An appeals court ruling Friday reinstating Nebraska’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage has legal significance in Kansas. A federal judge had tossed out the ban last year, saying it violated the U.S. Constitution’s equal-protection clause because it “does not merely withhold the benefit of marriage; it operates to prohibit persons in a same-sex relationship from working to ever obtain governmental benefits or legal recognition.” There was a similar concern with Kansas’ ban, in that it went beyond banning marriage to include same-sex benefits. But the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Nebraska amendment “and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
59 Comments
Whoa! That’s a stretch. I can see the whole christian fear of homosexuals, although unwarrented, but because of its societial domination in our culture, that banning gay marriage was a why of protecting the tradition.
But at least compromise on the issue and allow domestic partnerships or civil unions so that people who just happen to be of the same sex could unite under the law.
It’s going to be a long fight to break this. I know it will happen in my lifetime, but man it’s going to be awhile.
Gay couples can still have legal rights today just like before the ban. They go to an attorney and have the proper paperwork drawn up. This provides the ability to transfer property, have the significant other allowed to visit in the hospital and to make medical decisions as well as anything else they want.
For most of us it is not about hating a person for their choice, it is about protecting a traditional value that marriage is between a man and a woman. Change is not always bad but, I feel strongly that this should be preserved.
There have been some good points made about gays having loving relationships and raising children. I think a lot of them have adopted children and this is not a bad thing. They are providing a home and lots of love for these children and that is wonderful. There are some that have chosen to be foster parents and that too is wonderful. We could use more foster parents and adoptive parents.
“and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States.”
I’d like to hear how this law is rationally related to legitimate state interests.
Anybody have a clue?
Probably the whole “Community Standards” BS.
Community standards are part of Hasnas’ The Myth of the Rule of the Law paper. He explains that legally, there are many ways to interpret laws. He gives many examples and comes up with the conclusion that national standards are trumped by community standards because community standards are more explicit and exact.
Ok, all i have to ask is this…
Why cant we just let the Gays be as miserable being married as the us?
Ruby,Maybe you can tell me, but how is not letting gay people marry, who, in this day and age actually want the commitment, harmful to marriage? Given the current divorce rate, and the many couples living together, the gay people are the only ones that seem to take marriage seriously.And yes, I’ve known gay couples who have gone to lawyers and paid thousands of dollars to have ironclad paperwork drawn up, but why should all that be necessary when heteros just get married to achieve the same legal rights?
And I have to ask again: Just what are they so afraid of? And sorry Ruby, to foist off, it’s always been done that way is not a valid argument. Times change, so do the rules. I’m waiting the the liberals to get back in charge and put some of this r/w stupidity away.
I don’t see a lot of heterosexual couples placing much value on the tradition of marriage these days. Why not let the gays go ahead and get married, maybe they just might do a better job of it….plus the divorce lawyers would love it.
Agreed, Mary (Damoon).
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Before you (not you, of course) go peeking into others’ bedrooms, maybe you should be paying attention to what’s going on in your own first.
If the sanctity of marriage means so much, why hasn’t divorce been made illegal? To save “marriage,” let’s pass a law on divorce first. Then we can discuss gay marriage.
BTW, has anybody read that, for those who have married after meeting on Match.com and the other singles sites, statistics are beginning to showthat those marriage/divorce statistics are pretty much the same as those who meet in more traditional ways?
(Was that a long sentence, or what?)
True, we should clean up our own backyard before we go looking at someone else’s. What so sacred about marriage between a man and a woman anyway? Seems to me many of society’s problems are based on the fact that men and women can’t get their act together. At least gay couples have to make a real effort to be a parent and raise a child. If a gay couple splits up, they only hurt themselves. I’m sick and tired of all the sanctimoniuos heterosexuals thinking that they somehow have a corner on committed relationships, what a joke!
Discrimination can come in many forms, saying that a gay couple can have the same benefits simply by filing all the paper work on each and every benefit in order to have the same benefits that a legally married hetro couple has with the simple act of marriage. Is a form of discrimination, simplify is said you have to jump through many hoops while I have to jump through just one.
Something I have noticed as a effect of Kansas amendment is that common law couple with children, if the children are receiving some form of support from the state. The state is now going after the common law husband for child support . This serves to take money that would be available to the family away just to give it back in the form of child support. When the argument was presented during the build up to the vote, that it would effect all relationships other then heterosexual man and woman legally married. It was dismissed as a scare tactic. But by passing the amendment and putting it in the supreme law of the state that ONLY a legally married man and woman would be recognized as a legal couple. It made for such things.
“Gay couples can still have legal rights today just like before the ban. They go to an attorney and have the proper paperwork drawn up.”
That’s true Ruby, but that fact is, why should gays and lesbians HAVE to go to the extra expense of hiring a lawyer to draw up this paperwork when heterosexual couples do not? I don’t know about you, but last time I hired an attorney, it wasn’t cheap!
heheheh
Sorry, too busy to blog lately.
I still think the following is still the funniest thing written about straight marriage.
“What is so sacred about something that you can do, drunk on your ass, in front of an Elvis impersonator at 3am in Las Vegas?”
Or this from Wanda Sykes. “It wasnt gays that ruined my marriage. It was divorce.”
heheheh
Face it. You all sccial conservatives lost the battle on straight marriage a long time ago, and it had nothing to do with us. Could you perhaps just come back to reality and admit that?
But, of course, those of the self described “culture of personal responsibility” (heheh) would, rather than admit that simple fact, prefer to find someone else to blame. We just happen to be handy.
Knock yourself out. Too bad you dont see how utterly STUPID it makes you look.
’nuff said.
You can bet, more later…
“But the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Nebraska amendment “and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States”
What in the world? How is restricting marriage a “legitimate state interest”??
Heck, there are all sorts of things you could trump up into a “legitimate state interest”! What’s next?
People fear change and that’s why they cling to their ideals of what they believe to be normal. That’s why the anti-segregationalists were resisted, as well as the abolitionists, as well as the abortionists etc. In a world where everything is in flux, people seek stability through a sense of permanence. Their resistance to gay “marriage” is, I believe, a subconscious involuntary reflex of what happens when the status quo of the majority is challenged.
Since some of you are posting under your real names and not under your old pseudonyms I am compelled to do the same, albeit I will leave out my last name for security reasons.
My name is William.You may refer to me as Will.You may never refer to me as Bill or Billy because I hate them.
I will post as this from now on. Thecrusader part is too much a part of me to let go.
Hmm…I kind of like William better. S’that okay with you?
“People fear change and that’s why they cling to their ideals of what they believe to be normal.”
Yes, and that’s a terrible reason to deny people their rights–irrational fear. And here I could’ve sworn you were a homophobe ;)
Tara,It’s ok. Whether people of the same sex decide to act immorally with each other is completely up to them. We are all rational beings endowed with free will and are completely capable of making our own decisions. People of the same sex have been having sex with each other has been going on since antiquity! What they do behind closed doors is of little consequence to me. If they so choose, I say let them marry. Homosexual acts will always be considered sinful in the Christianreligion, no matter how many people they seek to convince otherwise, because, and I quote:
“Truth is not arrived at by a majority vote.”-His Eminence, Pope John Paul II
I do not think less of homosexuals as I would anyone else. They are sinners just like you, me, and everyone else. In the eyes of God they, like me, and the rest of us deserve to go to hell. Let me make this crystal clear to you Tara: whether or not homosexual acts are sinful is unquestionable to God. It doesn’t matter what I or the popes, or the saints or the whole lot of us in the world think. Homosexual acts are just as wrong as stealing, or killing, or committing adultery, or lying, or any other sinful act under the sun; because GOD deemed it so. Even if you succeeded in convincing the entire world that homosexual acts aren’t sinful it would be a futile and vain achievement because once again, GOD’s words are the only thing that matters. Now, why there are people who call themselves Christians and do violence to homosexuals because they are sinners (while being sinners themselves) I say to them, that they are no better than the Pharisees. In the end, God will have His reckoning and they will pay for their hypocrisy. I say to any self-proclaimed Christian who thinks himself better than another person because that person is a sinner: that you are a Pharisee, and you’re not a real fucking Christian because if your stupid ass paid any attention during Sunday school you would have got the message that Jesus doesn’t advocate haughty, self-righteous pompous pricks like yourself, that the mark of a true Christian is the spirit of humility, repentance, and reverence of God and love of your fellow man; and that everyone is equal in the eyes of God, for with God there is no partiality.
CruW,Other than a few questionable passages in the bible, what is it about homosexuality that makes it sinful? Surely there must be some rational reason, if you expect a secular-by-law government to go to all this trouble to outlaw gay relationships. Please enumerate these reasons for us.
I’ll try to answer the question several have asked on this thread, without endorsing any particular answer: What is the relation to legitimate state interests?
Basicly, the argument is that marriage is state sanctioned because it provides a stable place for the raising of children, and the state has a legitimate state interest in raising children. The test generally applied is a rational basis test, which basicly says that if a rational legislature COULD choose such a policy, that is enough; it may do so. And restricting marriage to monogomamous hetero relationships is rationally related to such a state interest.
The NY Supreme Court recently reached the same conclusion as the 8th Circuit. See http://www.orinkerr.com/ for a more detailed discussion; the thread entitled “New York Court Leaves Same-Sex Marriage to the Legislature.”
From Hernandez v. Robles:
“First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not.” . . .”There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father.” . . .”In sum, there are rational grounds on which the Legislature could choose to restrict marriage to couples of opposite sex. Plaintiffs have not persuaded us that this long accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals.”
Bottom line: except for the Mass. SC, and perhaps Hawaii, every place this issue arises, same sex marriage fails. It fails, generally, in the courts (with the exceptions noted above, and even Mass. is slowly backing away), and it fails at the ballot box. Everywhere. Everytime.
That’s not hate, it’s reality. As the NY SC noted:
“The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.” – Hernandez v. Robles.
Some of us need to read those last two sentences again and again. One can disagree without demonizing.
Well,
AGAIN GMC, there are lots of things that might be popularly acclaimed as “legitimate state interests” that are not inherently good things. History is full of them. I don’t need to recapitualte them here.
My imagination fails me today. I am sure there are all sorts of popularly held ideas that could be pumped up to “legitimate state interests”.I am also sure some would not be inherently good.
So when will the other sins be illegal? When will you promote constitutional amendments for other “sins”? Your hypocricy is breath taking.
Oh no gmc, we would never demonize you. You do that all by yourself.
And if people were allowed to vote on segregation state by state, how do you think THAT would turn out?
I just love how some people know EXACTLY what “god” thinks.
Once again, jesus wept.
hee hee hee. I guess issuing death threats is not a sin?
Stealing your employers time is not a sin?
I thought there was no order of magnitude in sin?
I guess not. Some sins are just so bad they require constitutional amendments, but other sins? Like straight adultry? When you start banning that and stoning them, give me a call.
THAT is when your argument might hold water. Until then, you are so inconsistant as to be laughable. Except it isnt funny to me. Cant wait to vote on something important to you.
“There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father.” . . .
Cool. Waiting on the constitutional amendment or law that makes single parenting a crime.
And of course, I am no legal genius like the great gmc or god’s mind reading crux, but didnt the courts also uphold segregation before coming to their senses? Does that make segregation ok?
I mean, it isnt like the courts ever change their minds on anything.
I cant wait. Someday, our revenge on people like you will be quite sweet.
For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction?Dont think that someday, your bigotry wont have its own day of reckoning.
And just because you say you are not a bigot doesnt make it true. Hell, jesse helms didnt think he was a bigot either.
I used to be a big supporter of the freedom of religious expression even though I am an athiest. But now? What do you think?
You all took action, but the reaction to your idiocy is yet to come. It may take time, but, heheh, paybacks are such a bitch…
JR
The court does not say this law is an “inherently good thing.” That is not a constitutional requirement. The only requirement is that the regulation be rationally related to some state interest; i.e., that a rational legislature COULD (not necessarily should) take that position. It’s a fairly low standard.
The constitution does not require “good” law, just law which passes basic constitutional muster.
Time may well change this approach. But not for the foreseeable future, I’m afraid.
KFG – a little bitter today, aren’t we?
Damn right gmc. Getting more bitter by the day. That backlash is gonna be a real bitch someday.
I see your conservative dirty little tricks are afoot again. Fortunately, the federal hate amendment that your boy shrub loves so much was defeated by the house. By 47 votes. Now defeated by both the house and senate.
But we are amused and we do encourage you to try again.
Dont think for one second that back lash wont come. Probably not in your lifetime, but hopefully in mine.
Although obviously, it is dangerous to overestimate the intelligence of the voters. Just look at the preznit’s work and you know why.
Well done, GMC & CrusaderWill.
Looking at it iever-so-dispassionately, the problem I see with the Court’s analysis is that is they assert a rational-basis state interest of dubious veracity in the face of a very clear violation of equal protection. And leaving aside the religion motivations that invariably underlie such rulings (and thus violation of religious freedom), what is the state interest in encouraging procreation? Could not the state also ban opposite-sex marriages, for the purposes of inhibiting procreation (say, to stem overpopulation)? Why not?
If if the reasoning is sound, why should a rational-basis test be used when fundamental freedoms are involved? Answer: Because we’re socially “conservative” judges, and we say so!
Once again, Ian says something that’s right for all the wrong reasons! Oh well!
Rage:
It’s a good point that perhaps a rational basis test should not be the test. However, it’s the default constitutional test here.
It’s not so clear that there is an equal protection issue here, and religion is irrelevant – this is not a religious issue, at least as a legal one.
If not a rational basis test, what test do you propose? And on what basis is it a more appropriate test than a rational basis test?
So if the purpose of marriage is procreation and having a ‘daddy’ and a ‘mommy’.What about if the roles are reversed in a relationship? What if the woman is the primary breadwinner and the man is the stay-at-home? Wouldn’t this confuse the children?What about marriages that will not result in procreation? Older couples that get married in their 50’s/60’s/70’s/80’s? What about remarriages where one/both partner(s) has sterilized themselves via tubal ligation or vasectomy? What about sterilization due to illness/accident? How about the couples that choose not to have children?
Are these marriages at risk due to inability /unwillingness to procreate?
So if the above situations can marry why can’t same gender?
I think the state interest would have to be compelling. If this was speech, I would say strict scrutiny. The state should have a heavier burden than “this is a presumably reasonable thing to do.”
Was there no equal protection issue in the miscegenation cases? Wasn’t that inherent (if not determinative!) in ruling that banning mixed-race marriages was impermissible (I don’t have time to hunt it the Supremes case and read it–I shouldn’t even posting this! :-).
By the way, by the same reasoning, why couldn’t the government ban opposite-sex marriages? If the power exists, it exists across-the-board.
As religion may not be a legal issue, it is an issue nonetheless. To claim it is not is to have ones head in the sand. Just look at the education issue here in Kansas and that point becomes clear.
Same sex marriage has nothing to do with procreation, and everything to do with religious bias.
While constitutional scholars may point to other, basically biased, reasons as to why same sex marriage should not be allowed under the constitution, religion is the underlying, and main, reason. With true seperstion of church and state, it would fall to the states as to same sex marriage. And again, if the church/state seperation were truly implemented states wide, same sex marriage would not be a problem.
“religion is irrelevant – this is not a religious issue, at least as a legal one.”
Uhm, this came to the front of my mind, because it’s flat-out wrong. Even if the motivation for banning gay marriages was secular–hah!–there are in fact numerous churches which perform such unions. Agree or disagree, it infringes on their religious freedom. Which should require a compelling state interest.
Okay, NOW I’m done.
Hehe, great minds think alike, Walker! :)
“Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.” – Hernandez v. Robles.
In other words, tradition. Because that’s the way it has always been, that’s the way it should be . . .
Let’s try some substitutions, shall we?
“Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth that . . .
1. blacks should be segregated from whites. This was enshrined as law by Plessy v Ferguson (1894)
2. women should not have the right to vote.
3. slave owners’ rights must be respected even by those who oppose slavery. See Dred Scott. See also Patrick “Give me liberty or give me death” Henry who OWNED SLAVES!
4. aboriginal Americans should be rounded up, their lands confiscated, their buffalo, elk and antelope exterminated and they should be herded on to reservations. “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.”
And should those reservations have oil or gas, we reserve the right to scoot ‘em off again to exploit the resources.
Ditto for Mexicans.
5. smart-assed Negroes who whistle at white women can be tortured and killed with impunity. See the murder trial of Emmitt Till.
Ditto for uppity blacks like Medgar Evers or the little girls at Sunday school when their church was bombed.
Good old tradition. How I miss the old days when men were men (white men, I mean) and everybody else just had to kiss our ass . . .
I almost forgot, “Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth” that a professional school like a state law school, medical school or dental school would accept no more than two women, two Jews, and two blacks to any incoming class no matter how well-qualified they were to attend.
This is the way it’s “always been.” Therefore, it’s the way it should be.
Folks:
As noted at the beginning; I took no position on the issue, simply attempted to answer a question. I included the last quote primarily as a point to the usual “disagree with us on this and you’re a hater/a bigot/ignorant/a fundamentalist nut” BS that is constantly thrown about by some (you know who you are!!) on this site.
It may well be that at some point the courts and population may come around. But not in the near future; the courts are routinely coming down as noted. We can disagree with them, and may well have good reason to do so. But reasonable people can have differing opinions on this one and still be civil, reasonable people.
And the issue is NOT whether gay marriage can be permitted under the constitution; certainly, a state may do so if it chooses. The issue is whether the federal constitution REQUIRES a state to recognize the institution. That is a harder case to make.
Right . . . reasonable people can disagree on the rights of women to vote too.
Just think of all those PMS afflicted voters out there.
It’s not unreasonable to bring that up. Nor is it unreasonable to ask that women stay at home where they belong.
Unfortunately basing a decision based on tradition is called a logical fallacy . . . it’s not “reasonable,” it’s in fact an excuse posing fallaciously as a reason.
“The issue is whether the federal constitution REQUIRES a state to recognize the institution. That is a harder case to make.”
. . .or the state constitution(s). Which is why several states have written bans into their constitutions, and the same usual suspects are trying to do the same thing at the federal level. They don’t want the issue decided on the merits.
On the upside, murder and rape are still constitutional in Kansas.
. . .and then there’s Massachusetts. The fact is the very issue you consider settled is the crux of the biscuit, GMC.
. . .and then there’s Massachusetts. The fact is the very issue you consider settled is the crux of the biscuit, GMC.
The libertarians make a good argument comparing same-sex marriage to miscegenation, slavery, and social inequities of the American past. At first when I was reading your arguments, I felt compelled to agree with much of what KFG, DarthCheney, and Rage have said; however I realized that NAMBLA uses the same type of arguments you guys have used. Yes, they too cite inequities of the past and claim that their cause of adult / adolescent love (or “eros” from the Greek def. sexual relationships between men and boys, which differs from “philia” def. platonic sense of love) is a noble cause that champions civil liberties and rectifies what they see as an intrusive sanctimonious American culture which (much like gays sad to say) makes them feel unwanted and disenfranchised from the rest of our society. We inevitably return to the old adage of who decides what is right or wrong; the state or the people? Well, let me be the first to admit that the American justice system is nowhere near any state of perfection, but it’s still much better than a great many other countries. But I digress, the courts are not a democratic institution, my fellow libertarians. For justice to be impartial, the courts can not simply bend to the whim of any group of people, no matter what their skin color, their sexual orientation, or their political affiliation. It is unfortunate that there are seldom laws made which carries with it the universal approval of every American. For some people believe that their ways would lead to a more just and liberated society, however the courts must uphold what is right for society and the people of whom they represent. This whole incident with same sex marriage is merely a symptom of a much older problem, namely; that everybody wants to rule the world, because everybody thinks their own ways are right. But not everybody can rule the world, can they? Certainly not! Especially if we wish there to be order from chaos.
Other than a few questionable passages in the bible, what is it about homosexuality that makes it sinful? Surely there must be some rational reason, if you expect a secular-by-law government to go to all this trouble to outlaw gay relationships. Please enumerate these reasons for us.
Jed,One does not use the terms “sinful” and “secular” in the same sentence when it comes to the legal profession. That is a definite no no. Furthermore, no one is seeking to “outlaw gay relationships” as you claim. That is quite a bit of a stretch from same-sex marriage of course. Also, I don’t quite know what you mean about “a few questinable passages in the Bible.” By a few questionable passages, do you mean ones like this: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, such a thing is an abomination.”-Leviticus 18:22Do you have beef with that? Well Jed, you better argue with the Lord about that one, I didn’t write Leviticus. Is God unfair? Is he picking on only homosexuals? No, because chapter 18 Leviticus has more rules pertaining to heterosexual sexual aberrations such as having sex with close family members, family members wives, children (sorry NAMBLA folks) and oh yeah! animals, (sorry any ancient pagan Greeks and Romans). Once again Jed, may I remind you that since God is just, He therefore is impartial. That means all our asses are on the line, irregardless of sexual orientation. If you are looking for an argument based solely on reason, I believe GMC70 makes the most compelling argument because as any sociologist who’s worth two cents will tell you: the human family is the backbone of society.
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and thwart the cleverness of the clever.”
CruW,I’d believe you meant that about the passage from Leviticus if you fought all those old testament laws, but so far, I’ve seen no constitutional amendments proposed to outlaw stay-press shirts or football, or authorizing a mandatory death penalty for children who cuss out their parents, or for adulterers, ad infinitum. You obviously picked homosexuality because 1. you weren’t doing it, 2. you thought you could get some political traction on what you thought was a safe issue, 3. because you’d run out of the other issues you used to use to heat up a congregation. And it’s not just gay marriage, you good christians have fought tooth and claw every attempt to gain equal rights for gays! Just like you religious conservatives fought civil rights, rock’n'roll, them godless commies, Jews, papists, atheists, penicillin, John Barleycorn, modern art and all the other crusades you used to keep your congregations in siege mode. This isn’t about religion, it’s about power and money, and gaining and holding onto both!
And Jim “I hate queers” Dobson’s take on the resounding defeat of the hate amendment in the house yesterday?
“Once again, the men and women representing their constituents in Washington have betrayed those who put them in power.
Like the Senate did before them, the House has refused to protect the institution of marriage from activist judges bent on redefining it.–
We certainly intend to tell them how their senators and congressmen voted on the Marriage Protection Amendment. We believe many of them will ‘remember in November. ”
Wanna tell me again about the separation between church and state, how this is not a religious argument, how this is not about “protecting marriage” for straight people?
heheheheh
“This isn’t about religion, it’s about power and money, and gaining and holding onto both!”
Well, I disagree about the religion part, but AMEN brother Jed.
I think it IS about RELIGION holding on to power and money.
It is about guys like terry, joe and fred holding on to their money and their power.
Gotta feed that machine…
Farm Gal,No, it isn’t about any religious belief, but yes, it’s about religious leaders getting and holding onto money and power. Those Armani suits and breakfasts with congressmen get addictive! Does that distinction make it clearer?
I think we agree Jed. :)
“The idea that free negros is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which slavery existed, that there could be slavery only between participants of different race. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.”
Does that sentence still make sense? If you agree with it still, then you should have no problem with gay marriage bans. Darthcheney said it better. :-)
Read some of the historical arguments about allowing interacial marriage, from the 50s and 60s, and you will find the exact same, mostly biblically based, hatred and intolerance.
Also, although the court decision SAYS that there is a state interest in upholding the ban, it is just a bare assertion, with no enumeration of WHAT the state interest is. I can just as easily say there is a rational state interest in supporting gay marriage. The difference is that it is much easier to back up my position with actual rational reasons.
Cheers.
Hey people,Three days ago, I asked for some rational reason, other than some questionable bible passages, why homosexuality was considered sinful enough to pass a constitutional amendment. I got no rational arguments out of these jokers. Not one! Lotsa column inches though. So I guess they’re saying either that there are no rational reasons, or they wouldn’t know one if it bit ‘em on their scrotums!
Thank you jed for your undying stand for all our human rights. YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Farm Gal,Your human rights are my human rights, as well as everybody else’s rights. I just wish more people understood that!