Or at the very least put down a major legal marker as they hear the lawyers argue the merits of state recognition of same sex marriage. Four states are insisting that it’s their right to refuse to recognize gay marriage because ostensibly it’s not protected by the Constitution.
Technically I suppose they’re right. Then again, neither is straight marriage. However the Fourteenth Amendment which states, in part, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” pretty much seems to cover it.
Is it possible the Supreme Court could stun everyone and make a dumb ášš decision? Of course they can. But one hopes that they take this occasion to just state the obvious and make it illegal for states to decide that gays are effectively not American citizens deserving of the same rights as straight citizens.
To me, it’s amazing how within one generation this issue has gone from being an unspeakable, way-out-there concept to something so commonplace that it’s made it to the Supreme Court. Yes, there are still idiots out there declaring, “What next? Man marrying dogs?” Because two male adults making a conscious decision is exactly the same as deciding to fornicate with a dumb animal.
Let’s hope that next June brings good news.
PAD
• 
Geez, Peter, since when do you hate dogs so much that you think they’re all dumb? Like you, I’ve had pet cats, but I adore dogs as well, and I’ve known quite a few to be way more insightful and profound than your average anti-gay marriage activist.
You know what? Considering the šhìŧ I’ve had to deal with on Twitter lately, I really can’t tell anymore if someone’s kidding. You DO know dumb animal means they can’t talk, right? That it has nothing to do with intelligence. This was a swing at humor, right?
PAD
Whattt!!!!! Dogs and Cats Laying Together!!!
Isn’t that a sign of the Apocalypse!!!!!!!
Are we That Close!!!!
😉
(Yes, Peter, that is a very poor attempt at humor…)
What do you mean: Dogs can’t talk?
I took my dog into a bar the other day, told the keep that, if he would give me a free drink, I’d have my dog talk to him. He said OK, but let me see the dog talk first.
So, I asked the dog, “Yesterday, on the golf course, where did I hit my first shot?”
The dog said, “Ruff! Ruff!”
Then I asked the dog, “Where did I take that load of shingles last weekend when I was fixing the house?”
The dog answered, “Roof! Roof!”
Finally, I asked the dog, “Who was the greatest baseball player of all time?”
The dog promptly answered, “Ruth! Ruth!”
Unfortunately, at that point, the keep thought he had heard enough, and he threw both me and my dog out the front door of the bar — we landed in a heap in the street!
The dog then turned to me and asked, “Was it Gehrig?”
Yes, it was Gehrig.
While I don’t think a Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality will end the debate (anymore than Roe v. Wade ended the debate over abortion), I think it will be a tremendous step forward for not just LGBT rights but also for the rights of all Americans. (It would also, somewhat ironically, make things a bit easier for Republican politicians: Instead of having to explain why they don’t support something over 70% of the country does, they could simply say that the Supreme Court decided the issue, so that’s that.) We shall see.
ok, first and foremost. Let gays marry. Marriage is a legal construct, not a religious one.
BUT, now that the SC has this, can the dámņ news shut up about it until they get off their butts and issue a decision???
I’ve always been in favor of gays rights, but I am so sick and tired of hearing about this every 5 seconds when we KNOW nothing will get answered for a month or two at least….
For some reason, there are few comments.
OK: To get us started, I’ve read the transcripts of the arguments in both questions, and what strikes me is that NEITHER parties’ lawyers did much in the way of answering the justices’ questions.
We still can debate the pros and cons. I simply submit that the rights of all hang by a thread and become highly suspect when their determination lies in the hands of judges who have to choose which side had the dumber lawyer.
“What next? Man marrying dogs?”
This already happens all the time. Case in point, every1 ever married to Kim Kardashian.
Bladestar: I watch with interest the debate the Court is having as well as those debating the debate (about the debate); but in a limited way. I read the daily newspaper, friend’s links on Facebook, and the Daily Show. I don’t watch cable news: I can’t turn the pages if I tire of a story. Their ‘raisin-deeter’ would seem to be The News: things that are happening. But it’s really COMMENTING on The News. And the less that things are happening, the more they can talk about it. That’s it. I remember when someone was travelling – watched by news copters. They were happy to break to commercial until (gasp) that someone went into a large building, out of sight. At that point, it was a hot topic they couldn’t turn away from. It was too important to guess where they might be. Same thing. Opinions are better news than The News. Strange but true.
Thanks for the kind thoughts, Peter. BTW, my goal is to have an e-reader by next year to get your 3 Trek and 1 Apropos titles.
That’s part of the point, they can pontificate and give their opinion all they want, but we aren’t going to get any news until the SC makes it’s actual decision, it’s pointless and a waste of time that could be used for actual news and maybe some investigative reporting (good luck with that any more though)
Actually, we can have plenty of news — by calling for a constitutional convention to reverse what I strongly suspect is the likely result.
I just noticed that the final sentence of your next-to-last graf refers to “two male adults”.
Gay women have {ahem} a dog in this fight, too.
I like how you use the example of men marrying men. It’s because you still hate women, right?
Once again I have no idea if a joke is being made. I think the Internet is destroying my sense of humor.
PAD
“I think the Internet is destroying my sense of humor”
Welcome to the club. And then social media is destroying my sense of humanity having greater worth.
According to Leviticus – the go to Book in these matters – it is only “lying with a man” that is a non-no. G-d is apparently A-OK with Lesbians.
(Thereby conclusively proving that He is a he.)
Nice try, David.
Leviticus prohibits anal intercourse, not homosexuality (a modern word). It’s a health measure (like not eating raw pork). The last I checked, Lesbians really are not competent to anal intercourse (though I guess the tongue could fit up there).
But, do read your Bible further: Leviticus prohibits both men and women from sleeping with beasts.
That’s a health measure too (monkeys are the initial carriers of the AIDS virus).
Peter, Peter, language eater,
Had a blog with a deleter
That could slaughter every vowel.
(Sorry, Peter: That’s a foul!)
Against a critic’s stinging hand,
Our Peter wants to hide.
He sticks his head into the sand,
And there it will reside.
He thinks if others cannot see
The words of his detractor,
Then demodonkey thought would be
The only vibrant factor.
But, language is what language does,
And truth is hard to shutter.
Our critic’s words seem harsh because
They make poor Peter stutter!
It’s so, so sad that he’s so bad
When answers he has none;
But, we’ll still try to make him cry,
Because we’re having fun!
* * *
Nice try, David (the other David):
Leviticus prohibits anal intercourse, not homosexuality (a modern word). It’s a health measure (like not eating raw pork). The last I checked, Lesbians really are not competent to anal intercourse (though I guess the tongue could fit up there).
But, do read your Bible further: Leviticus prohibits both men and women from sleeping with beasts.
That’s a health measure too (monkeys are the initial carriers of the AIDS virus).
You do realize that you’re a massive dûmbášš, right?
It’s not disagreeing that gets your vowels removed. It’s being a trollish dìçk. Look around, moron. Lot’s of people disagreeing with Peter or Peter’s positions all throughout the archived history of this blog. Their vowels are still in place, and many of them are still here, still posting, and still disagreeing up through this very year.
The problem isn’t disagreeing, the problem is you. But, hey, feel free to keep getting every possible account and IP disemvoweled while flailing about and claiming that it’s all about brave souls who disagree with Peter angering him so and thus incurring his wrath via disemvoweling. It’s obvious by now that you’re not going to figure it out on your own any time soon.
I said what I said, Jerry, and I’ll say it again if I have to.
As for the rest, the only person here who’s genuinely a demodonkey jáçkášš (most of the time) is YOU.
This is all well and fine, but I have one big question. What about the polygamists? Why aren’t anyone talking about them in the same construct as gay marriage (not the child marrying ones, the ones with consenting adults)?
I had this idea that I’m sure would backfire spectacularly if put into play (I’m not sure how, but I know we can do it). I always thought marriage was more of a church/religious thing rather than a legal thing as it originated in the church, given back in the day, the legality of it was automatically valid back in the day because most societal constructs were theocracies rather than democracies.
If it were up to me, I think I would leave it up to the churches (if they want to do it, fine, if not then that’s their problem) and have the states just validate marriage licenses or store them. Taxes would be based on households and how many dependents you have as would benefits (what if it were you and your grandma and your grandma were dependent on you and you dropped dead, what would happen to your benefits? What would happen to grandma?). Then again, this would cause a problem for people who aren’t overly religious/don’t belong to a church, or people who don’t believe. Then what?
I would also put in a stipend that anyone you marry has to be able to consent to marry you (and not just in a dream), be able to sign their name, and be able to support themselves if things were to go wrong.
“Because two male adults making a conscious decision is exactly the same as deciding to fornicate with a dumb animal.”
Well, SOMEone married Ted Cruz.
Equal rights please for all…
I dislike the idea of when I disagree I’m stupid. I do not like a lot of things. Married spouses who cheat-Heavy Metal music-The new Batman-There always other people who disagree. We have lost the art of disagreeing, of debating ideas. If you can not agree with me you are dumb your opinions are meaningless, move along. This is not directed towards you just pop on my mind as I was thinking about the situation.
First of all I am a Christian, so that’s the point of view I’m coming from, just as non-believers form their opinions based on their point of view. I do not mean any of this in a hostile or hateful manner, I’m simply stating my beliefs. Yes, there are legal aspects to marriage, but it is first a religious institution. It has always been, in all parts of the world, in any religious context. It was the same in America’s beginning. It wasn’t until about a hundred years ago that states started requiring marriage licenses. It had always been the territory of churches. Since when do you need the government’s permission to marry? Because that’s what a license is, the permission to do something that is otherwise illegal. Let that sink in. Now, in regards to gays, the Constitutional solution would be, if you want to start a church or religious sect that conducts gay marriages, knock yourself out. That doesn’t mean anyone has to acknowledge it. In regards to matters of who-gets-what upon separation, they can work out some sort of co-habitation agreement for any legal matters. This could apply to any marriage, so the government’s role is minimized. So what’s the real question here? WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN OUR MARRIAGES? Because the government wants to control all aspects of lives, it wants to tax us illegally, and it wants to strip all power from any competing entities, especially churches. That’s the answer. It wants to be God. (Side note: what do you think Obamacare is about? They really want to help us? Please.) BTW, gays do have the same rights to marry, as defined in the dictionary, by societal norms passed down through centuries of tradition: they can marry someone of the opposite sex, and no one’s going to stop them. See, what we’re being asked to do is REDIFINE WORDS. Obama just said “sex” (not the act) is not the same as “gender.” Okay, pretty sure that’s wrong, but then, Obama IS God, right? The only marriages that count are ones acknowledged by God, because marriage as an institution belongs to God. And Peter, as a supposed Jew, you should know this. There is no such thing as “gay marriage.” A gay relationship can only be a civil union, if the state wishes to acknowledge such things, just any “marriage” performed by a judge and not a religious leader is a civil union. Again, this is not meant to be disrespectful, and no, I am not a homophobe. In fact, before I became Christian, I was pro-gay, and I bear no ill feelings for someone who struggles with their sin, just as we all do, however that may manifest itself. My final thought is this: if the Supreme Court declares gay marriage legal, how long before churches are forced to perform gay weddings, or lose their tax-exempt status? What frightens me is that I know liberals have absolutely no regard for the Bill of Rights or freedom of religion. It was LBJ, after all, who instigated the 5013C classification for non-profits, thus politically neutering churches, even though this is America and we have the right to say anything we dámņ well please, in any setting we want. Churches, take your power back!
1) Your paranoia is showing.
2) Yes they can get married.
3) Your ignorance of history is showing.
” It wasn’t until about a hundred years ago that states started requiring marriage licenses.”
Marriage contracts as a function of state existed long before just a hundred years ago. Even in the US, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639. They started becoming more and more common in the US as “marriage licenses” rather than as “marriage contracts” after that.
And it’s the government that wanted to control all aspects of your life? Most marriages in the West were originally contracts made simply between the families of two partners.
That’s largely what marriage was all about in many areas as well. It was a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding the family labor force. Both the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it.
It was around the 1210 to 1220 that the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages. You’re wondering what an invalid marriage is? Basically, it was a marriage made outside of the Church without a dispensation, so the marriage was deemed invalid before both the church and God.They eliminated that requirement around 1980.
And if it’s all about God and the Bible, why are so many Bible thumping, God quoting, religious folks so upset about opening the doors to polygamy? Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages.
4) Yeah, hitting most of the bottom half of your post… Your paranoia from a religious POV is really showing.
You replied to a post too obtuse for me to wade through, so I’ll add only two things:
1) Marriage at ENGLISH law is an institution primarily to regulate the law of descents (inheritance), since a key element of Norman rule after the conquest was WHO controlled the land and its estates. Marriage and coverture was part of this practice, and with all that in mind, your citation to the requirements of 1210-1220 is interesting (the Conquest was in 1066).
2) Your argument re ancient Jews and polygamy falls short because this precisely was the argument of the Mormons in support of plural marriage. However, those who drafted, then submitted the Fourteenth Amendment vigorously opposed plural marriage because (in their religious view) such an institution detracted from the spiritual equality of women. “For, in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels unto God.” Or, so spake Jesus of Nazareth.
Polygamy always has been illegal in the United States. I have a copy of Albert Einstein’s petition for citizenship filed in New Jersey, and the two conditions precedent thereon are that he is neither an anarchist nor a believer in or practitioner of polygamy.
I guess there is no “Arab” problem if you don’t let them in.