• Pingback: Why religious conservatives want the Supreme Court to consider other nations in its same-sex marriage ruling (COMMENTARY) - by Rev. Ron Gronowski - Rev Ron Gronowski - The Reverend()

  • Larry

    Another dishonest conservative fool who has no appreciation for the judiciary or the notions of equal protection under the law.

    “citizens, the courts have repeatedly stated that there are rational reasons, not bigoted and hateful, for limiting marriage to a man and woman. ”

    That is a flat out lie.

    They can’t even come up with rational reasons that are not bigoted and hateful for limiting marriage to one man and woman in this country. Nothing. Not one rational and secular argument is being proffered in support of gay marriage bans. At best you have smokescreens for obvious and clear animus (most of it religious based).

    If such reasons existed, Mr. Wax could have articulated them. He of course can’t. His sole argument ignores the notion of how the 14th Amendment works. Laws, even those passed by a legislature by majority vote cannot be used to deny civil liberties to people without a showing of legitimate government interests.

  • Jon

    I got partway into the article as the fallicious flags kept popping up, such as this howler

    “Despite the dominant media narrative in the United States, there is no international trend toward same-sex marriage. Of the 193 nations that belong to the United Nations, only 17….”

    Wow. Newsflash, Trevin: Those “only” 17 include most western Europe, as well as most of North and South America. And all that rapid change has happened since 2001, when Norway was the first.

    When an argument is made based on such transparent distortions, it makes it clear that I shouldn’t expect much logic from future conservative arguments, especially those from Trevin.

    Maybe promote creationism next? Their arguments are even more fallacious. Then maybe geocentricity and a flat earth?

  • Garson Abuita

    And you call the Pharisees hypocrites…
    The assertion that the legislative process will engender respect for the process on both sides was disproven by New York State’s experience. The NOM types came out to stop a vote in the NYS Legislature by asking the courts! to intervene.
    Who are these “international law experts” you refer to? The lack of a name of the amicus or a link to their brief makes me suspicious it’s just another partisan effort (which is common on both sides in cases like this so it’s cool).

  • Gavin Chambers

    I think it’s a long call to the Pharisees, but an amicus in this case would be like icing on the NWT case.

  • Barb

    You’re weak and getting weaker by the day, and you deserve to. Get used to it.

    As for “more militant”, is that a threat? You sound much like the radicals of that other popular religion, Islam. Echo echo…

  • bqrq

    Barb said;
    “……You’re weak and getting weaker by the day, and you deserve to. Get used to it…..”

    Good point. Our side has been taking a beating for a long time. I do not allow homosexuals to have sex with my children, but I cannot protect all the lost and lonely fatherless boys and children that they prey on unimpeded. All we can do is try harder, and we will, but I agree that this is an uphill battle against deadly evil.

  • Pingback: 為甚麼美國保守宗教人士希望最高法院審理同性婚姻時會考慮其他國家的做法? - 信仰百川()

  • pete

    You see, the fights are starting already. This decision is going to further divide and cause hatred amongst this country not produce love and solidarity – youre all proving it

  • MX

    Amen Trevin! Why do these obvious Christian haters even subscribe to your blog? You are right on brother! Keep up the good work and good writing!

  • Diogenes

    It would appear to me to be bigoted to exalt the patterns of western European nations above those of the rest of the world. As is typical of the left, they will proclaim the practices of the less ‘sophisticated’ until those practices conflict with their superior humanism; now there’s hypocrisy for you. Meanwhile, I have never thought it sound or constitutional to frame court decisions around the precedents of other nations. As per “rationality” and “bigotry,” where one stands often depends on where one sits.

  • Philmonomer

    I simply cannot believe the article is calling us to look to international consensus on what other countries have done to argue what the USA should do.

    That. Is. Not. A. Conservative. Argument.

  • Philmonomer

    There is so much wrong with this article it is shocking:

    Conservatives have often criticized the liberal wing of the Supreme Court for considering the decisions of foreign courts when interpreting the U.S. Constitution. But on the issue of same-sex marriage, conservatives who want the court to exercise judicial restraint in redefining marriage may find themselves hoping, just this once, that the justices will take a cue from other nations.

    Conservatives argue that the job of the US Supreme court is to interpret the US Constitution, as the original framers intended. What do other countries tell us about the US Constitution? Nothing. So you cannot argue, as a conservative, that the justices should take a cue from other nations. Other countries are simply irrelevant. This is basic conservatism, and core.

  • Philmonomer

    Here’s another:

    This sentence is simply not true:

    Despite the dominant media narrative in the United States, there is no international trend toward same-sex marriage.

    There is clearly, irrefutably, a trend toward same sex-marriage. How do we know? How many countries had same sex marriage 50 years ago? 0

    How many countries had same sex marriage 25 years ago? 1 (counting the Netherlands registered partnerships).

    How many countries had same sex marriage 10 years ago? 5

    How many countries had same sex marriage 5 years ago? 11

    How many now? 17

    See a trend?

    Now, you can argue the trend is over, and that lots of countries are not now (or any time soon, or ever) going to recognize same sex marriage. But clearly there has been a trend.

  • Pingback: BCNN2 » Blog Archive » Religious Conservatives Hope the Supreme Court Will Handle Homosexual Marriage Like Other Nations Have()

  • James Carr

    Thank you, BeBrave…..

  • Larry

    Crushing the Christian voice? Who is keeping you quiet BB?

    I guess commentary about the ridiculous and dishonest nonsense you guys say in public is sooo crushing to your voice. 🙂

  • Larry

    Diogenes, most of those Western European nations ALREADY HAVE marriage equality. They are among the 17 nations Mr. Wax was referring to. Try a different screed. Maybe one a little better informed.

    Mr. Wax is arguing that we should be following less prosperous, less free nations as our guide.

  • Be Brave


    Said the Sodomites to Lot.

    Man this is exciting to see the evils of the Bible showcased in modern times.

    If all the bad stuff is true, and obviously it is . . . then all of the good stuff is too.

    Let freedom ring!

  • Larry

    We could be like those successful ultra-religious nations. Like Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea. 🙂

  • Larry

    Having read the brief linked to, I can say it is 63 pages of “begging the question”.

    The lazy minds of BYU law school who drafted it make the argument, “these other courts denied marriage equality for ‘reasons’. We should too.” Of course not once in the brief did they articulate why such alleged reasons need to be taken seriously. The “procreation argument” was referenced obliquely a few times. But US courts already skewered that one for various reasons. Being irrational and unrelated to the subject being the key criticism.

    Many of those countries used as examples are “civil law nations” ones which do not rely on precedent of the courts to determine how laws get interpreted. As a general rule American courts don’t pay attention to their rulings. The only one cited which was a “common law country” was Australia and they are pretty close to full recognition of marriage equality by legislative means.

    The anti-gay groups are being taken for a ride by lazy lawyers.

  • Steve

    Guess who has articulated an argument against gay marriage? Children of gay parents. http://bit.ly/1HNKFsG

  • Larry

    An argument has been articulated, yes. Not a sane one. Certainly not a rational and secular argument.

    Mainwaring and co are all over the place on their whining about being the children of divorce. They were not the children of gay parentS but of a gay parent.

    If it were such a great argument, you would be explaining why it is so. Citing to a blind link shows that you can’t even think of one in your own words or bothered to understand what you even cited. It was lazy on your part. Plenty of arguments are articulated against marriage equality. All the ones used in these briefs are utter crap and completely irrational in nature. The “procreation argument” being the one most often cited.

  • Ted

    If I can’t get married because it’s against your religion, then you can’t eat cookies because I’m on a diet.

  • MarkE

    Amazing! All the hard-core conservatives here are lambasting homosexuals as social deviants, sexual predators, and child abusers. Sounds more like Roman Catholic priesthood and members of Congress!

  • Daniel

    Larry, there isn’t any argument to make that shows how same sex couples will thrive either. There isn’t enough data to support any of it since same-sex marriage in the U.S. hasn’t been around for very long. But since you are on a Christian website arguing with Christians, it is probably best for you to understand where we come from. The Bible lays out clear distinctions between men and women. Not that they are unequal in anyway, but just different. Therefore, we believe that a household with a man and woman at the helm will have the most success. We believe children need mothers just as they need fathers. This is basic stuff for us. Since that is my belief, I cannot support same sex marriage; although I am sure it is inevitable that it will prevail sooner or later. Just like you, I have no evidence that it will harm our society, but from my point of view and from a Biblical perspective, I suspect that it will, as do many others.

  • Larry

    Untrue. Many of those arguments were articulated in the Windsor Case and various appellate court decisions striking down gay marriage bans.

    You have to bear in mind the subject of the lawsuit is a BAN on gay marriage, not affirmative support for the right. In order to support a ban on a given activity, the government must show it has a legitimate rational and secular purpose for doing so. Your belief is not enough to support denying a right to others.

    In a legal argument, Biblical interpretation means nothing. Your religious belief is of no consequence to the rights of others.

    All you are telling me is you lack evidence to support a ban. If you could point to actual documented harms caused in those places where gay marriage was legal, you would have far better support. But you don’t. Marriage equality opponents treat the subject as a hypothetical in a dishonest fashion rather than refer to how it is actually implemented.

  • John K

    North Korea is an ultra religious nation? You’re kidding, right? From the Wikipedia article “Religion in North Korea”: “North Korea is an atheist state where public religion is discouraged. Based on estimates from the late 1990s and the 2000s, North Korea is mostly atheist and agnostic . . .”

  • Larry

    North Korea is ruled by a dynastic leadership who are revered as deities. They have more in common now with divine right monarchies than anything created by Lenin or Mao.

    Their official state religion is called Juche. Calling it an atheist state is a mistake. North Koreans invoke the supernatural and spiritual in their veneration of its leadership. This far exceeds the religioity of the cult of personality of Stalin or even Pol Pot. It crosses over into religious fervor.

  • RMW

    Does that mean it ought to be irrelevant to countries that aren’t in Western Europe and the Americas?

  • RMW

    And when your side was weak did you give up?

  • RMW


    Juche is described as a philosophical principle (not religion) by the North Koreans themselves:
    “The Juche idea is based on the philosophical principle that man is the master of everything and decides everything.”

  • RMW

    @ Ted

    Who do you want to marry? An Iraqi female that you’ve captured, an underage 8-year old girl, two or more women at the same time, your sibling, a pet dog, a decrepit warehouse?

  • RMW

    Since I am not American, I don’t feel constrained by nonsensical American courts and laws that permitted homosexuality in the first place.

    Homosexuality should not be allowed at all (never mind the fiction of ‘gay marriage’) since it still remains a major health risk in spreading HIV and other diseases. Unless for some reason you want your society to be disease-ridden. How self-destructive of you.

    And in case you don’t realise, homosexuality by itself will not generate children (that remains a major result of normal male-female sex). It follows that a homosexual-affirming culture will have no long term future.

  • Diogenes

    Larry, I was simply acknowledging Mr. Wax’s statement regarding what you like to refer to as ‘marriage equality’ and arguing that playing follow the leader behind western Europe isn’t in our nation’s best interest, you obviously missed that. As to being better informed. I stand by my remarks regarding the utter hypocrisy of the left when it comes to political and social tolerance, free speech, and a host of other human freedoms, which are not the gift of government. In the words of Mark Twain, “Even a jury would have the penetration to see that.”

  • Diogenes

    It is amazing how Larry sets the parameters for what is or is not religion, what is or is not true, what is or is not… almost anything. He twists every statement to fit his own unique paradigm with a unrelenting tone of omniscience. It only proves the bible’s 1st charge against Satan and ultimately humanity: Pride is the 1st sin.

  • Larry

    When did I ever say that?

    I always make fun of people who use the term “true faith”. Especially Fran/Karla.

    Why do you have to make crap up, Diogenes? Don’t you have enough facts and arguments out there to form your own rebuttals without having to resort to strawman fictions?

    I guess being informed on a subject must be some form of omniscience to you. Your ignorance is duly noted then.

  • Larry

    Its funny how you cited to the Nork government English site.
    Even Christian groups devoted to sending Bibles to North Korea considers Juche a religion.


    “Juche is a religion and the 24 million adherents of this religion make Juche the world’s fifth largest religion after Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism.

    Moreover, the Juche religion is modeled after Christianity. Instead of God the Father, the Juche religion worships Kim Il-sung, North Korea’s first dictator who died in 1994 yet continues to rule as North Korea’s “Eternal President” and official head of state. The Juche religion teaches North Koreans that upon death, they will be reunited with Kim Il-sung and be with him forever.

    Instead of God the Son, Juche worships Kim Il-sung’s son, Kim Jong-il, who until his own recent death, reigned as the surrogate of his dead father.”

    There is nothing like this in Marx, or any other Communist…

  • Larry

    Except you just contradicted your prior statement of, “It would appear to me to be bigoted to exalt the patterns of western European nations above those of the rest of the world.”

    Nice try. Come again. 🙂

  • Larry

    “Since I am not American, I don’t feel constrained by nonsensical American courts and laws that permitted homosexuality in the first place.”

    And yet you felt your input on the subject was relevant enough to warrant a response. OK you know nothing of the subject and are just bloviating. Good to know. Now I don’t have to mistake you for someone who should be taken seriously.

  • Ken

    The good stuff does not excuse the bad stuff. You admit to the bad stuff, so that means your god is badly flawed for putting it in there.

    Swish. There go your crazy religious beliefs, flushed down the toilet like they deserve, dummy.

  • Vicar Dave Price

    Well, consider Canada. We have had legal same-sex civil marriage for several years. The sky has not fallen, children in the relationships are in the same spectrum of stability as kids in heterosexual homes and we are all getting along. Many Christian churches from a spectrum of faith traditions are blessing the marriages.
    People feel worthy and included. We have some fringe zealots who are upset but the majority, including RC folks who are not part of the hierarchy are content.
    If the USA follows the example, 10 years from now people will wonder why all the fuss.

  • RMW

    And just why is it so funny to cite the North Koreans themselves?

  • RMW

    Still want your society to self-destruct is it?

  • Larry


    From the same site:

    “Owing to the US armed invasion on June 25, Juche 49 (1950), the peaceful construction of the Korean people was temporarily halted and harsh ordeals were brought to the fatherland and people.”

    “On July 27, Juche 42 (1953), the US imperialists finally knelt down before the Korean people and the KPA and signed the Armistice Agreement.”

    Or this howler,
    “Every citizen in the DPRK enjoys full freedom of and right to religion.”

    Does that answer your question? 🙂

  • Larry

    Excuse me while I pull a fainting couch for you. I see you have the vapors and have trouble staying conscious in light of such distressing news. 🙂

  • Larry

    But now every Canadian is lobbying for polygamy, legalized incest and buggery!!

    Canadian children are now being harmed left and right by not having both biological parents!!!

    Canadians stopped procreating now that gay marriage is legal!!!

    Canadian Churches are being burned down because they won’t perform gay marriages!!!
    Just kidding.

    Your post is very sensible Vicar Dave Price. 🙂