• Pingback: Republicans, religious groups urge Supreme Court to uphold gay marriage bans - by Fr. Ron Gronowski - Rev Ron Gronowski - The Reverend()

  • Diogenes

    Five to four odds against.

  • Larry

    And not a single brief from those who want to uphold a gay marriage ban will you find:
    1. Rational and secular arguments in support.
    2. Examples of harm or damages caused in the various states and countries where gay marriage is legal. (They will dishonestly treat it as a theoretical concept and ignore many years of implementation)

  • Pingback: Evangelical and Baptist Ministries and Seminaries Sign Brief Urging Supreme Court to Uphold Homosexual Marriage Bans | BCNN1 WP()

  • Pingback: BCNN2 » Blog Archive » Evangelical and Baptist Ministries and Seminaries Sign Brief Urging Supreme Court to Uphold Homosexual Marriage Bans()

  • Ranger G

    Spot on, Larry; it is absolutely irrational to recognize any difference between men and women, or the sexual relationship between a man and a woman and two members of the same sex, and it is absolutely rational to ignore all evidence showing that the family structure which on average produces the highest performing, most stable and healthy next generation of citizens happens to be a stable male/female married couple with children. No, it’s all a bunch of spaghetti monster myth, right?

  • Larry

    You didn’t read the brief linked to the story. I can tell.

    It is very irrational to bring up differences between hetero and gay couples in this context. Natural procreation is neither a goal in civil marriage nor cause for banning gay unions.

    You also blatantly misstated evidence which showed 2 parents (REGARDLESS OF GENDER) are far more successful in raising healthy, emotionally stable children than single parents. A gay marriage ban actually makes it more difficult for certain couples to raise their children sanely.The only study comparing straight to gay couples raising children showed the gay ones were better off! (no accidental children, more resources to give to children)

    “it’s all a bunch of spaghetti monster myth, right?”

    Exactly. You have nonsense unrelated arguments, blanket assumptions and stipulation and outright fictions. Nothing rational. Mostly sub-rosa religious bigoted nonsense.

  • Greg

    We need only to look at how our once stable society has become eroded almost to the point of widespread destabilization. Novel ideas such as “legitimizing” gay marriage, as well as the “welfare state,” in which women must be unmarried in order to receive short term benefits, ultimately becoming a nation of single moms, are just that, “novel” ideas and practices. We are only seeing the short term effects, but the long term destructive societal effects will be years away. We saw what happened with Pagan Rome, and its demise, but learn not from our past history. It is time for America to wake up before we become a third world country.

  • OrigamiCarp

    I’ll tell you the same thing I told the person ranting about gay marriage on the bus- My generation’s kids will be raised in environments of incredible love and tolerance and when they’re ready to replace current seats in congress and the senate, you and your bigotry will have succumbed to old age, buried, and forgotten. Reform by Reaper: It might take a while, but it is inevitable.

    Or you might still be around, confined to a bed in a nursing home, watching as Muslim lesbian Texas senator wins a second term.

    You’re fighting a losing battle, and I think you all know that on some level. You are incredibly short sighted if you think gay marriage will /never/ be legal. Go ahead- argue against that. I’d love to hear what you come up with. Or will you delete this because you know I’m right?

    P.S- sixty years ago, all of you would be citing your Bibles for reasons why interracial marriage was “an abomination”. If it was 1750, you’d be using your bibles to justify slavery…

  • OrigamiCarp

    On second thought, you will not be forgotten. Your pictures will be in history textbooks under the caption “In the early turn of the twenty-first century, many bigots felt that homosexuals did not deserve to be treated equally. Questions for review: Explain the similarities between the Ku Klux Klan, those who opposed women’s right to vote, and the anti-homosexual marriage movement”.

    That’s right; history textbooks will remember you as the losing side, and some bored kid will scribble all over your picture during class.

  • Shawnie5

    If it were 1750, with the slave trade at its apex (after having been extinct in Christendom for centuries) and forming the cornerstone of the economies of the world powers, opponents of slavery would have heard that they were on the wrong side of history.

    Then came a character named Wilberforce.

    In 1896 with the SCOTUS’ decision in Plessy vs. Ferguson, opponents of segregation would have heard that they were “on the wrong side of history.”

    Then came Thurgood Marshall.

    In 1917, those who were skeptical about the perfectability of man and the infinite vista of peace and progress ahead would have heard that they were “on the wrong side of history.”

    Then came WW I and II.

    “That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.” –Aldous Huxley

  • Larry

    Greg, your “once stable society” was a myth. Something reactionaries tell each other to get people to take them seriously. Single mothers, gay people, poor people existed back then. its just people were less honest about it.

    Pagan Rome survived for about 500 years, Christian Rome fell within a a century or so. Go figure

  • Larry

    Not to interrupt your irrelevant rant but

    “In 1917, those who were skeptical about the perfectability of man and the infinite vista of peace and progress ahead would have heard that they were “on the wrong side of history.”

    Then came WW I and II.”

    World War One started in 1914. By 1917 the world had seen some of its bloodiest fighting. Unless you were a Bolshevik, you were not thinking peace and progress was at hand that year.

  • Shawnie5

    Exactly right, Larry. I guess you finally “caught” me. Great job!

    I always automatically think of 1917 when I think of WW I because that was the year my grandfather and his brothers went to war. Of course the war in Europe had been going on for 3 years already.

  • Shawnie5

    “Christian Rome fell within a a century or so. Go figure”

    And high time, too. That oppressive and slave-based imperial system needed to go so that ordinary people, not just the elite, could get on with improving their lives.

  • Jack

    Larry, you’re shamelessly cynical….

    If the argument were that simple, then one side would have most of the intellects and the other side a panoply of dunces. All the great legal minds would be on one side, and the other side would have nobody of equivalent caliber. But even a casual look shows the good, the bad, and the ugly on both sides.

    Besides being simplistic on the very issue of redefining marriage, a second problem with your position is that it sees the Constitution as a large roll of toilet paper to be used accordingly. You’re so accustomed to using it that way on so, it’s second nature to you.

    Your equal protection argument is a sham because it neglects the fact that the text assumes marriage is between male and female. If you want to create a national right to same-sex marriage, what you need is a constitutional amendment which redefines marriage. The equal protection clause as is pertains to marriage as is. It’s pure sophistry to argue otherwise.

  • Jack

    Larry, the idea of the “good old days” has quite a bit of myth to it, but so does the equally mindless view that all change is progress. Both are incorrect. There are many things better about today than decades past, but there are other things where the opposite is the case.

    The condition of black America is an obvious example. Obviously, breaking the back of slavery and Jim Crow were monumental achievements that created multiple middle-class generations of African Americans. On the other hand, the advent of the welfare system starting in the late 1930s and culminating in the “come-and-get-it” governmental lunacy of the 1960s created multiple generations of an inner-city underclass.

    Together, these two facts show that we should worship neither change nor stasis. It really depends on the issue.

  • Jack

    Rule #1 about life:

    Never, ever mock the infirmities of advanced age……

    Chances are, you will one day be old…..and life has a funny way of biting you in the behind when you speak as if you won’t be the geezer you depict.

  • Greg

    God at times needs to bring us down to ground zero so to get our attention. I believe he will do the same with the USA, as he did with Pagan Rome, as we are proud & arrogant. Most these days want Him to “go away.” And if enough desire that, he will indeed go away, leaving us to become a nation of filth, decay, and corruption.

  • Jack

    Greg, I find it ironic that what some people call “progressive” is truly reactionary…..in some case, turning the clock back thousands of years. It’s quite Orwellian.

  • Jack

    Comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage is beyond silly on all fronts. It reveals a canyon-sized ignorance of both history and the Bible.

  • Larry

    Jack, I read the brief. It was a parade of half-baked arguments which don’t make the remotest sense legally or even rationally.

    You harp on “redefining marriage” but always leave off why it is even relevant. It is not an argument until you cough up why the redefinition is wrong or why the old one has to stay, Claiming tradition carries no weight. It just makes your argument circular.

    I respect the Constitution. Especially the 1st and 14th Amendments. Religious nonsense like your animus against gays has no place in our laws. Equal protection under the law requires government restrictions to meet certain burdens of interest. Ones that cannot be met in gay marriage bans,

    Marriage is not defined by gender in our laws. If you want to limit it to a man and a woman, you need a reason to do so besides, “its the assumed default”. Again, you are not making arguments. You are making half-arguments. You are moaning about change without saying why it needs to be stopped.

  • Larry

    I am still not seeing rational or secular arguments for gay marriage bans, The most we get right now is: But Christians won’t be able to attack gays under the color of law…and they really want to.

    Tradition/Redefinition/Cornerstone of Culture!:
    Not an argument. Certainly not cause for removing the possibility of change by legal actions You have to justify why tradition must stand!

    Biological Procreation:
    Not a legal goal of civil marriage. The laws make no distinction between natural born or adopted children. Biological procreation is never a necessity to marriage. Plus gays couples have children.

    What about the children?
    Attacking the ability of gay parents to act as joint legal parents of a child lacks a rational cause. Banning gay marriage doesn’t produce parents for children who lack them. Gay couples are no worse than straight ones when it comes to raising children.

    My religious freedom is attacked!
    Tough crap. Nobody has to live according to your faith.

  • Larry

    And other than the loss of the ability to attack gays in public and under color of law, you can’t point to a single recognizable harm caused in those states and countries where gay marriage is legal.

    “Together, these two facts show that we should worship neither change nor stasis. It really depends on the issue.”

    And you can’t give me a rational and secular reason why the change discussed by SCOTUS must be stopped.

  • Larry

    Because you say so, Jack?

    Its funny because people like yourself use virtually the same exact arguments in your support of banning gay marriage as people did for supporting anti-miscegenation laws.

    Heck your crowd even revived arguments used originally to support Jim Crow and talk about “separate but equal” arrangements.

    It is not ignorance on your part. Its willful denial of what is clear, but inconvenient to acknowledge. The tactics and arguments for the support of legalized bigotry don’t change much. Only the targets of the bigots.

  • Jack

    Larry, of course it’s redefining marriage.

    When you take the foundational institution of human society and you introduce something that has never been there in the whole history of the world, the burden is on you to show why you are doing it. And calling those who dare to disagree with you a bunch of bigots is to stick that label on the entire human race in all of its forms, in every time and place except for your own. And given the sheer cultural diversity of humanity through history, if you can’t see for yourself the arrogance of your stance, you really need to take your cultural blinders off — or at least get yourself a passport and do some traveling around the world to get rid of your narrow provincialism.

    And I’m not just singling you out…..for one generation in one society to think it knows better than every other generation that has ever been is unique combination of arrogance and ignorance.

    Reasonable people disagree on issues. Arrogant people call them…

  • Jack

    As to the Constitution, while the 14th amendment has been used by anyone and everyone to attempt just about anything — good, bad, and ugly — using it to redefine marriage is the ultimate in circular arguments. Equal protection is not some free-floating concept; it depends on previously agreed-upon definitions. The alternative is to change the rules in the middle of the game.

    Equal protection when it pertains to marriage simply means that, based on whatever the definition of marriage is, people who meet that definition cannot be prevented from getting married. Soif you want to say that gay unions fall under the equal protection clause, you first have to change by law the definition of marriage to include gay unions. Then, once you do, the equal protection clause applies. But to flip the order is fundamentally dishonest and shows a lack of integrity and respect for constitutional processes, which are ultimately there to protect everyone.

  • Jack

    You keep repeating that argument like some mantra, Larry, but when someone proposes to make the most radical social change to the most foundational human institution of history, something that no society has ever attempted, the burden rests on you, not on society, to show why and that no conceivable harm can possibly follow. It’s simply laughable that you think you can get away with shifting burden of proof to those who dare to question the wisdom of such a profound change.

  • Larry

    Jack, I am lobbing underhand slowly moving softballs at people who have rational and secular arguments. If I were incorrect, you would not be wasting time on such half-baked circular arguments. You would be refuting the points I made below. Do you need them put on a tee in order to hit them?

    If the subject was an affirmative grant of marriage equality, you would be correct. But since the subject is a ban on such things. You have to justify why the force of law is necessary to preclude such changes. Attacks on a given law dealing with personal liberties require the government to justify their existence. That is how the 14th Amendment is applied. Something you probably understand but don’t want to admit to.

    Your need to shift burdens of proof, it is obvious you have nothing of value to argue. You still can’t tell me why tradition has to matter here. Why it requires a ban to uphold it.

  • Jack

    Larry, anyone who knows anything about anti-miscegenation laws knows that they were a direct outcome of a grotesque racial apartheid system in America.

    In contrast, the Bible provides numerous instances of interracial marriages. And in Judaism then and now, there’s no ban on marrying anyone, so long as they first converted to Judaism and forsook all gods but the Jewish God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It had zero to do with race.

    But from the beginning, marriage in the Bible — and in every society in history — included male and female, but not same sex. And that included societies like Rome and the Greek city states which celebrated homosexuality.

    Thus to compare the two — interracial marriage and gay marriage — is, again, silly. Interracial marriage was peculiar to time and place and had no Biblical ban, and there were interracial marriages. But institutionalized gay marriage was unheard of in the Bible, in biblical history, and in world history.

  • Larry

    “Equal protection when it pertains to marriage simply means that, based on whatever the definition of marriage is, people who meet that definition cannot be prevented from getting married”

    Hence it applies when the subject is the legal prevention of people from getting married. As in the case before SCOTUS. You got something right for once.

    You either forget or are willingly avoiding the actual subject here which is bans on gay marriage under the color of law. The 14th Amendment applies since you are actively preventing marriage through the law and need to justify why you are doing so. Appealing to tradition/culture/former defaults isn’t going to cut it here.

    Jack, it would be nice if you approached this subject honestly. But that is obviously not in the cards for you.

  • Larry

    Considering you were stumping for legalized discrimination of gays under color of law, the parallels would be apparent to those not invested in supporting such efforts. You have a compelling personal reason for such obvious denial.

    “In contrast, the Bible provides numerous instances..”

    The Bible provides no basis for any laws in our nation. All laws must have rational and secular purposes lest they run afoul of the Establishment Clause.

    Marriage outside of one’s group was punishable by death on numerous occasions the Bible or harshly criticized. There are numerous passages which were used to justify banning miscegenation. Several were even quoted by the Virginia courts prior to Loving v. Virginia being appealed to SCOTUS.

    Bigots can always rely on the bible for support of whatever prejudices they can muster.

  • LawrenceSanford

    Ban gay marriage. let nay business refuse service to Gays. Perhaps we should just go back the 1950’s when signs “NO JEWS OR DOGS ALLOWED” were common in all parts of this country. You can substitute any other group instead of Jews. Anyone remember the horrendous discriminating names for Italians, Poles, Irish et.al. Let’s bring it all back

  • Jack

    Nice try, Larry, but you’ve added nothing to your demolished view equating opposition to gay marriage to past opposition to interracial marriage.

    The equation is fundamentally nonsensical — historically and otherwise.

    One was unique to certain times and places….the other was true of every time in history and every place under the sun.

  • Jack

    That’s not the issue, LawrenceSanford. To extend your own analogies, the issue is whether a Jewish bakery owner should be forced to do a wedding cake for two Nazis with a swastika emblazoned on it. Or should a black bakery owner be forced to do a wedding cake for two members of the KKK with a the shape of a noose in the middle.

  • Mike

    Jack, you don’t know your history. Various types of same-sex marriages have existed for eons, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

    Practices and rituals for same sex unions were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt. In ancient Assyria, there was nothing wrong with homosexual love between men. The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers giving equal standing to the love of a man for both a woman and a man.

    At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.

    These same-sex marriages continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.

    And so it goes…

  • Pingback: Kirche heute, 10.April 2015 | Christliche Leidkultur()

  • Larry

    Jack, bad analogies are all you have.

    The issue is legislation that which bans the possibly of gay people being married. Became it is a ban of an otherwise permissive right, the government must show it meets a compelling interests. Interests which are both rational and secular.

    You got nothing other than, “gay marriage is new!” and “tradition”. Half baked non arguments which do not point to any government interest whatsoever.

    BTW its telling that these mini RFRA laws are not being lobbied to in states where gays are already referenced into state antidiscrimination laws. These are just blantant attempts of states from recognizing civil liberties for gays.

    I will be even more blunt, ” christian” businesses looking for excuses to discriminate can go eff themselves. We don’t have to grant them license to attack people in service of their bigotry.

  • Christian Sanzo

    The day after SCOTUS strikes down all state bans on SSM, our lives will be the same as they were the day before. Canada has had SSM for 12 years now and they’re still standing. As is the state of Massachusetts. Expanding the definition of marriage to include SSM hasn’t destroyed “traditional” marriage. Straight couples aren’t saying no to marriage because Adam and Steve got married, nor are they forgoing having children because Adam and Steve adopted two kids. There is no reasonable, rational argument to deny gay couples the right to marry. I know. I’ve heard them all. “Think about the children” you say. Indeed. Think about the children. There are thousands of children being raised in same-sex households. Why should they be denied the right to be raised by married parents? In denying gay couples the right to marry you’re doing great harm to thousands of children in this country. Please stop.

  • Billysees

    Christian Sanzo,

    “Canada has had SSM for 12 years now and they’re still standing… Expanding the definition of marriage to include SSM hasn’t destroyed “traditional” marriage.”

    Of course. I think most folks realize this. But some get worked up about things they’re not familiar with. Time will change that.