[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by leekohler2 

Obama's always been for gay marriage. Anyone who knows his history is aware of that. He had to say what he had to say in order to get elected in '08. That's simply the sad reality of the situation.

Unfortunately. McCain was the first Republican in years that I would have voted for, but only if he had stayed the McCain he was before running for President. He's a very reasonable right-of-center politician.

[The Final Dakar]

Poll Tracks Dramatic Rise In Support for Gay Marriage - ABC News

Support for gay marriage reached a new high in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, marking a dramatic change in public attitudes on the subject across the past decade. Fifty-eight percent of Americans now say it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to wed.

That number has grown sharply in ABC News/Washington Post polls, from a low of 32 percent in a 2004 survey of registered voters, advancing to a narrow majority for the first time only two years ago, and now up again to a significant majority for the first time.

It looks like support is set to double over the course of 10 years. Wow.

Sharp differences across groups remain, but there have been large advances across the board. In one striking gap, gay marriage is supported by a vast 81 percent of adults younger than 30, compared with just 44 percent of seniors. But that’s up by more than 10 points in both groups just since March 2011, and by more than 20 points in both groups since 2004, the low point for gay marriage support in ABC/Post polls.

On the political front, 72 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents favor legalizing gay marriage, vs. far fewer Republicans, 34 percent. Still that’s up by 18 points among Republicans since 2004, as well as by 24 and 29 points among independents and Democrats, respectively.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Poll Tracks Dramatic Rise In Support for Gay Marriage - ABC News



It looks like support is set to double over the course of 10 years. Wow.

Time for the GOP to get current on social issues. They would destroy the Democrats if they could get modern with their social stances and stay hardline on the economy.

[The Final Dakar]

Yeah, here's the flaw in your logic – welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, and Obamacare are part of the Dems social stances.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's on this page, smartass.

I don't think being lazy makes me a smartass. Even if I do take it to new heights. Or depths.

[subego]

I wish there were a word for peak which actually meant trough.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I wish there were a word for peak which actually meant trough.

"Progressive".

[The Final Dakar]

John Boehner: ‘I can’t imagine’ my position on gay marriage would ever change

“I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,” Boehner said on ABC News’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.” “It’s — it’s what I grew up with. It’s what I believe. It’s what my church teaches me. And — I can’t imagine that position would ever change.”

“Listen, Rob’s a great friend and a long-time ally. And — I appreciate that he’s decided to change — his views on this. But I believe that marriage is a union of — of a man and a woman, said Boehner.

Is it me, or does this argument seem to lack acknowledgement that you can be opposed to something personally yet not oppose the freedom for people to do it legally?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

John Boehner: ‘I can’t imagine’ my position on gay marriage would ever change





Is it me, or does this argument seem to lack acknowledgement that you can be opposed to something personally yet not oppose the freedom for people to do it legally?

I mean, thats my stance on it. I don't agree with it, but I sure believe in a person's right to choose for themselves, and would champion that right when called upon.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I don't agree with it

Why?

I'm asking out of genuine curiosity. This isn't an ambush question.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Why?

I'm asking out of genuine curiosity. This isn't an ambush question.

Personally I feel it's disgusting. But that's my own thought. That i leave at home.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Personally I feel it's disgusting. But that's my own thought. That i leave at home.

Gay sex or gay kissing?

(Feel free to not answer)

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Gay sex or gay kissing?

(Feel free to not answer)

I think he was referring to public affection. I think quick pecks in public are fine, but beyond that a couple needs to wait until they have some privacy (certain exceptions do apply).

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I think he was referring to public affection. I think quick pecks in public are fine, but beyond that a couple needs to wait until they have some privacy (certain exceptions do apply).

This. Public affection is ok, but public displays beyond rounding first are not. Then again, that goes for straights too.

[subego]

Slide... SLIDE!

(Thanks for the answer )

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yeah, here's the flaw in your logic – welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, and Obamacare are part of the Dems social stances.

Yes and because they lack proper stewardship, they will eventually fall prey to severe cuts and will result in broken promises to the beneficiaries. Republicans make a convincing argument for resolving the insolvency problems in each of the above to ensure they remain available for those who need them. Again, it's all in the delivery. Dems may enjoy the quick vote today because folks want to vote themselves a greater share of the largesse, but there will come a day when stewardship will resonate a little more with the public just as it has among conservatives in leadership across the pond now that austerity is more en vogue than bankruptcy.

[subego]

How do you know these are people trying to vote themselves a bigger piece rather than seeing it as the only option in the face of an unclear message?

I don't think it's fair to judge the voting populace on what the Republican message should have been.

[Shaddim]

Because most are only concerned about what they want now and not thinking about the future (as evidenced by private debt numbers).

[subego]

Most?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I think he was referring to public affection. I think quick pecks in public are fine, but beyond that a couple needs to wait until they have some privacy (certain exceptions do apply).

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

This. Public affection is ok, but public displays beyond rounding first are not. Then again, that goes for straights too.

Word.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

How do you know these are people trying to vote themselves a bigger piece rather than seeing it as the only option in the face of an unclear message?

Most people acknowledge a government-spending problem, but also want their government to do more for them. Most people oppose tax increases, but support tax increases on "the rich". Most candidates aren't going to win on a platform of raising taxes, but become quite popular when they specify upon which minority of taxpayers. Why? Sacrifice. The only reason "Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You" would ever be such a profound statement. Unfortunately, it's a message increasingly untenable for the new millennium. We will have to relearn the hard way.

I don't think it's fair to judge the voting populace on what the Republican message should have been.

I think the Republican message in this context is abundantly clear to anyone who even pays a modicum of attention to politics. The problem is, they're not. Why would they? Politics... biographies... sacrifice... cuts... contention... these things are all a drag, but for a select few of us who are all twisted up in other ways and will actually take the time to disagree or be disagreeable. It's difficult to compete with entertainment in all its forms and interactive fashions. The more of it available, the less appealing anything else up to and including the use of soylent to eliminate the inconvenience of eating.

It's just the way of things. I'm judging first the lacking tenacity among Republicans and second; the voting populace for being so distracted in such important times.

[The Final Dakar]

Karl Rove: ‘I could’ imagine GOP presidential candidate supporting gay marriage

Karl Rove, former deputy chief of staff under President George W. Bush and current Fox News contributor, says he can envision a candidate in the 2016 Republican presidential primary supporting gay marriage.

This is the same shit who is credited with getting Bush re-elected on the back of state sponsored anti-gay marriage ballots in 2004, right?

[subego]

Wasn't "the fag candidate" epithet for McCain his idea?

[The Final Dakar]

That doesn't even ring a bell. Reference?

[subego]

It was high on the list of smears used against McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary, though it had to share the spotlight with "lingering mental disturbance from being a POW", "committing treason while a POW", and "secret black hooker baby".

I forgot what a class act Bush was.

[The Final Dakar]

I remember the black kid thing.

Edit: Shit, I've gone to plaid.

[subego]

Tartan looks good on you.

[The Final Dakar]

Justice Roberts setting up one of the greatest trolls of all time

Jean Podrasky, 48, a lesbian who wants to marry her partner, will be at Tuesday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Proposition 8 in seating reserved for family members and guests of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

...

Podrasky obtained the highly coveted courtroom seats by emailing Roberts’ sister, Peggy Roberts, and then going through his secretary. Roberts knows she is attending, she said.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Because most are only concerned about what they want now and not thinking about the future (as evidenced by private debt numbers).

This is absolutely true. People don't vote based on whats best for society or their fellow man, they vote for what will benefit them personally the most.

[Shaddim]

Cut out the middleman and do what's right on your own, for yourself and your neighbors. The US federal gov't has proven that it's too corrupt, and inept, to handle most social programs.

[The Final Dakar]

Supreme Court appears deeply divided over same-sex marriage – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

The justices seemed very focused on how Prop 8 affects children, with Justice Kagan at some point suggesting that California have a law allowing same-sex marriage for people past child-bearing age, Toobin said.

Kagan said, according to Toobin: “I assure you if two 55 year old people, there aren’t a lot of children (coming from that marriage).”

Conservative Justices Scalia, Alito and Roberts were "very hostile of idea of the court imposing same sex marriage," according to Toobin. The four Democratic justices seemed favorably disposed.

Justice Kennedy seemed like he was in the middle, he said things that would "give comfort for both sides," Toobin says. Kennedy suggested the issue was brought prematurely before the court

According to Toobin, there were a lot of questions along these lines from Justices Scalia and Alito: We don’t know the effects of same sex parenting on children, so why don’t we wait and let the states go experiment? Why do we, the Supreme Court, have to get involved in this process?

Toobin said Roberts also seemed sympathetic to these questions.

Such a cop-out. I've been hearing about positive studies since the 90s.


---

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statu...67361262059520

Breaking: key vote Kennedy VERY uncomfortable striking down #prop8. Suggests dismissing case. Would leave in place 9th Cir pro-#ssm ruling.

---

The Proposition 8 oral argument : SCOTUSblog

But Justice Kennedy seemed very unlikely to provide either side with the fifth vote needed to prevail. He was deeply concerned with the wisdom of acting now when in his view the social science of the effects of same-sex marriage is uncertain because it is so new. He also noted the doubts about the petitioners’ standing. So his suggestion was that the case should be dismissed.

If those features of the oral argument hold up – and I think they will – then the Court’s ruling will take one of two forms. First, a majority (the Chief Justice plus the liberal members of the Court) could decide that the petitioners lack standing. That would vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision but leave in place the district court decision invalidating Proposition 8. Another case with different petitioners (perhaps a government official who did not want to administer a same-sex marriage) could come to the Supreme Court within two to three years, if the Justices were willing to hear it.

Second, the Court may dismiss the case because of an inability to reach a majority. Justice Kennedy takes that view, and Justice Sotomayor indicated that she might join him. Others on the left may agree. That ruling would leave in place the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

The upshot of either scenario is a modest step forward for gay rights advocates, but not a dramatic one. The Court would stay its hand for some time for society to develop its views further. But combined with a potentially significant ruling in the DOMA case being argued tomorrow, the Term will likely nonetheless end up as very significant to gay rights.

---

Live Blog: Supreme Court Weighs Gay Marriage - Washington Wire - WSJ

Charles Cooper, attorney for Prop 8 backers, appeared at times to struggle in trying to make his intended arguments because the justices kept interrupting him. Justice Sotomayor asked what "injury" was suffered by the people trying to defend Prop 8. Mr. Cooper replied that it wasn't a matter of an injury to any persons, but rather "injury to the state."

Justice Sotomayor asked Mr. Cooper whether the state could discriminate against gays by denying jobs or benefits. She asked if there is any "rational basis" for the state to treat homosexual couples differently in those cases. Mr. Cooper replied, "I do not have anything to offer you."

Then why aren't gay couples a class that should be protected in marriage law, she asked. Mr. Cooper said the state had an interest because of procreation, which traditional marriage is built around. He argued that genderless marriage could lead to "harm to the institution" of marriage over time.

The chief justice said he’s wasn’t sure it was right to view prohibitions on same-sex marriage as an exclusion against gays and lesbians. The institution of marriage developed in ways that just didn’t include them, he said. The institution has been around since time immemorial, he said.

Justice Antonin Scalia asked Olson when exactly it became unconstitutional to bar gays and lesbians from marrying. Was it 1791? 1868? Mr. Olson responded with a question of his own: When did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage?

Don’t try to answer my question with your own question, Justice Scalia responded. Mr. Olson then said he could give no specific date on which a ban on gay marriage became unconstitutional. But courts, he said, have never required that kind of precision.

Mr. Olson says there’s a difference. Banning same-sex marriage targets gays and lesbians as a class. But polygamy, he says, can be regulated as a form of conduct.

Verrilli took the lectern. The government argues that when a state like California grants gay couples all the rights and privileges of marriage, there can be no justification for denying them the label of marriage. California’s own laws, which permit gay couples to adopt children, “cut the legs out” of Mr. Cooper’s argument that the term marriage must be reserved for heterosexual couples because only sex acts between men and women can produce children.

Sensing the court’s reluctance to impose same-sex marriage nationwide, Mr. Cooper tries to raise the stakes – “It’s impossible” to limit the ruling to California, he says.

Justice Ginsburg disagrees. Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 interracial marriage case that hangs over these arguments, didn’t come as a bolt from the blue, she says. In 1964, the court struck down a Florida law making it a crime for men and women of different races to live together, without, as it said then, “expressing any views about the State’s prohibition of interracial marriage.”

She seems to be suggesting that Proposition 8 could be struck down without changing marriage laws elsewhere.

Mr. Cooper ends with the implicit assumption that nearly all the participants seem to share—that gay marriage is coming, sooner or later. Just stay out of it, he tells the justices, let this roiling debate continue. Don’t even worry about the gay and lesbian couples who brought this lawsuit, he suggests, because the same-sex marriage issue “will be coming back to California.” He means, apparently, that the shifts in public opinion suggest that if Proposition 8 survives the Supreme Court, a voter referendum to repeal the measure may be in the offing.

[subego]

I believe the "think of the children" stuff is bullshit, but I can't see by what mechanism you flip this law.

Due process? Way too many states don't have gay marriage. What about their due process? Do you flip every state?

Don't get me wrong. I'm pretty clearly pro-gay marriage, but I think it's dangerous for courts to be that aggressive. Not because of gay marriage, but because of the precedent it sets for what the courts are allowed to regardless of subject.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I believe the "think of the children" stuff is bullshit, but I can't see by what mechanism you flip this law.

Due process? Way too many states don't have gay marriage. What about their due process? Do you flip every state?

Don't get me wrong. I'm pretty clearly pro-gay marriage, but I think it's dangerous for courts to be that aggressive. Not because of gay marriage, but because of the precedent it sets for what the courts are allowed to regardless of subject.

I read a good amount the transcript and one thing jumped out at me that made a lot of sense. A legal paradox if you will.

Basically, they argue that you can't take away rights that are already granted and that civil unions are separate but equal. So legally, the court should strike down Prop 8 and promote all civil unions to marriage.

The paradox is that if a state is so 'bigoted' or 'backwards' if you will, that they don't extend any rights to homosexuals, that they essentially dodge the bullet on granting them equal protection. So a situation is created where those states that recognize homosexuals in some manner are running afoul of the law while those that don't aren't. How do you square that circle? At best, a narrow ruling is just putting your fingers in your ears and humming.

I won't pretend to know the answer here. Particularly given some of the reactions by Justices yesterday.



One thing I found interesting was this this, however:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Outside of the -­ outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a State using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the Government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, I cannot. I do not have any -- anything to offer you in that regard. I think marriage is -­

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: All right. If that -­ if that is true, then why aren't they a class? If they're a class that makes any other discrimination improper, irrational, then why aren't we treating them as a class for this one thing? Are you saying that the interest of marriage is so much more compelling than any other interest as they could have?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, we certainly are not. We -- we are saying the interest in marriage and the -- and the State 's interest and society's interest in what we have framed as responsible pro -­ procreation is -- is vital, but at bottom, with respect to those interests, our submission is that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are simply not similarly situated.

But to come back to your precise question, I think, Justice Sotomayor, you're probing into whether or not sexual orientation ought to be viewed as a quasi-suspect or suspect class, and our position is that it does not qualify under this Court's standard and -­ and traditional tests for identifying suspectedness. The -- the class itself is -- is quite amorphous. It defies consistent definition as -- as the Plaintiffs' own experts were -- were quite vivid on. It -- it does not -- it -- it does not qualify as an accident of birth, immutability in that -- in that sense. Again, the Plaintiffs -­

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So you -- so what -- I don't quite understand it. If you're not dealing with this as a class question, then why would you say that the Government is not free to discriminate against them?

MR. COOPER: Well, Your Honor, I would think that -- that -- I think it's a -- it's a very different question whether or not the Government can proceed arbitrarily and irrationally with respect to any group of people, regardless of whether or not they qualify under this Court's traditional test for suspectedness. And -- and the hypothetical I understood you to be offering, I would submit would create -- it would -­ unless there's something that -- that is not occurring to me immediately, an arbitrary and capricious distinction among similarly situated individuals, that -- that is not what we think is at the -- at the root of the traditional definition of marriage.

Speaking of paradoxes, he creates a paradox where you can't discriminate based on sexual-orientation while simultaneously denying they are a protected class.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I don't see where he supposedly said that the government is not free to discriminate against them. All I heard him say was that the government doesn't happen to discriminate against them (and I would have said the military if I were him, but maybe he is right not to).

[The Final Dakar]

"the hypothetical I understood you to be offering I would submit would create ... an arbitrary and capricious distinction among similarly situated individuals"

This strikes me as saying any discrimination would be unfounded. Along with his admitting to having no example of a rational basis for government to discriminate against them.

Is government allowed to discriminate on an 'irrational' basis?

[The Final Dakar]

I'll post about DOMA later, but the closing statement from the pro-DOMA side was essentially "It'll eventually be legal, so don't do the right thing now." Really weird.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

"the hypothetical I understood you to be offering I would submit would create ... an arbitrary and capricious distinction among similarly situated individuals"

That was after Sotomayor said he had said it already. Or am I reading her question wrong, did she mean "would you" when she said "why would you?"

This strikes me as saying any discrimination would be unfounded. Along with his admitting to having no example of a rational basis for government to discriminate against them.

No what he said was there is no other rational basis for it being done (that he could think of, or that he was interested in debating over), other than the basis for his claim, which he claims is rational. His is the only rational one, IOW.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That was after Sotomayor said he had said it already. Or am I reading her question wrong, did she mean "would you" when she said "why would you?"

He didn't take issue with the implication, if that were the case. The main idea seems to be that marriage is somehow not about class.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No what he said was there is no other rational basis for it being done (that he could think of, or that he was interested in debating over), other than the basis for his claim, which he claims is rational. His is the only rational one, IOW.

Kind of a convenient perspective, isn't it? He didn't do a very good job showing rationality on that front, either.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

He didn't take issue with the implication, if that were the case. The main idea seems to be that marriage is somehow not about class.

Not denying something doesn't implicate you of it. His answer was especially equivocal, and it seems to me like he's trying his best to reframe the question instead of answering it, which would explain why he didn't deny it.

Kind of a convenient perspective, isn't it? He didn't do a very good job showing rationality on that front, either.

If you believe marriage is about procreation, then he did an excellent job of maintaining that as a rational basis to differentiate gay marriage from straight marriage. He didn't do a very good job of supporting the premise that marriage is about procreation, which is expected because supporting things that are objectively false is very difficult. But the answer to Sotomayor's question about how can this be rational if you can't think of other analogies to rational gay discrimination is satisfactory. This reason (rationalization really) is about the actual thing that is what it makes it to be gay, not about labels.

It would be like saying you discriminate against blacks for your naked night-time crossing guard job, because their skin makes it harder to see them in the dark. You could say there are no other examples you know of where it's rational to discriminate against blacks, but maintain that this is still a rational example, and you'd be right. It's an unjust example, but at least it is rational.

Anyway, it's not an important question, because whether or not there's another situation out there (like armed forces for example) where a rational rationalization can be made for discriminating against gays wouldn't change the outcome of the case either way. It was probably a fishing expedition.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Not denying something doesn't implicate you of it. His answer was especially equivocal, and it seems to me like he's trying his best to reframe the question instead of answering it, which would explain why he didn't deny it.

From the reading I'm doing when these guys don't like the implication they say so. What you're communicating is a dodge, (rather than outright demonstrating the error in the logic) which I think is damning of his position.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you believe marriage is about procreation, then he did an excellent job of maintaining that as a rational basis to differentiate gay marriage from straight marriage. He didn't do a very good job of supporting the premise that marriage is about procreation, which is expected because supporting things that are objectively false is very difficult.

That's what I said.

[The Final Dakar]

Reading through the DOMA transcript, it littered with a lot more legalese than I can understand.

[The Final Dakar]

Above I pointed the possible paradox of Prop 8 making civil unions into marriages in 9 states but simultaneously pretending nothing occurred in the rest. DOMA also has some paradoxical ramifications. It simultaneously seems to be protecting and encroaching on states rights.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/th...proposition-8/

What’s more, he added, Congress had done so in DOMA to guarantee that federal law would treat marriages uniformly in all states. These arguments drew questions from all four of the Court’s liberal Justices. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, disputed what she regarded as Clement’s efforts to minimize DOMA’s impact: she complained that DOMA affected “every aspect of life” for same-sex couples and “really diminish[es]” what the state has acknowledged as a marriage.

Along those lines, he told Clement that through DOMA the federal government is intertwined with the everyday lives of Americans, and at a “real risk” of running into a conflict with the states’ power to define marriage. Later on, he put it more bluntly, telling Clement that the question in the case is “whether the federal government has the authority to regulate marriages.”

he reiterated that the real constitutional problem with DOMA is that it violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment by treating married same-sex couples differently from married opposite-sex couples. But the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Alito seemed dubious about that argument. Justice Alito pressed Verrilli to explain whether, under his rationale, a same-sex couple who are married under the laws of the state where they live would be treated differently than either a same-sex couple that has a domestic partnership, but cannot marry, in their home state or a same-sex couple whose state does not offer either domestic partnerships or marriage. Or, asked Justice Scalia, would the federal government treat all three couples the same, regardless of the state laws on marriage? And the Chief Justice suggested that, on Verrilli’s argument, even if Congress had intended “marriage” in the federal laws to refer to a marriage between a man and a woman, “[a]s soon as one state adopted same-sex marriage, the definition of marriage throughout the federal code had to change?”

I don't see any easy answer to this question. I think Alito had one of the best questions of the day:

JUSTICE ALITO: Can I take you back to the example that you began with, where a member of the military is injured. So let's say three soldiers are injured and they are all in same-sex relationships, and in each instance the other partner in this relationship wants to visit the soldier in a hospital. First is a spouse in a State that allows same-sex marriage, the second is a domestic partner in a State that an allows that but not same-sex marriage, the third is in an equally committed loving relationship in a State that doesn't involve either. Now, your argument is that under Federal law the first would be admitted, should be admitted, but the other two would be kept out?

I think a lot of the hesitation is the reality of situation is a DOMA getting struck down could have a sort of 'house of cards' effect on current recognition of gay marriage within different states (Which of course was the entire point but still).


I thought the closing statement was weak.

MR. CLEMENT: And, Justice Ginsburg, applying rational basis to DOMA, I think that there are many rational bases that support it. And the Solicitor General says, well, you know, the United States is not the 51st State to be sure, but the Federal Government has interests in uniformity that no other entity has.

And we heard today that there's a problem; when somebody moves from New York to North Carolina, they can lose their benefits. The Federal Government uniquely, unlike the 50 States, can say, well, that doesn't make any sense, we are going to have the same rule. We don't want somebody, if they are going to be transferred in the military from West Point to Fort Sill in Oklahoma, to resist the transfer because they are going to lose some benefits.

It makes sense to have a uniform Federal rule for the Federal Government. It is not so anomalous that the term "marriage" is defined in the U.S. Code. The very next provision of the Dictionary Act defines "child." These terms, although they are the primary province of State governments, do appear in multiple Federal statutes and it's a Federal role to define those terms.

...

The reason there has been a sea change is a combination of political power, as defined by this Court's cases as getting the attention of lawmakers; certainly they have that. But it's also persuasion. That's what the democratic process requires. You have to persuade somebody you're right. You don't label them a bigot. You don't label them as motivated by animus. You persuade them you are right.

That's going on across the country. Colorado, the State that brought you Amendment 2, has just recognized civil unions. Maine, that was pointed to in the record in this case as being evidence of the persistence of discrimination because they voted down a statewide referendum, the next election cycle it came out the other way. And the Federal Congress is not immune. They repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Allow the democratic process to continue.

The last paragraph sounds like, "Don't rule in favor of the homosexuals, they don't need the help."

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

From the reading I'm doing when these guys don't like the implication they say so. What you're communicating is a dodge, (rather than outright demonstrating the error in the logic) which I think is damning of his position.

When it serves their argument they say so. There's no point in speaking up if doing so would only take everyone further away from the point of the discussion.

That's what I said.

You said he failed to support the claim that it's rational. I said he made it perfectly rational, but still not fair or "right."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The last paragraph sounds like, "Don't rule in favor of the homosexuals, they don't need the help."

Sounds to me like they're saying there's no compelling reason to rule on an issue that is already being shaped by the democratic process.

[ebuddy]

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Outside of the -­ outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a State using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the Government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?

ebuddy: Your Honor, with due respect; the entire matter before the courts is marriage law and under marriage law -- we're not only denying benefits and imposing burdens upon homosexuals, but upon all unmarried persons and blood relatives. What you're really asking me is if there is a rationale to marriage itself. I submit to you that if there be none, we wouldn't be here considering who does or does not constitute a protected class under marriage law as the unequal application of it is inherent in its very makeup. If it were merely a certificate of love between two people, there would be no rationale to the denial of benefits to any two people who profess love for one another; notwithstanding the apparent precedent of acknowledgement for procreative potential and its benefit to society.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: All right. If that -­ if that is true, then why aren't they a class? If they're a class that makes any other discrimination improper, irrational, then why aren't we treating them as a class for this one thing? Are you saying that the interest of marriage is so much more compelling than any other interest as they could have?

ebuddy: marriage law itself creates classes in setting committed couples apart from the rest of society. I don't think you can ask me how it is an institution with the express purpose of elevating one class above another can discriminate. It is, by its very nature, discriminatory. If your line of query is founded on the ideal that the denial of the marriage benefits by class is unconstitutional, then the matter before the courts is much more vast than simply whether or not homosexuals can marry, it is whether or not marriage itself is constitutional.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You said he failed to support the claim that it's rational. I said he made it perfectly rational, but still not fair or "right."

Alright, I'll bite. What's the difference between rational and fair?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Sounds to me like they're saying there's no compelling reason to rule on an issue that is already being shaped by the democratic process.

It's being shaped in an unequal manner. That's a compelling reason. I also have issue with allowing the implementation of a right to be protracted for what appears to be no compelling reason.

Suppose the issue was interracial marriage instead and there were states legalizing and outlawing it but "politicians are tripping over themselves to support interracials." Should the SCOTUS rule?

Say the SCOTUS doesn't rule and we end up with interracial marriage legal in 49 states and illegal in 1. What happens then?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

[snip]

One of the stranger parts of these hearings is when they don't put forth arguments we see as having merit. I myself wonder why it wasn't brought up that lesbian couples can procreate, though through artificial means (is that relevant? I don't see why as many heterosexual couple do the same).

[The Final Dakar]

Bill O'Reilly: Gay Marriage Foes Can Only 'Thump The Bible' In Their Arguments (VIDEO)

Bill O'Reilly said Tuesday that the opponents of same-sex marriage have been unable to do anything but "thump the Bible" in their arguments.

"I agree with you 100 percent. The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals," O'Reilly said. "That is where the compelling argument is. We're Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else. That's a compelling argument, and to deny that you've got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn't been able to do anything but thump the Bible." This, he added, was not a basis on which to enact public policy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's being shaped in an unequal manner. That's a compelling reason. I also have issue with allowing the implementation of a right to be protracted for what appears to be no compelling reason.

Because there had been no compelling reason to extend the privilege. I don't think folks regard marriage as a right in the traditional sense of equality and protection. Again, marriage law itself creates a class of people based on a preferred societal condition and elevates that class above the remainder of society by conferring benefits upon it. I maintain that people have not been as compelled to extend this privilege to include conditions they believe are symptomatic of mental illness as they have been those of more apparent, immutable genetic composition. In other words, same-sex marriage has not generally been deemed a preferred societal condition such that society would be compelled to confer the marital benefits upon it.

Suppose the issue was interracial marriage instead and there were states legalizing and outlawing it but "politicians are tripping over themselves to support interracials." Should the SCOTUS rule?

The SCOTUS will rule when it is compelled to; generally about the time society is tripping over itself in decrying what it considers an obvious injustice, yes.

Say the SCOTUS doesn't rule and we end up with interracial marriage legal in 49 states and illegal in 1. What happens then?

Had people not been tripping over themselves decrying an injustice such that it would be escalated to and ruled upon by the highest court in the land, you'd have some states acknowledging interracial marriage and others not. As is the case with SSM today. It is the year 2013 and yet, I believe the SCOTUS will essentially affirm State's rights on this issue. Why? Because homosexuality is more fluid and not as easily understood as race.

One of the stranger parts of these hearings is when they don't put forth arguments we see as having merit. I myself wonder why it wasn't brought up that lesbian couples can procreate, though through artificial means (is that relevant? I don't see why as many heterosexual couple do the same).

Worse, there is greater odds of birth defect among the offspring of those aged 49 and older than there is blood relatives and yet we do not use the procreative fitness argument in defending the right of middle-aged and older people to get married or deny marriage to those with cancer, etc. So... today, not only can a lesbian give birth from artificial insemination, but procreative fitness has never been a reasonable or determinative factor in who should wed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Bill O'Reilly: Gay Marriage Foes Can Only 'Thump The Bible' In Their Arguments (VIDEO)

This would only come as a shock to those who've been listening to unreasonable people slander people they disagree with as unreasonable.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Alright, I'll bite. What's the difference between rational and fair?

Rational means it follows its own consistent internal logic. Fair means that it elevates the downtrodden and leans more heavily on the privileged. Things can be rational without being fair; for example bailing out the TBTF banks was rational (it followed through with its own stated goals to preserve as much of the status quo as possible), but it wasn't fair (it favored the elite class instead of the lower classes, making the elite even more elite). Things can be fair without being rational; for example federal loan subsidies like housing and student loan are fair (they level the playing field between rich and poor customers), but not rational (by tipping the scales towards limitless demand, they create a bubble in supply). Other examples of fair but not rational arguably include patents, child support, medical malpractice, and government funding of the arts.

Being fair at the expense of rational is a laudable goal, so it's not at all unexpected to find ourselves with far more examples of fair-but-not-rational than vice versa. If we pursue rational and ignore fair, we will end up in a libertarian dystopia. But of course, we can't throw rational out the window entirely

Edit: I realize I should point out that I'm not saying the pro-gay side isn't rational; it is. In this case, both sides are rational and internally-consistent. The "marriage is for procreation and PS no gays allowed" argument is rational but not fair, and the pro-gay-marriage side is both rational and fair. IMO ebuddy's plan to remove marriage from government altogether is also both rational and fair.