Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[Ryadn]

Christian: Goes against God's word.
Atheist: Goes against Nature.

I am Christian.

Actually, most athesits have nothing agaisnt homosexuality, or same-sex marriages at all.

you sure about that?

I'm an Atheist, and most of me has nothing against homosexuality or same-sex marriage.

You're not most atheists, to be fair...

Wait did I read the worng notes at the last Atheist Meeting? I thought we were supposed to love the gays? I keep losing the memos...

the meeting was a MESS.

gay love was on the ballot but it devolved into a fight over whether MOST of an atheist should carry the whole vote or if gni's left eye could cast one on it own and if so how many votes did each atheist get......

we didnt get out of there until after midnight with nothing resolved but that gni's left eye is an ass.

We'd get more done if we could agree with each other on anything else besides just the God issue.

i know! its as if we have nothing else in common.

Didn't we all agree that bacon is delicious? Oh, and that those green checked drapes really did not match the burnt amber throw rugs?

*raises hand*

Actually, I'm not really a fan of bacon...

*feels the heat of the combined liberal fascist nazi marxist atheist homosexual agenda glare and slowly lowers hand*

[Karsol]

*the snip to end all snips*

GIVE THE CAT-TRIBE A MEDAL. HE IS A PRETTY COOL GUY. EH PROVES CONSERVATIVES WRONG AND DOESN'T AFRAID OF ANYTHING.

Uhhh, you seem to be defeating any credibility you have pretty well too.

[The Rich Port]

*the snip to end all snips*

GIVE THE CAT-TRIBE A MEDAL. HE IS A PRETTY COOL GUY. EH PROVES CONSERVATIVES WRONG AND DOESN'T AFRAID OF ANYTHING.

Uhhh, you seem to be defeating any credibility you have pretty well too.

I actually found it better than anything anyone has posted on here, both for and against gay marriage. I particularly liked the links at the bottom. As a Christian, I need as much proof to thrust in my family's face as I can. They're annoyingly persistent about their "faith" too.

[Ryadn]

This argument is about greed, pure and simple

People want to be allowed to have equality in marriage.,.. because they are greedy?

Yes...

...I'm content to simply love my partner, and I don't need the state to recognize that union,

I assume this is a roundabout way of answering the question?

You are content to simply love your partner... so anyone that wants to get married is greedy? I need to be sure I'm understanding.

I'm quite content to work in public education instead of running my own business. You can read about my proposed ballot initiative, Californians Against Small Businesses, in next week's "It's All About ME!" newsletter.

[Allrule]

*the snip to end all snips*

GIVE THE CAT-TRIBE A MEDAL. HE IS A PRETTY COOL GUY. EH PROVES CONSERVATIVES WRONG AND DOESN'T AFRAID OF ANYTHING.

^This!

[Unidox]

Read here

Reading Cat-Tribe's posts are like sex; really, really good sex. You even get the sensation of release afterwards.

[Ryadn]

Lelouche's incredibly long red herring of an argument reminds me of the debate between Harvey Milk and John Briggs over Prop 6. One of arguments made by proponents of Prop 6 was that homosexual schoolteachers could molest their students. When Milk pointed out that statistically child-molesters were overwhelming straight men who molested girls, and that banning homosexuals from teaching would not end this particular problem, Briggs offered the feeble excuse that banning homosexuals was at least a good place to start. Lelouche seems to believe that banning homosexuals from marrying is a good place to start in his campaign to stop 'government-recognized marriage', despite the fact that such a ban has a very minor overall influence.

I believe his argument and his motivations behind it just as much as I believe that John Briggs was really motivated by fear for the children.

[The Rich Port]

Read here

Reading Cat-Tribe's posts are like sex; really, really good sex. You even get the sensation of release afterwards.

My favorite is #7. It's the argument I quote the most, and probably why I buy all of the A.P.A.'s merchandise. That one always shuts my family up nice and good...

[Allrule]

Read here

Reading Cat-Tribe's posts are like sex; really, really good sex. You even get the sensation of release afterwards.

My favorite is #7. It's the argument I quote the most, and probably why I buy all of the A.P.A.'s merchandise. That one always shuts my family up nice and good...

I prefer #2. Especially Scalia's quote inside. Good way to get the right-wingers to STFU after one of their heroes has said something that effectively defeats their point.

[Ifreann]

[
Gays already have the "right" to get married. What they want is for the "Right" of everybody to be able to marry the same gender.

Whats wrong with trying to get everyone more rights?

Marriage is a man and woman, so it's not more rights, it's special rights. There's some people that like to marry more than one person, but where was everyone fighting for their right to do that?

Something about this seems familiar.....

Why is it bad in the first place? Gays don't want equal rights, they want special rights.

You are quite wrong, and I'll show how with the help of Alice, Bob and Carol. They're legal adults, unmarried.
If she agreed to it, Bob could marry Alice. If she agreed to it, Bob could marry Carol. Equality between Alice and Carol. What about Alice and Bob?

Bob, as we've seen, can marry Carol. Alice, however, can not. Alice and Bob are not equal. Same deal for Carol and Bob.

These 'special' rights we hear so much about would do nothing more than make men equal to women in the eyes of the law. How abominable! How terrible! We must battle against this evil with every ounce of our strength!

[Ifreann]

Exactly. Gays should not receive money for being gay.

Therefore, don't let them marry!

[Birnadia]

I can't wait to see the Westboro Baptist Church's reaction.

[Desperate Measures]

Exactly. Gays should not receive money for being gay.

Therefore, don't let them marry!

One of these days, Penguin.... to the mooooooooon!

[New Chalcedon]

Note: I apologize for not replying post-by-post to arguments in this thread. I simply haven't had time today. Please excuse the lengthy shotgun approach below.

I know those arguing against the U.S. District Court's opinion (but have clearly failed to actually read the extremely thorough 136-page decision they are upset about or even read/reply to my brief summary of it) are unlikely to read any of this, but, as some of the same bullshit arguments against same-sex marriage are being recirculated herein, I thought I'd post some past answers:

1. As I said in my earlier post, contrary to those whining about judicial activism or the "will of the voters, fundamental rights and equal protection of the laws do not depend on the whim of majority opinion or the outcome of elections. The Supreme Court explained this in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Despite this being a nearly 70-year old precedent, some right-wingers have rejected it as judicial activism. Well, guess what? Here is the same sentiment from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

The Bill of Rights is devised to protect you and me against, who do you think? The majority. My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk. And the notion that the justices ought to be selected because of the positions that they will take, that are favored by the majority, is a recipe for destruction of what we have had for 200 years.

2. The view that there is no right to marriage because it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is absurd. It flies in the face of: (1) the multiple SCOTUS cases dating back many, many decades saying there is a right to marriage, (2) the 9th Amendment, (3) the 5th and 14th Amendments' protection of substantive liberty, (4) the intent of the Founders of the Constitution that it protect rights beyond those enumerated, (5) the intent behind the 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, and (6) at least 150 years of SCOTUS caselaw regarding the protection of unenumerated rights. Moreover:

A. Whether or not a right or liberty interest is expressly stated in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't protected by the Constitution. As the Supreme Court explained in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992):

Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the cases before us is "liberty." .... ... It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. We have vindicated this principle before. Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the Bill of Rights, and interracial marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court was no doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (relying, in an opinion for eight Justices, on the Due Process Clause). Similar examples may be found in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 94-99 (1987); in Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-686 (1977); in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 481-482 (1965), as well as in the separate opinions of a majority of the Members of the Court in that case, id. at 486-488 (Goldberg, J., joined by Warren, C.J., and Brennan, J., concurring) (expressly relying on due process), id. at 500-502 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment) (same), id. at 502-507, (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment) (same); in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535 (1925); and in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399-403 (1923).

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This "liberty" is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment. Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S., at 543 (dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).

Justice Harlan wrote these words in addressing an issue the full Court did not reach in Poe v. Ullman, but the Court adopted his position four Terms later in Griswold v. Connecticut, supra. In Griswold, we held that the Constitution does not permit a State to forbid a married couple to use contraceptives. That same freedom was later guaranteed, under the Equal Protection Clause, for unmarried couples. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). Constitutional protection was extended to the sale and distribution of contraceptives in Carey v. Population Services International, supra. It is settled now, as it was when the Court heard arguments in Roe v. Wade, that the Constitution places limits on a State's right to interfere with a person's most basic decisions about family and parenthood, see Carey v. Population Services International, supra; Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977); Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra; Loving v. Virginia, supra; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, as well as bodily integrity, see, e.g., Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221 -222 (1990); Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).

...

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S., at 685 . Our cases recognize the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, 405 U.S., at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

B. To further illustrate the point, here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "expressly stated" in the Constitution but that are protected by the Constitution:

• the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
• the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
• the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
• the right to travel within the United States
• the right to marry or not to marry
• the right to make one's own choice about having children
• the right to have children at all
• the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
• the right to custody of one's children
• the right to choose and follow a profession
• right to bodily integrity

Do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?

3. Despite ridiculous and baseless (and hypocritical) accusations of bias being made against a distinguished and fair (and conservative Republican) jurist, Chief Judge Walker is not the first federal judge to rule that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it does not pass even the rational-basis test. See United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management (44p pdf); see also post describing decision in Gill.

4. One cannot distinquish SCOTUS's "right to marriage" caselaw on the ground that Loving v. Virginia was and/or the 14th Amendment is about racial discrimination.

First, the 14th Amendments plain language applies to "persons" and not just "races." It has both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause -- which provide independent arguments in support of same-sex marriage. A modicum of research on what the 14th Amendment means reveals it is not limited to the context of stopping racial discrimination. See, e.g., Findlaw's Annotated 14th Amendment; Wikipedia: Fourteenth Amendment; Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause; Equal Protection and Fundamental Rights; Substantive Due Process.

Second, both before and after Loving, SCOTUS recognized the fundamental right to marriage was protected by the Due Process Clause[s] of the Constitution outside the context of anti-miscegenation laws. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (saying that "[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men", marriage "is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'," and marriage is a "fundamental freedom"); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374,383 (1978) ("[Our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance..."); Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639 -640 (1974) ("This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

Third, even in Loving, the Court invalidated laws against interracial marriage on two independent grounds. The first was that such laws discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bans on same-sex marriage discriminate on the basis of gender and are no more valid. Some try to claim Loving's Equal Protection analysis was based on the discriminatory intent of the laws against interracial marriage. I don't totally agree. Regardless, laws against same-sex marriage such as California's Prop. 8 are clearly based on the same type of discriminatory animus. The second ground was that such laws denied a fundamental right in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court's analysis on that point had nothing to do with racism.

5. The "history" or "tradition" of the institution of marriage does not support (let alone justify) the exclusion of same-sex couples.

A. The American Bar Association provides a brief, but detailed and useful history of marriage (as well as other cogent points related to this whole debate) in their ABA White Paper: An Analysis of the Law Regarding Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships (60p pdf) (see pages 7-11). As the ABA explains (referring to the history of marriage worldwide), "the institution of marriage, rather than being a single, unchanging concept of one man and one woman committed to each other for life, has been a fluid paradigm, changing with the culture and societal norms of the time." Polygamy has been and still is common in many cultures (including the Judeo-Christian past). Same-sex marriages and polyandry have been recognized by different cultures at different times. Monogamous marriages between one man and one woman with religious overtones and/or civil recognition (other than as a contract) is a relatively recent phenomenon. And, even in that context, the laws and customs concerning the definition of marriage have undergone constant change. See also Testimony of Harvard's Jonathan Trumbull Professor of American History Nancy Cott in Perry v. Schwarzenegger in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 11, 2010 (214p pdf, see pp. 181-210); Continued Testimony of Professor Nancy Cott in Perry v. Schwarzenegger in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 12, 2010 (245p pdf, see pp. 5-40, 115-134).

B. Same-sex marriage is not a recent invention. See, e.g., Wikipedia: History of same-sex unions; Testimony of Harvard's Jonathan Trumbull Professor of American History Nancy Cott in Perry v. Schwarzenegger in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 11, 2010 (214p pdf, see pp. 181-210); Continued Testimony of Professor Nancy Cott in Perry v. Schwarzenegger in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 12, 2010 (245p pdf, see pp. 5-40, 115-134); Allan Tulchin, "Same-Sex Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France: The Uses of the Affrèrement," Journal of Modern History (September 2007) ([i]see link); William N. Eskridge, Jr., "A History of Same-Sex Marriage," Virginia Law Review, Vol. 79, No. 7 (Oct., 1993), pp. 1419-1513; Mathew Kuefler, "The Marriage Revolution in Late Antiquity: The Theodosian Code and Later Roman Marriage Law," Journal of Family History 32: 343–370 (2007); Gay Marriage Goes Way Back; Taking a 'Husband': A History of Gay Marriage.

6. Beyond being a ship that sailed long ago, the "government should just stay out of marriage argument" is both wrong and should not be used to deny same-sex couples the benefits of the institution of marriage.

A. Remember those "inalienable rights" our Founders talked about or the "natural rights" to which libertarians often refer. One of them is the right to marriage. This right is also connected to other natural rights.

B. Similialry, remember the concept of property rights so near and dear to the hearts of so many free-market conservatives and libertarians. Legal recognition of marriage is a vital protection and extension of those rights.

C. Marriage is a civil institution with a fundamental role in society. Long-term stable relationships between individuals have long been deemed important and tied to other rights, benefits, responsibilites, and privileges. There are literally thosands of other rights, privileges, and benefits legally tied to marital status. There are copious reasons, including simple efficiency, for recognizing this via government rather than requiring massive amounts of contractual or other agreements to replace these (even where this is possible). Some of these rights enshrined in federal law include:

• distribution of property upon divorce
• right to seek spousal support (alimony, maintenence)
• automatic presumption of parentage for children born during marriage
• right to adopt, including stepparent adoption
• eligible for care of foster child
• right to enter into premarital agreements
• joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
• joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
• family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
• next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions, consent to organ donation, consent to autopsy
• family health insurance, including rights under COBRA
• custodial, visititation, or parenting rights to children and child support after divorce
• domestic violence intervention, including restraining orders and right to occupy home
• access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
• joint petititions to immigrate
• special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens re immigration
• threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
• court notice of probate proceedings
• existing homestead lease continuation of rights
• regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
• right to take leave under Family Medical Leave Act and funeral and bereavement leave
• insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society (i.e., health insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, etc)
• accesss to medical records
• permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
• right of survivorship of custodial trust
• right to change surname upon marriage
• right to inheritance of property
• spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
• right to seek compensation for wrongful death, loss of consortium, or intentional infliction of emotional distress
• ability to roll over spouse's 401(k) or other retirement accounts
• eligibility for tenancy by the entirety
• benefits and rules pertaining to family farms
• joint filing of taxes

Similar benefits (and more) exist under the laws of each state. Again, these are all seperate from any consideration of welfare/government assistance or taxes.

sources: Wikipedia, 1997 GAO report (75p pdf), 2004 GAO report (18p pdf), American Bar Assn. White Paper. (60p pdf, see pp. 16-17).

D. We should and must reject the logic of the My Lai Massacre: "We must destroy marriage to save it" (from the gays and lesbians).

7. It is simply ludicrous to argue that same-sex marriage cannot be allowed because it or homosexuality are "not normal" or are "abnormal. Even if this were a relevant concern, it isn't really true:

A. We know from the standpoint of psychiatry and psychology that homosexuality is normal and NOT abnormal. See, e.g., http://www.apa.org/about/governance/cou ... tion.aspx; http://www.soulforce.org/article/642; http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission ... gland.pdf; http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/se ... tion.aspx; http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/th ... ponse.pdf; http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/press/pressrel ... ment.aspx; http://www.apa.org/research/action/gay.aspx; http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx; http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/am ... ence.aspx; http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/am ... gley.aspx; http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/humanrights.pdf.

B. Normal can mean the following (under which homosexuality is normal):

• occurring naturally
• conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
• a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development b : free from mental disorder
• free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation
• functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies
• characterized by balanced well-integrated functioning of the organism as a whole

See, e.g., http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/normal; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal

C. "Normal" in terms of the mean or standard deviations from a normal distribution of human sexual orientation is nigh impossible to establish one way or another. Sexual orientation is a fluid concept and getting accurate figures in Western countries is difficult enough for copious reasons without the added difficulties of the rest of the world. No fair conclusion can be drawn that homosexuality is not "normal" based on a distribution curve of world human sexual orientation. See, e.g., http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLand ... 16078-001; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... ientation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality; http://www.linfo.org/human_variability.html; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation; http://www.radstats.org.uk/no083/Ross83.pdf; http://books.google.co.in/books?id=zikd ... pt&f=false (page 478); http://books.google.co.in/books?id=sFHX ... pt&f=false (page 81).

8. Same-sex couples cannot be denied the right to marry on the grounds that marriage is for procreation or "propagation of the species."

A. We have never required procreation as a condition of marriage. The idea is obscene. (And shockingly authoritarian.) Nor has this historically been the primary purpose of marriage. See ABA White Paper: An Analysis of the Law Regarding Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships (60p pdf) (see especially pages 7-11). Also, one not only can be married without having children, but one also can have children without being married. The two simply are not inherently connected.

B. Homosexuals can propogate or can adopt children. The number of children in America currently being raised by gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents is unknown. Resistance to lesbian and gay rights continues to force many lesbian and gay people to remain silent about their sexual orientation and relationships. In 1999, however, research estimated that the total number of children nationwide living with at least one homosexual parent ranged from six to 14 million. And, as of the 2000 Census, at least two million gay, lesbian, or bisexual people were interested in adopting some of the many, many children needing care in this country.

C. Begetting and raising children is not the only way to benefit society or the species -- even from the narrow viewpoint of propogation. Homosexuality in some portion of a species population can be an evolutionary advantage. See, e.g., link, link, link. More specifically, homosexuality and same-sex relationships can be of evolutionary benefit to humans. See, e.g., link, link, link (29p pdf), link

D. The scientific evidence is overwhelming that: same-sex marriages are healthy, stable, and committed; denying marriage to same-sex couples causes harm to those couples; same-sex parenting does not harm (and may even benefit) children; AND denying same-sex marriage harms families. See, e.g., Amicus Brief of the American Psychological Assn., American Psychiatric Assn., etc (75p. pdf); American Psychological Association Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Marriage (5p pdf); American Psychological Association Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children (3p pdf); Lambda Legal: Denying Access to Marriage Harms Families.

9. Just for the heck of it, here are a sampling of Christian, conservative, and/or economic arguments for same-sex marriage:
The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
An Argument for Gay Marriage (Christian)
Gay Marriage: Theological and Moral Arguments (not an argument for same-sex marriage, but for a more open Christian perspective)
MARRIAGE MAKES CENTS: HOW LAW & ECONOMICS JUSTIFIES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Economic benefits of gay marriage

Aaand, as usual, TCT nails it right on hte noggin. I have yet to see a single opponent of gay marraige make a credible, coherent case as to how exactly same-sex marraige hurts them - or anyone. Bearing that in mind, why should the Government prohibit it?

[Tekania]

You're right. Except married couples gets more tax breaks and more opportunities for loans. Especially if they have children (don't know if it matter if its adopted or not though).

The idea that married couples get some sort of automatic tax break is a myth. The "filing jointly" tax structure is closely aligned with that for a single person. In most cases, a married couple will pay the same amount in taxes that they would as single individuals. In some cases, they will pay more. In others, they will pay less. I'm not sure where you're getting the part about the loans, unless it is a reference to the fact that married people are often seen as statistically more stable - something that has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with how financial institutions calculate risk. And all of the tax benefits associated with children are equally available to married and non-married parents.

You haven't heard about newlyweds that wants a new home to raise their family? I mean, its been portrayed in the media several times. They need loans and, perhaps not tax breaks, but perhaps tax returns. Yes its true they won't get these benefits at an instant and they will need to fulfill requirements to get it, such as having children. Again, I wasn't aiming at financially stable. Its more convincing to bankers and loaners to loan money to married couples instead of individuals.

The "tax returns" and "tax credits" available to the newly weds on their purchase are also available to single persons who make those same housing purchases. Your idea that married people automatically get a load of new and/or additional tax breaks is in fact a myth.

[Tekania]

The idea that married couples get some sort of automatic tax break is a myth. The "filing jointly" tax structure is closely aligned with that for a single person. In most cases, a married couple will pay the same amount in taxes that they would as single individuals. In some cases, they will pay more. In others, they will pay less. I'm not sure where you're getting the part about the loans, unless it is a reference to the fact that married people are often seen as statistically more stable - something that has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with how financial institutions calculate risk. And all of the tax benefits associated with children are equally available to married and non-married parents.

You haven't heard about newlyweds that wants a new home to raise their family? I mean, its been portrayed in the media several times. They need loans and, perhaps not tax breaks, but perhaps tax returns. Yes its true they won't get these benefits at an instant and they will need to fulfill requirements to get it, such as having children. Again, I wasn't aiming at financially stable. Its more convincing to bankers and loaners to loan money to married couples instead of individuals.

You didn't actually read my reply, did you? How about you try again? I'll leave it quoted for your benefit. I'll even bold the important parts.

Tax returns are paying taxes? What is this I don't even...

Loans don't have to do with the law, but like I said, bankers and loaners are more confident in giving loans to couples. Before you say it has nothing to do with the law, the law regulates corporations, so its not out of context.

Of course they are more comfortable, the "couple" is considering a single legal entity, with all debt and property ownership (in most states) directly distributable. As such the financial institution is getting an automatic co-signer who already has complete liability incurred via debts of the partner, and thus presents less risk to them.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I am delighted with the decision. I cannot see how religion should interfere with one person's beliefs. It used to be that the state could, but now the social culture has changed.

[Tekania]

I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.

Abortion should be legal, because I don't want a higher tax burden to pay for unwanted babies.

(I personally do not think impact of tax burden should be the basis or a rights argument for others, this is merely a statement of equivocal value)

[Harley Quin]

Clearly this judge has a liberal bias, and has been engaging in judicial activism. If he were truly impartial, he would have ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage is perfectly legal, since trained legal professionals can only interpret the constitution in one way and alternative interpretations further the "living document" nonsense propagated by liberals and their scientist supporters. The important question to ask is whether or not Thomas Paine or Patrick Henry or Paul Revere would have approved of gay marriage, and the obvious answer is "of course not, and they don't appreciate their words being twisted to legitimise it." I know this because I have a time machine.

I look forward to Proposition 8 being reinstated on appeal, as it must if this nation is to remain good and moral and pure. Although with the Obamacrat in charge we can expect that the Supreme Court will have been renamed the Gay Court by the time this case is heard, unfortunately.

1. Some dudes 200+ years ago have nothing to do with it. Despite the opinion of T. Jefferson, the founders were not Demigods, just bourgeoisie men trying to make an experiment. And they were not always right. They screwed up with the Articles of Confederation (leaning to much on the idealism of the people), and they hated democracy (though it gave same people to much power). So, considering WWTPD probably does not work (at all). And, you no idea what they though, just what you think, shoving it is their mouths. For all we know, they could have been gay. You need to stop relaying on your fantasy land Founding Fathers and come to terms with the fact that this is the 21st century.

2. By the way, it was your demigod-ic founding Fathers who created the theory of the Constitution being a living document. Were they wrong, or are you wrong? (I will pause for half a second so that you guys can think about that). YOU are the one who is twisting and hearing only what you want to hear from the documents that formed our Constitution.

3. This in no way supports my opinion on gay marriage, or not. I just had to argue on the odd legal idealism manipulation mentioned.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Trial Day 5 Transcript.

You can never stop a lawyer from elaborating[...].

*looks at TCT's posts*

I agree.

[NERVUN]

Trial Day 5 Transcript.

You can never stop a lawyer from elaborating[...].

*looks at TCT's posts*

I agree.

*hands B&C a taiyaki* You, sir, deserve a taiyaki for that one.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Trial Day 5 Transcript.

You can never stop a lawyer from elaborating[...].

*looks at TCT's posts*

I agree.

*hands B&C a taiyaki* You, sir, deserve a taiyaki for that one.

Sweet. I can chop shit up with this?

[Sdaeriji]

Clearly this judge has a liberal bias, and has been engaging in judicial activism. If he were truly impartial, he would have ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage is perfectly legal, since trained legal professionals can only interpret the constitution in one way and alternative interpretations further the "living document" nonsense propagated by liberals and their scientist supporters. The important question to ask is whether or not Thomas Paine or Patrick Henry or Paul Revere would have approved of gay marriage, and the obvious answer is "of course not, and they don't appreciate their words being twisted to legitimise it." I know this because I have a time machine.
I look forward to Proposition 8 being reinstated on appeal, as it must if this nation is to remain good and moral and pure. Although with the Obamacrat in charge we can expect that the Supreme Court will have been renamed the Gay Court by the time this case is heard, unfortunately.

1. Some dudes 200+ years ago have nothing to do with it. Despite the opinion of T. Jefferson, the founders were not Demigods, just bourgeoisie men trying to make an experiment. And they were not always right. They screwed up with the Articles of Confederation (leaning to much on the idealism of the people), and they hated democracy (though it gave same people to much power). So, considering WWTPD probably does not work (at all). And, you no idea what they though, just what you think, shoving it is their mouths. For all we know, they could have been gay. You need to stop relaying on your fantasy land Founding Fathers and come to terms with the fact that this is the 21st century.

2. By the way, it was your demigod-ic founding Fathers who created the theory of the Constitution being a living document. Were they wrong, or are you wrong? (I will pause for half a second so that you guys can think about that). YOU are the one who is twisting and hearing only what you want to hear from the documents that formed our Constitution.

3. This in no way supports my opinion on gay marriage, or not. I just had to argue on the odd legal idealism manipulation mentioned.

You must feel like an idiot having typed up a three point response to obvious satire.

[New Amerik]

But i thought everyone had a time machine so they could go ask famous people their TRUE opinions on a subject......

[Harley Quin]

Clearly this judge has a liberal bias, and has been engaging in judicial activism. If he were truly impartial, he would have ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage is perfectly legal, since trained legal professionals can only interpret the constitution in one way and alternative interpretations further the "living document" nonsense propagated by liberals and their scientist supporters. The important question to ask is whether or not Thomas Paine or Patrick Henry or Paul Revere would have approved of gay marriage, and the obvious answer is "of course not, and they don't appreciate their words being twisted to legitimise it." I know this because I have a time machine.
I look forward to Proposition 8 being reinstated on appeal, as it must if this nation is to remain good and moral and pure. Although with the Obamacrat in charge we can expect that the Supreme Court will have been renamed the Gay Court by the time this case is heard, unfortunately.

1. Some dudes 200+ years ago have nothing to do with it. Despite the opinion of T. Jefferson, the founders were not Demigods, just bourgeoisie men trying to make an experiment. And they were not always right. They screwed up with the Articles of Confederation (leaning to much on the idealism of the people), and they hated democracy (though it gave same people to much power). So, considering WWTPD probably does not work (at all). And, you no idea what they though, just what you think, shoving it is their mouths. For all we know, they could have been gay. You need to stop relaying on your fantasy land Founding Fathers and come to terms with the fact that this is the 21st century.

2. By the way, it was your demigod-ic founding Fathers who created the theory of the Constitution being a living document. Were they wrong, or are you wrong? (I will pause for half a second so that you guys can think about that). YOU are the one who is twisting and hearing only what you want to hear from the documents that formed our Constitution.

3. This in no way supports my opinion on gay marriage, or not. I just had to argue on the odd legal idealism manipulation mentioned.

You must feel like an idiot having typed up a three point response to obvious satire.

I am not entirely sure. Glenn Beck SHOULD be satire...
Writing a three pronged response to something logical is no fun. Of course it is satire. Go back to law school?