | May 3, 2014 at 2:41 am
And in 48 states, two 18 year olds can get married without permission, but not in Nebraska (where the minimum age is 19) and the above mentioned Mississippi (minimum age of 21).
35.
Eric | May 3, 2014 at 10:34 am
As I said, states allow minors to marry and other states recognize those marriages.
36.
Mike in Baltimore | May 4, 2014 at 12:17 am
What I was replying to was your "Some states don't even have a minimum age requirement. . . . " statement.
If that is true, then why not provide examples?
37.
JayJonson | May 4, 2014 at 8:42 am
In many states, minors, usually at least 15 or 16, may marry with the permission of their parents. Some states, including Alabama and Mississippi, iirc, will allow minors as young as 14 to marry if the prospective bride is pregnant.
All of these marriages are routinely recognized in states that would not allow such marriages to be performed in their own jurisdictions.
38.
Mike in Baltimore | May 4, 2014 at 4:58 pm
And your post is responsive to your previous comment that "Some states don't even have a minimum age requirement. . . . " comment in your previous post.
Can you provide examples of states with NO minimum age requirement of any kind, even with parental permission?
All you have provided is two examples of states with lower than 18 (and 'maybed' at that) age requirements, albeit with parental permission.
39.
Eric | May 6, 2014 at 10:19 am
The additional condition of "even with parental permission" was yours, not mine. The claim that minors can't marry is factually incorrect, unlike gays, they can.
40.
Mike in Baltimore | May 6, 2014 at 1:38 pm
"Some states don't even have a minimum age requirement. . . . "
THAT is a direct quote from your original post. NO qualification of parental permission required. And even then, there is a minimum age IN EVERY STATE when parental or guardian or court permission is allowed.
So FACTUALLY, there are ZERO states that do not have a minimum age, which is what you stated in your original post.
BTW I – I never claimed that minors cannot marry. If you read that into what I stated, then your reading skills are seriously lacking.
BTW II – ". . . all states allow minors to marry." They do? What do you consider a minor? Under 21? If so, Mississippi says BOTH parties must be at least 21.
41.
Eric | May 6, 2014 at 2:11 pm
Factually, there is no statutory minimum age in California and a number of other states.
And, Mississippi will marry minors. Marriage licenses cannot be issued unless the MALE applicant is at least seventeen (17) years of age, and the FEMALE applicant is at least fifteen (15) years of age.
Note that both are under the age of majority.
42.
Mike in Baltimore | May 7, 2014 at 2:04 pm
It is true that California Family Code §300-303 does not set a minimum age limit. However, in order for anyone under the age of 18 to get married in California requires parental consent AND a court order obtained on the showing the court requires. Those are the requirements set in regulations, which in court are almost equivalent to law.
And in Mississippi, for anyone under the age of 21 to get married, they either must have parental permission, or if not, the marriage license application is held by the clerk for a period of time in order for parental permission to be obtained. That is set in Mississippi law. And Mississippi law also says that males under 17 and females under 15 can get married, but ONLY if the parents consent AND successfully petition a judge for a waiver of the age requirement.
FAR cry from your "Some states don't even have a minimum age requirement. . . ." initial blanket statement.
BTW – I did NOT say it was impossible for minors to get married, or that every state had a minimum age in state law (only). If you ASSumed I did, that is your reading comprehension problem, not mine.
43.
TKinSC | May 3, 2014 at 1:58 am
But why can the state simply deprive someone of rights based on the *assumption* that the person cannot reason? If a 17-year-old has the capacity to understand what he is doing when signing a contract, what compelling governmental interest is there to prevent him from doing so? Certainly the mere desire to keep someone whose date of birth was less than 18 years ago from enjoying the benefits of adulthood is not a compelling interest.
And states treat different groups of adults differently all the time. As a very simple example, many public universities have single-sex dorms. Pretty much every state has single-sex prisons. Veterans are treated differently from non-veterans. Alcoholics are treated differently from non-alcoholics by bar-closing laws. People who happened to guess the right numbers in a lottery drawing are treated vastly different from those who didn't. Blind quadriplegics are not allowed to drive. And so on and so forth.
The mere fact that people are treated differently by the law does not mean they are being treated, in a constitutional sense, unequally. Same goes for people in same-sex relationships (which, by the way, they chose to enter, knowing that marriage would not be available to them).
44.
Sagesse | May 3, 2014 at 5:09 am
There is a 'fundamental' difference (pun intended) between age of consent/majority laws and other forms of discrimination.
Under age of consent/majority laws, EVERYONE is denied a right or privilege until they attain a certain age, after which EVERYONE is allowed the right or privilege. And the legal basis for the distinction (the adult ability to make informed decisions) is not the subject of debate (or not much debate). One can differ about where the line should be drawn, and states differ on where the line is drawn, but the principle is not in question. As for the age of consent for marriage, it is an odd but interesting fact that if a couple is underage when married, in a few short years they will have attained their majority, and be eligible for legal marriage anyway, so the legal question no longer has any point.
It is in no way comparable to being denied the right to marry someone of another race or someone of the same sex under any circumstances, at any time.
45.
Colleen | May 2, 2014 at 8:41 am
Speaking as one half of one of these opposite-gender marriages that are apparently so fragile the mere whiff of Gay could pop it like a soap bubble, my marital union was joined to provide me and my husband mutual financial support, shared property rights (including custody of any children we might have, though it's not likely in our case because yuck: kids), and the various benefits and responsibilities conferred on married couples by our state and by the federal government. Finally, if we choose one day to split up, the state, far from insisting we stay together, no matter how many offspring we may have had at that hypothetical point, provides clear rules to keep a divorce fair and equitable, and there are whole systems in place to untangle any knots of contention. None of this benefits me and my husband in any way that it could not equally benefit a same-gender couple, and extending those benefits to a same-gender couple harms me in no way I can imagine.
So no, as a straight married person, I'd say that your reason for the existence of marriage is off the mark.
46.
TKinSC | May 3, 2014 at 2:19 am
You're confusing the reasons you get married (which vary from person to person) with the reasons the state offers marriage to you. If the state had somehow been willing to invest the resources necessary to devine that "Colleen and her husband are never going to have kids", then the state could perhaps have decided that there's no reason to let you and your husband receive the status and benefits of marriage. Lucky for you, the state has chosen not to micromanage who is and who isn't going to have kids, and instead has chosen to allow marriage to all opposite-sex couples on the theory that the vast majority of them will, in fact, have kids, while denying it to same-sex couples on the theory — nay, certainty — that 100% of them will not.
Nor is the question, would your marriage personally suffer if gay couples could get married. There are more straight people than you and your husband out there. Some of them are not (yet) married, and might be less likely to do so if they believed they were entering into a banal, genderless union instead of a solemn union of the two sexes. Some of them are married, and might value their marriage less for the same reason.
And even if gay "marriage" were no threat to the marriages of straight people or to marriage in general, that still doesn't mean that the state has any interest in providing the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. The fact remains, they clearly cannot have kids. That puts them in a different position even from you, since you might change your mind.
47.
Rose | May 3, 2014 at 10:18 am
Again, your procreation argument is IRRELEVANT seeing as the right to marry has NOTHING to do with the right to have children………..this is the main point you and those idiots like you are missing!!!
The State MUST prove the compelling interest to keep marriage strictly between a man and a woman…….they have FAILED in EVERY court case thus far!!!
By the way, Gays and Lesbians are NOT incapable of having children, just NOT within the natural confinements of the marriage, but then NEITHER are infertile couples…both may need to use outside medical help or adopt and under the laws of this Country…….when a couple adopts, that child is treated as if it were their natural biological child……and in MOST states Gays and Lesbians can legally adopt……therefore it's RIDICULOUS to deny them the right to marry……..and by the way, my wife and I have been legally married almost 6 years……has it personally affected you or your marriage in ANY way? Because if it has…..then your marriage WASN'T very stable to begin with!!!
48.
JustMe | May 3, 2014 at 4:19 pm
"when a couple adopts, that child is treated as if it were their natural biological child"
No they are not. An adopted child is not treated as a biological child … a visit to the doctors office by an adopted child with a genetic disease will confirm that.
49.
Rose | May 3, 2014 at 6:12 pm
I DIDN'T say biological as in DNA match….I meant as if the child was yours to begin with……in other words will be treated the same as if it were a biological child….get it now?
50.
davep | May 2, 2014 at 9:53 am
No, TKinSC, the question is most certainly not 'why is there marriage'. The question is:
Can the state make laws that deny the rights and protections of civil marriage to same sex couples while still complying with our U.S. Constitution?
And the answer is no, it cannot. Such laws fail the most basic tests for constitutional compliance. They target a group for different legal treatment, harm that group, and fail to advance any states interest in doing so that could justify allowing that harm and different legal treatment to remain in effect. Thus, they serve no legitimate purpose.
51.
TKinSC | May 3, 2014 at 2:30 am
Marriage laws don't "target" anyone. They apply equally, across the board, to everyone. Gays and lesbians, if they so desire, can marry someone of the opposite sex just like straight people can. The fact that they choose not to do so is neither the state's fault nor the state's problem. There's nothing in the Constitution that says a same-sex couple must be treated equally to an opposite-sex couple. The two are different in a glaringly obvious way, and different things can be treated differently under the Constitution.
And the state's interests for doing so are many (see my earlier posts for details). But even if there were some doubt as to that, the burden is on those who want the law changed to prove there is no *conceivable* interest that might be *conceivably* advanced by the policy — not simply that they don't agree with the interest.or that they personally feel the interest can be advanced differently or that other interests more compelling.
52.
Rose | May 3, 2014 at 10:24 am
The old "GAYS AND LESBIANS CAN MARRY SOMEONE OF THE OPPOSITE-SEX" crap…….sorry, but why would someone want to marry someone they AREN'T attracted to?
Actually there is something in the Constitution that states Gays and Lesbians MUST be treated equally…..it's called the 14th Amendment……try reading Section 1!!!
By the way, my marriage is the same as an opposite-sex couple's marriage UNDER the laws of this Country……..and it's taken over 5 years for my marriage to get FEDERAL recognition and the rights, benefits and privileges that should have been there since DAY 1 of my marriage, which by the way opposite-sex couple's legally married enjoy from day 1 one their married lives together!!!
Frankly, you're a troll and bring NOTHING of value to this discussion and I see idiots like you daily on another blog site I post on!!!
53.
Eric | May 3, 2014 at 10:37 am
Your statement is factually incorrect. Prop 8 certainly targeted someone. It eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry. It said so right on the ballot.
54.
SoCal_Dave | May 3, 2014 at 1:48 pm
What is the state's interest in allowing gays and lesbians to marry the opposite sex? They're not going to procreate.
While we're at it, your earlier post that older opposite sex partners who cannot procreate are allowed to marry because they offer "an example" is ludicrous. They are not an example of long-term marriage if they are JUST NOW getting married. And the example they offer is of a couple that does NOT procreate.
fail fail and fail
55.
davep | May 3, 2014 at 4:37 pm
Laws that deny marriage to same sex couples don't target anyone? That's hilarious! Looks like you haven't been reading any of the trial records. In the years following the first decisions about civil marriage for same sex couples in this country, states began enacting legislation for the specific purpose of denying marriage to same sex couples. The legislative debates and the political ads that aired to the public about these measures made no attempt to conceal the purpose of the measure or to hide the animus-driven anti-gay motives. They were not enacted to 'encourage responsible procreation'. Potentially procreative opposite sex couples had just as much or as little encouragement to behave responsibly both before and after measures like Prop 8 were enacted. Laws that denied marriage to OTHER couples had no effect on them at all. The actual motives for these laws were clear, and this is all now a part of the judicial record in these cases. The anti-gay rhetoric of the bigots has now come back to bite them.
56.
davep | May 3, 2014 at 4:38 pm
And no, there hasn't been a single argument put forth to explain how these laws could even conceivably serve a purpose that is a valid purpose for a civil law. The arguments from those trying to defend such laws have all failed to survive the slightest bit of logical scrutiny, and these laws have repeatedly failed the most basic tests for constitutional compliance. You have no argument.
57.
Schteve | May 6, 2014 at 3:59 am
Anti-miscegenation laws also applied equally across the board. A black person could marry someone of her own race just as a white person could. The fact that they chose not to was neither Virginia's fault nor Virginia's problem.
58.
Mike in Baltimore | May 6, 2014 at 10:05 am
Yes, and when SCOTUS heard the state of Virginia trying that 'logic', it had to suppress laughter.
59.
KarlS | May 6, 2014 at 10:12 am
It's not at all clear from that comment where you stand on the issue. Care to elaborate?
60.
Schteve | May 7, 2014 at 1:10 am
My stance is irrelevant to pointing out that this was the same logic Virginia used to justify anti-miscegenation laws.
61.
StraightDave | May 6, 2014 at 3:02 pm
@TKinSC
"The two are different in a glaringly obvious way, and different things can be treated differently under the Constitution. "
Gee, black and white people are different in a glaringly obvious way. Should they be treated differently under the Constitution?
NO, different people can not be treated differently, regardless of ANY of their characteristics. They are all humans, and they are are all citizens, and thus entitled to equal treatment. You really need to stop reading NOM's pathetic BS.
You're about 2 centuries behind the times, pal. S. Carolina's education system apparently is just as bad as its reputation has it.
62.
weaverbear | May 2, 2014 at 10:06 am
Please! Your argument is both tired and irrelevant. Procreation is not a requirement for marriage. If you're willing to go that route, are you willing to deny marriage to opposite sex couples who either cannot or will not procreate?
Further, would you care to explain to my 21 year-old how denying marriage to the two men that raised her, benefits her? Amen we're not in SC – we at least had the right to civil marriage after 27 years together. (It's now 33.)
63.
TKinSC | May 3, 2014 at 2:44 am
"If you're willing to go that route, are you willing to deny marriage to opposite sex couples who either cannot or will not procreate?"
Perhaps, if one could know for certain. But I see no reason to worry about it, as such marriages still fit the *definition* of marriage even if they don't directly advance its *purpose*.
The reason for denying marriage to two men raising a child is obvious: it makes it more likely that the actual father will marry the actual mother.
Why you would want to raise a child, but not want to be in a relationship with someone who can give you a child, is surely one of life's great mysteries. I'll leave that one for psychologists and psychiatrists to solve. But suffice it to say, the state has no interest in promoting relationships such as yours. If your state is willing to throw the true definition of marriage under the bus to satisfy your proclivities, then good for you, but shame on your state, and thank God it isn't mine. Amen.
64.
Rose | May 3, 2014 at 10:26 am
But MARRIAGE EQUALITY is coming to SC and the rest of the States whether you like it, agree with it or accept it…..so, ya better get use to it!!!
65.
JayJonson | May 3, 2014 at 10:30 am
You know TKinSC, we don't really care what you think. You are simply regurgitating old arguments that have repeatedly been rejected by the courts. That is why your side will lose in this legal battle. You have no genuine legal arguments, only a disapproval of homosexuals, and you cannot use that as a reason, which means that you have to invent faux reasons, which any good judge will dismiss.
In any case, states do have an interest in promoting same-sex relationship because when couples legally commit to each other they are more likely to take care of each other and less likely to become a burden on the state. Ditto for their children. Indeed, gay and lesbian couples may adopt children who have been abandoned by their heterosexual parents who have irresponsibly procreated.
66.
ChillPill | May 3, 2014 at 2:38 pm
This one's for you TKinSC:
[youtube zTOffYj5TxU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTOffYj5TxU youtube]
67.
Schteve | May 6, 2014 at 3:55 am
Same-sex couples only have children to raise by virtue of a man and woman being unable or unwilling to raise the child themselves. I am amazed with the logical backflips you must go through to think that banning same-sex marriage will make it more likely that that man and woman who did not want to raise a child together will marry each other.
68.
Mike in Baltimore | May 6, 2014 at 10:17 am
For a few months, I carpooled to work with three other gay men, two of which had previously been married and had children from those marriages. One of their major complaints was the child support they had to pay, and they couldn't wait for the kids to 'age out'.
So for you to state that "Same-sex couples only have children to raise by virtue of a man and woman being unable or unwilling to raise the child themselves" is nothing but male bovine droppings.
And lesbian women can get pregnant in EXACTLY the same manner as others – artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, etc.
Before I retired, I worked with a woman who had been trying with her husband for more than five years to get pregnant. Finally, they went to a fertility clinic, his sperm was injected into her eggs, and eventually she got pregnant. (Two fertilized eggs were implanted, one split into twins, the other didn't, so she gave birth to triplets. She was restricted to complete bed rest for the last four months of her pregnancy.)
Are you trying to say that women (but only if straight) can go to fertility clinics? If so, that is complete and utter male bovine droppings.
69.
Schteve | May 7, 2014 at 1:18 am
I have no idea what you're on about, Mike. Of course gays and lesbians can and do have biological children.
But if a child is being raised exclusively by a same-sex couple, the biological parents clearly are not the ones raising her (the same-sex couple is!). This includes when one member of the same-sex couple is one of the biological parents. A sperm or egg donor is not in the running to marry the other biological parent as was suggested in the comment I replied to.
70.
Mike in Baltimore | May 7, 2014 at 2:45 pm
So your "Same-sex couples only have children to raise by virtue of a man and woman being unable or unwilling to raise the child themselves" was discussing what?
By the way, the father of my brother and I died when we were both toddlers. Our mother remarried a few years later, but our 1st step-father died less than 5 months after that marriage. Our (half-)sister was born 6 months after her father died. A few years later, our mother married again. There were no children from that marriage. My second step-father was NOT of any biological relationship to me, my brother or our half-sister. Same as many same sex couples raising a child or children. And yet, we regarded our first step-father AND second step-father as our father, not a stranger who just happened to be married to our mother.
One of my aunts (and her husband) adopted a baby when their own child died. The entire family (my father had 12 surviving brothers and sisters, who had more than 40 children themselves – in other words a very large family) treated Denny as one of the family, not an outcast of some other family.
One of the aunts (and her husband) of my (half-)sister adopted two almost teenage brothers when the two children's parents were sent to prison for drug offensives. My sister's aunt and uncle already had two 'natural' children of their own. Within a month, Steve and Jim were treated by the entire family (my sister's father had 12 surviving brothers and sisters, who had more than 30 children of their own – in other words a very large family) as part of the family, not 'outcasts' of some other family, even though Steve and Jim knew their 'natural' parents, and knew that their 'natural' parents were still alive (but in prison). And in very short order, Steve and Jim considered their adoptive parents as their parents, even though they knew their 'natural' parents were alive and in prison.
If a same sex couple gets divorced (it can happen, but hets have almost nailed down and almost patented the divorce routine), and the mother or father marries the other 'natural' parent and raise the child (or children), kinda destroys your "A sperm or egg donor is not in the running to marry the other biological parent. . . ." comment, doesn't it, since the biological parents are then raising the child (or children)?
71.
Schteve | May 10, 2014 at 3:28 am
How many same-sex couples have you heard of who have broken up and gone on to marry the different-sex sperm or egg donor who helped them conceive a child? You're sounding as far fetched as TK since he or she is the one claiming this is a realistic possibility.
72.
Lymis | May 2, 2014 at 10:09 am
It's really difficult to get away with claiming that fertility is a necessary and foundational requirement for marriage when no state in the country even asks the question on the license application, much less requires people to promise to have kids.
The simple fact that people who are demonstrably unable to have children – post menopause, post hysterectomy, post testicle removal, post "balls shot off in the war" – and so on, are perfectly free to get married without even requiring any sort of waiver or special consideration means it is simply not true that channelling procreation is a basis for all marriages.
At best, it's a side effect. Side effects can be beneficial or harmful, but just because they are common doesn't make them into a fundamental basis.
Many same sex couples have children. Many opposite sex couples don't. There is no justification for the claim that marriage is "about" children, because it demonstrably isn't.
That's like saying drivers' licenses are issued so people can commute to work. It may be common, but it's neither the only use for cars nor the only way to get to work.
73.
Mike in Baltimore | May 2, 2014 at 10:06 pm
For more than 30 years, the way I got to work was walking to the train station, riding a commuter and/or AMtrak train, subway and then bus. Driver's license not needed at all.
74.
TKinSC | May 3, 2014 at 3:04 am
"It's really difficult to get away with claiming that fertility is a necessary and foundational requirement for marriage when no state in the country even asks the question on the license application, much less requires people to promise to have kids."
Marriage isn't a way for the state to micromanage people's lives. People who don't want to have kids now might change their mind. But the one constant is: opposite-sex couples, as a rule, have kids, and therefore opposite-sex couples are who marriage is for.
Infertile couples might be cured one day. Or they might choose to be a mother and father to a child who has unfortunately been deprived of his own. (And to say that two mothers or two fathers is as ideal a parenting arrangement as a mother and a father is ridiculous on its face. And if it were true, why stop at two?)
"That's like saying drivers' licenses are issued so people can commute to work. It may be common, but it's neither the only use for cars nor the only way to get to work."
Just because cars can be used for other things, or work can be gotten to in ways other than cars, does not mean that the purpose of driver's licenses isn't primarily related to being able to get to work. (I'm not saying that this is the case, but the mere lack of necessity or sufficiency does not disprove it.)
However, your analogy can be used against your argument. Because nowhere on a driver's license application is anyone required to promise that they will, in fact, drive a car. Yet nobody says that this "proves" that a driver's license has nothing to do with driving, or demands that blind quadriplegics should be eligible for driver's licenses as a result.
75.
davep | May 3, 2014 at 4:42 pm
Repeatedly ignoring the fact that same sex couples raise children does nothing but repeatedly reveal that you have no valid argument. As does repeatedly ignoring that fact that marriage benefits the state and the participants even when the couple never does raise children, and that marriage serves numerous purposes that have nothing to do with parental rights or raising children. You have no argument.
76.
Schteve | May 6, 2014 at 4:08 am
"But the one constant is: opposite-sex couples, as a rule, have kids, and therefore opposite-sex couples are who marriage is for."
Same-sex couples have children, and states even encourage them to do so by letting them adopt. A same-sex couple with a child is no different from a different-sex couple with a child.
"Or they might choose to be a mother and father to a child who has unfortunately been deprived of his own. (And to say that two mothers or two fathers is as ideal a parenting arrangement as a mother and a father is ridiculous on its face. And if it were true, why stop at two?)"
All same-sex couples that adopt choose to be parents to children who have unfortunately been deprived of their own biological parents. And to say that zero parents is as ideal a parenting arrangement as two mothers or two fathers is ridiculous on its face. And if the ideal were a mother and a father, why stop at two?
77.
Dann | May 2, 2014 at 10:28 am
My first thought after I read your comment was, wait a minute I think I've read this before. Oh yeah, it was around 2008. One of many ridiculous and ignorant arguments that the other side continues to spew. They have absolutley NOTHING LEFT!
78.
JustMe | May 2, 2014 at 4:24 pm
"According to Plaintiffs, the government recognizes marriage to confer “societal acceptance[] and cultural status” on adult relations rooted in “love.” Pls.Br.3. But this view elevates the adult desire for social endorsement over the abiding connection between marriage and procreation, and if universally mandated, will change marriage forever."
79.
JustMe | May 2, 2014 at 4:26 pm
Amen!
80.
davep | May 2, 2014 at 4:50 pm
Replying to yourself? You have just revealed that you have multiple accounts, and have forgotten to log out and log back in under your other name. Troll.
81.
davep | May 2, 2014 at 4:56 pm
… and the conclusion in that quote is illogical and unsupported by fact. Marriage serves multiple purposes, both for the state and the participants. The fact that one of the purposes may be to 'confer societal acceptance' does not mean that this one purpose "overrides" any of its other purposes.
The fact is that, now that same sex couples are legally marrying, marriage continues to serve all the same purposes for the state and the participants that it did before. It still conveys all the same rights, protections and responsibilities, and still advances the same states interests.
Marriage is defined by what it does. Not by who it excludes.
82.
bayareajohn | May 2, 2014 at 10:16 pm
JustMe, TK, whoever you think you are at the moment, do you think you are doing anything constructive by your posts here? You are not finding supporters (other than yourself by other names), you are not impressing us with your tortured logic or misunderstood quotes. You are not advancing your cause, nor suppressing ours. You are doing nothing.
There's room here for actual difference of opinion and discussion, but you are not participating, only fomenting (yeah, look it up).
Yet you are allowed to do so here, and people engage you largely in a rational and metered way you don't actually deserve due to you disingenuous intent.
Compare that with talkbacks where your slapdash "politic" is more used to being celebrated, like the NOM and Teaparty sites. The ones where dissent isn't permitted, even if honest and factual and respectful. When NOM railed against a particularly well reasoned judgement last year and told their readers how to feel about it, they didn't offer the text to their readers. I posted in the NOM talkback simply "The full text of this judgement is here (link)." No comment for or against, and the link was a neutral repository. My post was allowed publicly for about 30 minutes before it was purged. Too informative, and facts are inflammatory.
You haven't earned nor are you participating in the intellectual dialog your posts often cause. At least do us the favor of posting as just one person. Unless the voices in your head really demand their own names.
83.
TKinSC | May 3, 2014 at 3:13 am
Excuse me? Do you have any proof that I and JustMe are the same poster? Or do you throw that accusation out as easily as you throw out the accusation of bigotry at anyone who disagrees with you?
Certainly I have not, in my posts, been disingenuous in any way. If JustMe has been, then you should simply ignore him and respond to me. Even if we were the same person (and we're not) you can at least know that a post under my name will be one worth engaging, and a post under his name will not.
84.
Guest | May 3, 2014 at 7:48 am
@TKinSC aka JustMe You're a troll gurl I've seen you using both monikers with similar posts on gay social sites in the past.
85.
Steve | May 3, 2014 at 9:38 am
JustMe is also the same as SHOETHROWER. The random walls of legalese are a dead giveaway though less frequent than SHOETHROWER who never did anything else.
86.
JustMe | May 3, 2014 at 4:24 pm
OK for the last time …. I am not Shoethrower … nor am I TKinSC (although he or she is making very cogent arguments to which there has yet to be a decent reply…)
87.
ChillPill | May 3, 2014 at 4:53 pm
LOL that’s ok JustMe, we understand, Chris Costner Sizemore (Eve White) didn’t know about her other personalities either.
88.
davep | May 3, 2014 at 5:48 pm
Your comment up above where you accidentally forgot to change user names and replied to yourself in a pitiful attempt at giving the appearance that your 'argument' had support from others has made it clear that you have multiple accounts. Troll.
89.
Eric Koszyk | May 3, 2014 at 5:27 am
Hey everyone. This guy's a troll. Ignore him and he'll go away. Don't feed the troll please!
90.
Sagesse | May 3, 2014 at 6:26 am
What Eric said. Please. Please don't feed the troll.
Either that, or give me an ignore button.
91.
Ragavendran | May 3, 2014 at 6:44 am
I would welcome a healthy and meaningful debate, but I think we've heard enough from him to know that his foundation of beliefs about homosexuality are so vastly different from ours, so obviously, most of his arguments that stem from his beliefs do sound perfectly logical to him. Given this, I don't think a meaningful debate can take place through this forum, and certainly not through logic – debating one's fundamental belief system is deeply personal, and hardly, if ever, leads to any healthy discussion (I speak from my own past painful experience).
92.
Mike in Baltimore | May 4, 2014 at 12:40 am
It's rare, but sometimes a healthy discussion can change minds.
My mother and second step-father both changed their minds (I have no idea how my father and first step-father would have reacted to ME as they died decades prior to when ME was on almost no one's radar), my brother not so much. My sister and S-i-L both were more or less on our side, so there was no real need for discussion with them.
93.
Ragavendran | May 2, 2014 at 7:10 am
My favorite response to Baker is Judge Lucero's response during oral argument in Oklahoma's Bishop at the Tenth Circuit:
But the case [Baker] was before the Supreme Court. Questions were asked about it at the Supreme Court. And the majority chose to disregard it, and essentially, overrule it. They didn't say "we overrule it." They… worse, they just ignored it. Left in the corner. All by itself.
94.
grod | May 2, 2014 at 9:00 am
Ragavendran: for lack of a federal question. Lucero's timely observation needs to be front and centre every time Baker v Nelson is raised as an argument. Yes, there has been significant development in constitutional and case law, but in 2012 what were Windsor and Hollingsworth and others seeking to be heard before the Supremes if there were not 'a question'. Baker had been an appeal of Minnesota's Supreme Court's decision arising from a challenge based of the citizens' rights under the 1st, 9th and 14th Amendments
95.
TKinSC | May 3, 2014 at 3:16 am
In actuality, there was no need to reference Baker at all. Windsor did not present the question Baker did, and neither did Perry, since that case was thrown out on a technicality.
96.
montezuma58 | May 2, 2014 at 4:33 am
As with the all the other gender differentiated based arguments they dare not get into defining what those gender differences are or how exactly they relate to the ostensible state interest in what is best for the children. They are reduced to the claim that allowing same sex marriage will undermine the message the state is trying to send. Essentially they are saying same sex marriage doesn't jive with our propaganda. They basically are claiming the states interest in the law is not having the states views challenged or contradicted. If I recall correctly I think there's an amendment dealing with that concept already.
They also attempt to confuse the argument about level of scrutiny by creating a hard distinction between impact on the individual and impact on the class. Those concepts are not orthogonal. You can't place restrictions on groups or classes without impacting the individuals involved. Just as constraining the behavior of individuals can have impacts on groups to which those people belong. Essentially they just make a convoluted and long winded version of the old "they already got the same rights" argument.
97.
TKinSC | May 3, 2014 at 3:22 am
People can challenge the state's message all they want, but they have no right to use state resources to do so.
People can engage in (private) behavior all they want, but they have no right to have the state grant their behavior any sort of status or dignity or tangible benefits.
People can get married all they want (at least, one at a time), but they have no right to have the state change what marriage is in order to accommodate their abnormal sexual/romantic proclivities.
98.
Steve | May 3, 2014 at 7:41 am
"abnormal". And there you show that you merely pretend to have rational arguments, but that your entire motivation is based on nothing but hatred.
99.
JayJonson | May 3, 2014 at 10:38 am
Yes. I know that we should just ignore TKinSC, but I actually enjoy his flailing. On the one hand, he pretends that he is presenting legal arguments (though they are just old NOM or Mormon talking points), but then he slips and reveals his bigotry. Nice.
100.
Lolker | May 3, 2014 at 2:43 pm
Each of his/her posts prove all our points by clearly demonstrating in living color the deviancy/sinfulness of homophobia. He/she desperately needs Jesus in his/her life.
101.
Steve | May 4, 2014 at 4:30 am
There is no such thing as sin. The sooner people grow up and realize that the better. Real ethical and moral systems are based on the harm they cause to actual humans. Not imaginary offenses to imaginary deities. Which is all that "sin" is.
102.
KarlS | May 3, 2014 at 11:50 am
Does your mother know you play with her computer while she's out on Main street giving $5 blowjobs to buy crayons for you?
103.
Straight Ally #3008 | May 3, 2014 at 11:54 am
The consternation of folks like you when same-sex marriage comes to all 50 states will be a real treat.
104.
Background Gal | May 3, 2014 at 12:41 pm
There you go again, I thought you said your posts would be undisingenuous (is that a word?).
ABNORMAL. You use it to demean us.
ABNORMAL – not occuring naturally – Nope, gay people are part of history all the way back, and there appear to be about the same percent of us all along. SO we occur naturally.
ABNORMAL – in the minority – Well, yes. But by that defienition Christians, Redheads, left handeds, caucasions, english-speaker, MALES, over age 65.. all are abnormal, and the state has no duty to them, right?
ABNORMAL – not to your personal specification. Yep, that's the only definition you find that works for you. It must be nice to have been born to the special class, the one that's right because they know they are.
105.
Background Gal | May 3, 2014 at 12:44 pm
Oh I forgot two more ABNORMAL groups for you – the minorities of BIGOTS and REPUBLICANS. But those seem to be getting smaller, so maybe they don't occur naturally….
106.
JayJonson | May 3, 2014 at 2:25 pm
Well, they certainly overlap.
107.
Guest | May 3, 2014 at 1:29 pm
The only group who has changed the definition of marriage are the hoary, professional, christian industries such as Mormon Inc. Catholic enterprise and Evangelical franchise. Before they took our rights into the hands of everyone else, and asked them to vote on a definition, it was never defined, so screw you. We're destroying your holy marriage bans because you don't control anything, and you can't do a god-damn thing about it, bigot.
108.
Michael | May 3, 2014 at 2:40 pm
So says the anti-children, anti-gay lobby which seeks to have each state grant the sinful behavior of homophobia some sort of status or dignity or tangible benefits, even going so far as to legally redefine is as a "sincerely held religious belief" as in Mississippi. The evil Prop. 8 being a classic example of this sort of unchristian and unamerican abomination.
109.
JustMe | May 4, 2014 at 9:06 am
http://www.redstate.com/2014/05/04/retired-bishop…
To a certain extent, Robinson epitomizes the actions of homosexual activists in every organization they touch. While professing to want “equality” they usher in a fascistic regime of thought policing and set about actively destroying the institution they claim to want to be accepted by.
Not only has Robinson made a sham of his priesthood and episcopacy by his open and notorious celebration of one of the four sins that cry out to God for vengeance, he has capped off is accomplishments by debasing the sacramental institution of marriage, coming and going, so to speak.
In this case, Robinson is not totally to blame. Those really responsible for Robinson’s rise to power and the ugly internecine struggle within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion are the gutless, feckless men who set aside the teaching of God in order to promote Robinson’s public spectacle of sexual degradation.
110.
Steve | May 4, 2014 at 9:32 am
And this is supposed to make us take you more seriously and not consider you a troll?
111.
Busybody Repellent | May 4, 2014 at 11:18 am
A link to Redstate? Go away busybody closet-case and your very vivid fairy-tale imagination.
112.
KarlS | May 4, 2014 at 12:49 pm
Did you take courses in asshole, or are you just another inbred moron masturbating in the cheetos…?
113.
KarlS | May 4, 2014 at 12:50 pm
By the way, knuckledragger: http://www.godisimaginary.com
114.
JimT | May 4, 2014 at 2:50 pm
Thanks for posting that link, good reading. I like Proof #17 – Think about Leprechauns http://www.godisimaginary.com/i17.htm
115.
KarlS | May 4, 2014 at 3:47 pm
Only braindead TRVE BELIEVERS could fail to grasp the utterly rational expository in that and 50+ other 'proofs'. It's not really a mystery why frightened people WANT to believe in magic deities but it is awfully hard to imagine how they can continue to do so in the face of logic.
116.
Lolker | May 3, 2014 at 2:35 pm
Homophobia is deviant behavior (look at Uganda, Brunei and Russia). We cannot continue having laws which promote/glorify this deviancy.
117.
OctaA | May 3, 2014 at 3:14 pm
I think Lolker was intending the opposite, saying that homoPHOBIA is deviant not homosexuality, and is pointing to those countries as examples of how terrible homophobia can be. And that we can't have the homophobic laws which promote state sanctioned homophobia.
118.
bayareajohn | May 3, 2014 at 3:38 pm
I agree, and sincerely apologize for misreading – HOMOPHOBIA is the deviance.
SORRY Lolker, my troll gun was standing its ground.
119.
Christian | May 4, 2014 at 1:54 am
The California Senate advances the repeal of the so-called "California Defemse of Marriage Act" and AB 607(1977) 25-10! http://openstates.org/ca/bills/20132014/SB1306/
The bill, SB 1306 (Leno), proceeds to the Assembly for final approval
Fun fact, the current Governor, Jerry Brown, signed AB 607 (defining marriage as between "a man and a woman" in section 300 of the Family Code) without comment in August of 1977. He's now in the position of signing it's repeal!
Talk about atoning for your sins! Quite an uncommon occurrence, I bet Bill Clinton would like to do the honors of signing the RFMA (whenever THAT happens) and make up for signing DOMA.
120.
Bruce | May 5, 2014 at 11:52 am
I'm actually fairly excited; it's looking like I'll get an opportunity to be present for oral arguments for this case, as I live in Richmond. Any advice for someone who just wants to listen to oral arguments? How soon should one arrive?
121.
Kevin | May 5, 2014 at 11:58 am
This should answer most of your questions (http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/news-announcements/2014/04/17/media-advisory-14-1167-bostic-v-schaefer). When I watched Hollingsworth I arrived about an hour and a half early and there was already a line.
122.
cheap iron man costume cycling waistcoat | May 20, 2014 at 9:04 pm
I have recently started a blog, the info you provide on this site has helped me tremendously. Thank you for all of your time & work.
123.
buying swtor credits | June 2, 2014 at 8:27 pm
You could certainly see your skills in the paintings you write. The world hopes for more passionate writers such as you who are not afraid to say how they believe. Always follow your heart. “What power has law where only money rules.” by Gaius Petronius.