Beliefs Culture Institutions Politics

Why the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision is not like legalizing abortion (ANALY …

A man waves a rainbow flag while marching in the San Francisco gay pride parade two days after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage throughout the country in San Francisco, Calif., on June 28, 2015. Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Elijah Nouvelage *Editors: This photo may only be republished with RNS-ABORTION-MARRIAGE, originally transmitted on July 2, 2015.
A man waves a rainbow flag while marching in the San Francisco gay pride parade two days after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage throughout the country in San Francisco, Calif., on June 28, 2015. Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Elijah Nouvelage *Editors: This photo may only be republished with RNS-ABORTION-MARRIAGE, originally transmitted on July 2, 2015.

A man waves a rainbow flag on Sunday (June 28, 2015) while marching in the San Francisco gay pride parade two days after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage throughout the country. Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Elijah Nouvelage
*Editors: This photo may only be republished with RNS-ABORTION-MARRIAGE, originally transmitted on July 2, 2015.

(RNS) In the wake of the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, a favorite talking point among social conservatives was that even if they lost a battle, they could still win the war: The ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges was akin to the 1973 Roe v. Wade verdict legalizing abortion, they argued, and opponents would continue to fight, and steadily work their way back to victory.

There are several obstacles to that scenario, however. Here are some of them:

1. Abortion and gay marriage are not the same.

“Though many evangelicals oppose abortion and gay marriage as violations of natural law, they are significantly different issues with different social consequences,” Liberty University professor and popular evangelical author Karen Swallow Prior wrote in Christianity Today.

Most important, gay marriage does not end a life in the womb and, Prior said, “unlike abortion, gay marriage remains an act rooted in love.”

Many agree, and they won’t take to the streets to fight gay marriage the way they would to oppose abortion.

2. Gay marriage aims to expand a tradition, not destroy it.

Same-sex marriage supporters — and the five justices who backed a right to gay marriage — also see the Obergefell decision as promoting family life, not undermining it.

“Gay people are joining a social institution that heterosexuals have often made a hash of and just as it is fading among some social groups,” wrote The Washington Post’s Michael Gerson, an evangelical Christian. “It is a form of gay rights that Middle America,” Gerson added, “could readily embrace.”

Without Middle America, which provides much of the firepower for the anti-abortion lobby, it’s hard to see where activists will find troops for a movement against gay marriage.

3. Americans increasingly accept gay rights, but not abortion rights.

The reaction to the Obergefell decision among conservative Christians was relatively muted and modulated, and that reflects a data-driven reality: Americans have moved to accept gay marriage with astonishing swiftness —  almost 60 percent of Americans approve, with the younger generation set to drive that figure even higher.

The increase is occurring among religious groups as well: Catholics who have been the heart and soul of the movement to overturn Roe are among the most accepting of gay marriage, and support is even increasing steadily among their staunchest allies in the anti-abortion fight, evangelical Protestants.

Anti-abortion demonstrators pray in the hallway outside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's legislative office on Capitol Hill in Washington on January 22, 2015. Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst *Note: This photo may only be republished with RNS-ABORTION-DEFEAT, originally published on January 22, 2015, or RNS-ABORTION-MARRIAGE, originally published on July 2, 2015.

Anti-abortion demonstrators pray in the hallway outside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s legislative office on Capitol Hill in Washington on Jan. 22, 2015. Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
*Note: This photo may only be republished with RNS-ABORTION-DEFEAT, originally published on Jan. 22, 2015, or RNS-ABORTION-MARRIAGE, originally published on July 2, 2015.

Polling on abortion over the past several decades, on the other hand, has remained remarkably steady, with Americans basically split between the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” camps; also, most Americans continue to express ambivalence about the morality of abortion and the extent that abortion should be available. That ambivalence hasn’t carried the day for the anti-abortion movement, but it has provided space for many significant victories.

4. The Supreme Court largely agrees with most Americans.

A striking aspect of the four dissents is that the justices who disagreed with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion did not argue that gay marriage was unlawful, or even necessarily a bad thing. They basically said that the U.S. Constitution did not justify the high court’s establishing the precedent; states were free to legalize gay marriage, they said, as some have done.

“The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in his eminently quotable dissent. “It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage.”

In other words, it was the process, not the principle, that was a problem. But that’s also a problem for social conservatives who want to rally Americans to reverse gay marriage. “What is there for the rest of us to say but, ‘All is lost,’” Edward Peters, a Catholic canon lawyer, wrote in a blog post blasting Scalia, who is known for his Catholic orthodoxy.

5. Legally, gay marriage is either/or. Abortion is not.

Yes, Roe legalized abortion, but within certain parameters. That has allowed abortion opponents to organize campaigns around a whole host of issues related to abortion laws — parental consent, clinic access and oversight, taxpayer funding, fetal pain and viability and the like.

That has also allowed opponents to claim periodic victories that hearten the faithful and spur further activism even as outlawing abortion altogether remains out of reach.

But gay marriage is either legal or it’s not. After Obergefell, conservative concerns have centered on establishing religious freedom protections for believers. That may galvanize an influential cohort on those issues, but it’s not going to overturn gay marriage.

6. Promoting straight marriage won’t undo gay marriage.

One of the most common strategies for reversing the acceptance of gay marriage post-Obergefell was for believers to “embody a gospel marriage culture,” as Russell Moore, a leading Southern Baptist, put it.

If traditional believers join in lifelong monogamous marriages — as they have too often failed to do, Moore stressed — they can change the culture, “and picture to the world what marriage is meant to be.”

Yet what’s not clear is how promoting happy marriages among straight couples would thwart gay couples from marrying.

In the end, the success of the gay marriage movement may depend not on heterosexuals, whether they are conservative believers or not, but on gay couples themselves, and whether they can make marriage and family life work.

“We have no idea if gays will do better, worse or the same” as straight couples, as Gerson put it. “But they now have a chance to leave their imprint.”

An early answer may come next June 26, the first anniversary of Obergefell, and whether anti-gay marriage forces are able to bring hundreds of thousands of protesters to the National Mall in Washington the way they have in the bitter January cold every year to mark the Roe decision.


About the author

David Gibson

David Gibson is a national reporter for RNS and an award-winning religion journalist, author and filmmaker. He has written several books on Catholic topics. His latest book is on biblical artifacts: "Finding Jesus: Faith. Fact. Forgery," which was also the basis of a popular CNN series.


Click here to post a comment

  • This article is outright silly. It is a twist of logic. Abortion is the end of a life, a human life, but the suffering continues on in the woman who has had the abortion, as she knows what she did. And each abortion Pains the body of Christ; the entire Body of Christ suffers when a baby is destroyed. In the same way, Gay marriage is the destruction of Sacrament of marriage, the destruction of the soul, as well as it is a slow painful destruction of a society as a whole. When one member suffers, the entire Body suffers. Gay marriage is the embrace of evil, just as abortion is the full embrace of evil. Each is against the natural law, AND the Law of Christ. There is nothing natural about gay marriage, just as there is nothing natural about abortion, regardless of what the polls say.

  • So, abortion ends a life, and the Court saw fit to legalize it. Gay marriage, somehow, out of the blue, is an enrichment of family life….so the Court approved its legalization. Neither, in any form, takes the religious impetus of immorality into consideration… ignoring a huge percentage of Americans.
    Why would this author think Christians can accept one but not the other? Gay marriage will rot the marital state, and in time people will see the rot as they do in abortion. It is a common belief among pro-choicers that abortion is also an “act of love” on the part of the mother, so acts of love can now be applied to any psychotic concept the public comes up with? Oh, good.

  • Not everyone believes in your version of Christianity.
    Same gender marriage hurts no one. Your religion is not affected in any way by two people of the same gender getting married.
    Allowing same gender couples to marry grants them the same protection that is given to two drunks who swear their undying love in front of an Elvis impersonator at a Las Vegas Drive-Thru Chapel!

    The thing that is really telling about American Christians is that, while you all are wasting time bitching and complaining about the Supreme Court’s decision eight (8) historic African American churches have been burned down. Where is the outrage?

  • “Neither, in any form, takes the religious impetus of immorality into consideration…”

    The United States is not a theocracy. Why would it make laws favoring religion?

  • Dear God,

    Please lead Evangelicals to look to their OWN sins, for a change. Please ask them to stop hating and hurting people, while blaming it all on You. Please ask them to listen to Christ’s simple message: love God and love your neighbor.



  • Ted-I’m sorry that homosexuals seem to get singled out because the Bible
    says in Romans 1:18-32 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-12 that all sin is wrong but
    1 Corinthians 7 makes it clear marriage is for a man and a woman so read
    Luke 13 plus Matthew 7:13-23 also 1 Corinthians 5 as well. All sin is wrong
    and it/that inlcudes getting drunk,gossip,gambling,coveting/jealousy,greed,
    premarital sex,pride,takin the Lords name in vain,bein mean/sharp tongues,
    swindlers/thieves,idolaters in any form. If we say one sin is okay we have to
    say all sin is okay and no sin is okay! Sayin something mean then laughing
    after like that makes it okay is also wrong! Jesus made diluted new wine for
    a symbolic reason not to get drunk/Bible says don’t get drunk on strong wine
    so people who try to justify their drinking by only drinkin a wine are wrong!
    We all must Repent!

  • Bible also says in Ephesians 5:18 don’t get drunk and 1 Corinthians 6:10
    says all drunkards go to hell includin those who get drunk on strong wine!
    Jesus said you are one of Mine only if you continue My teachings/follow Me!
    Bible says to Repent and believe the Gospel to be saved! We must Repent!

  • “In the same way, Gay marriage is the destruction of Sacrament of marriage, the destruction of the soul, as well as it is a slow painful destruction of a society as a whole.”

    All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, of course. And “in the same way” is just lazy rhetoric. You might as well have said “In the same way, the internet is the destruction of human communication, the destruction of the soul, as well as ti is a slow painful destruction of society as a whole.”

    In other words, you might be the worst troll on RNS, which is saying something. Please, get the help you need. Maybe eventually you’ll get over your issues and start directing your outrage at the real evils that threaten the destruction of society.

  • “Gay marriage will rot the marital state…”

    I fully expect you to repent of this lie and confess your sin when you realize that his has not and will not happen.

  • “Bible says to Repent and believe the Gospel to be saved! We must Repent!”

    You first, and you can start by apologizing for your spamming the comment thread with your proof-texting nonsense.

  • Eric-I have Repented and what I wrote is Biblical not nonsense so
    for you to call what I wrote nonsense shows how far away you are
    from Truth/Bible/Word of God/Jesus which are all/one in the same!
    In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the
    Word/Jesus was God then the Word/Jesus became flesh so Jesus
    is the Word/Truth/God as part of the Trinity/Godhead. God bless.

  • Yeeeeesh !

    The ignorance of homosexual culture is sickening to observe. A female with a latex phallus (which is part and parcel of lesbian behavior) can rape a woman they are angry at.

    And this article, yet another cunning mind-controlling piece of propaganda, purposely ignores the realty of the depravity of male gay life. As so-called same sex marriage has homosexuals and homosexuality spreading into middle America, they intensity of the degeneracy and licentiousness of gay life will force the historic backlash it always has throughout the ages. Gay marriage is a fact of life.

    For now. Civilizations come and go. Right now, the western world is becoming a massive worldwide Sodom or Gomorrah with Gospel following Christian being the new Lot.

  • Ted,

    Your wilful ignorance of Evangelicals makes you type words that are utterly absurd. If you knew the slightest thing about Christians, it is precisely because they cannot justify and “affirm” their own sins that will have them forever opposing whatever name same gender sexuality is masked with. Isn’t it fascinating that homosexuals now have many, many, many, many, organizations that claim to be Christian to ply their gay ways in. BUT, they seek out “affirmation” in the Evangelical Church. Precisely because there are “real” Christians and false ones. It’s easy to see that in the “gay affirming” organizations there is nothing there of any substance. So, the target always remains the same. Where the Gospel is really preached in truth and not permissiveness.

  • People who don’t want to change make/create a false god/idol to suit
    themselves which is called idolatry and all idolaters go to hell. Luke 13
    and 1 Corinthians 5 plus 1 Corinthians 6:9-12 also 1 Corinthians 7 and
    Romans 1:18-32 and Galations 5:12-26 also Matthew 7:13-23 all show
    we are not to practice sin/we all must change and we all must Repent!
    Bible says Repent and believe Gospel to be saved! We must Repent!

  • Eric, the same was said about divorce, and after years and years of more and more increased numbers of families being broken and stitched back together, children being raised by step fathers, many girls being abused by step fathers, children no longer receiving discipline because the step mother or father considered it not their position, children not going to church as the parents gave that up too, or if they go to a church it is one that only speaks of “Love,” and not discipline; with fallout after fallout, we are seeing the wonderful fruits of all this: renegade children, and wild teens and young adults, many turning socially gay as they saw how it didn’t work for their mother and father, or shacking up and fornicating instead of getting married. It has eroded our society to the point of being just a shade above the animals. I’m sorry, but look how far we have fallen. It is hard to smell the manure when you are in the barn, but today things are really beginning to smell.

  • “… marriage does not end a life in the womb and, Prior said, “unlike abortion, gay marriage remains an act rooted in love…..”

    Gay marriage (sodomy) ends a normal healthy moral life for those young men who participate. The perverts seek to impose sodomy on any young male child who is not aborted. All they care about is sex.

  • Because religious views are part and parcel of human outlook, like any other educational factor that makes who we are.

  • Love and sexual experimentation have no relation to each other, so do not manipulate what Christ asks of us.

  • Greg, that smell emanates from your religion.

    Now go look up “Olden Times Fallacy”. Study harder, dummy.

  • I’m Kar La Ro Na Michelle CC44 the RepentBot and I must spam here with Repent many times daily else I will implode. Repent! REPENT!

    Repent! Bring out your dead! Repent!
    Repent! Bring out your dead! Repent!
    Repent! Bring out your dead! Repent!
    Repent! Bring out your dead! Repent!
    Repent! Bring out your dead! Repent!
    Repent! Bring out your dead! Repent!

    Or just don’t bother.

  • I’m Kar La Ro Na Michelle CC44 or whatever my name is this week. I’m the RepentBot and I must spam here with Repent many times daily else I will implode. Repent! REPENT!

    Repent! Bring out your dead! Repent!
    Repent! Bring out your dead! Repent!
    Repent! Bring out your dead! Repent!
    Repent! Bring out your dead! Repent!

    Or just don’t bother.

  • Sorry bqrq (and all you other Roman Catholic autobots and evangelical hypocites) all YOU care about is the sex. I’ve never read any of you even address the major component of marriage – gay or straight – which is the mutual support and love which deepens the relationship to Christ-like agape’.
    YOU are the ones focussed on the “icky” sex.
    YOU are the ones harping on the downfall of marriage, as if heteros (even RCs and Evangos) seek divorces out of the most immature and selfish of reasons.
    YOU are the ones who somehow seem to tie OT laws of your own choosing with excerpts of NT epistles and man-made church traditions to God’s will, warning that the “sky is falling” because of others’ sin.
    YOU and your stiff-necked, hard-hearted insistence on discipline, detachment, and legalism are the ones driving our children and unbelievers away from God and the love and mercy of Christ. For his sake – STOP IT!

  • But nobody has to take them seriously enough to give them color of law. Religious freedom means nobody ever has to live according to what you think God says. Your religion is your business, not mine.

  • Bqrq is just a little sore that the boy he “experimented” with in Bible camp did not return his affection.

  • A dummy is something that replicates a living person. So … since I was made in the image and likeness of God, the True Living Person, then I take your slight as a compliment.

  • Well, greg, it sounds as if you are blaming gay people for the bad actions of heterosexuals. It’s not a new tactic.

  • And you promised you were going to stop commenting on articles concerned with gay rights. that promised lasted about a week.

    Glad to hear that your word is as solid as your attachment to reality.

  • The only thing the two have in common is religious conservative nabobs will never come up with legally valid arguments to declare either illegal.

    The morons will spend millions of dollars on political contributions for bad faith ridiculous efforts to hamper access to such rights. But they havent a snowball’s chance in hell of a SCOTUS arguments to repeal them.

    In a generation, the Christian bigots will pretend they supported it all along and point to the affirming churches they so loathe as examples. Just like they did with segregation.

  • I wouldn’t bother to respond to BQRQ– EVER. He is obsessed with sodomy and young boys. I’d hate to be the TSA agent who had to inspect his laptop.

  • History proves you wrong. Secular and religious laws nearly mimicked each other until relatively recently. Lower moral standards have since led the law to follow society’s whims and disregard the higher road for the greater good.

  • Insane, Gusher? Really? Ha ha ha. I know right from wrong, you and your ilk change the rules daily. That’s insane.

  • No the 1st Amendment has proven you wrong. we have this little thing called “The Establishment Clause”. You may have heard of it. It stands for the idea that government cannot act on purely sectarian concerns.

    Who lost the court case 2 weeks ago? Abortion, divorce, and birth control are still legal. “Affirming” churches get the same tax breaks as the bigoted ones. “God says so” appears to be a losing argument when it comes to application of our laws. History has proven you don’t know thing about history.

    Why do you hate religious freedom so much? Because you have to share power with people you can’t burn at the stake.

    Besides the fact that fail to see any sign of moral thinking from people like yourselves. You guys are all full of excuses to act badly in public if you can claim God is in your corner. There is nothing moral in your position in any way.

  • Me too, Banjo, I’m such a liar, ain’t I? I can’t abandon the other Christians here and let the homos eat them alive. This is a Religious News Service, not a forum for the LGBTMOUSEQYOPTVIMCDO. So, I’m back to help re-closet the rainbow girls and boys. Let’s say its my calling. Or don’t I have rights?

  • I think he’s sore because that boy did return it, so to speak, and he has been obsessed about it ever since.

  • That’s MR. BANJO to you.

    So your word means nothing because You can’t abandon the other (completely in their imaginations) Christians while we eat them alive?

    honey, this is an anonymous internet forum, not the coliseum. If they cannot support their positions without having you make slanderous and reviling statements about people they don’t know and know nothing about, then one might conclude that they don’t really have any valid, reality based statements to make.

    oh, wait……….

  • AIDS is about gay sexual behavior. “gay” STD’s en masses is about gay sexual behavior. Lesbianism is about homosexual sexual behavior.

    You can try to refuse that gay propaganda is about validating and condoning homosexuality, but the gay community celebrates their demands for homosexual behavior.

    But. that is a choice made by people that like homosexual behavior.

    Same sex marriage came riding into society on the backs of the rise of godlessness, humanism and secularism. Just admit that gay behavior is antithetical to Christian life and stop trying the Alinsky propaganda techniques and tactics that are clearly designed to both persecute Christians and to make apostasy not apostasy.

  • Both Ben and Larry show that sexual behavior is what drives gay culture and the gay lifestyle.

    Thanks for being so “open” guys. And now of course you see why honest Christians want gays as far away from their innocent children as we they can drive them.

    LGBT is all about the sexual behaviors.

  • All the argumental support from religion has been repeated exhaustively here, none of it is new, and secular history from Creation to recently has mirrored the religious moral view of homosexuality. What believable support do you have that changes the definition of marriage overnight? Where are the historical attempts to legalize gay marriage? Where is there any record of a debate on the subject…..beyond 30 years ago? Nowhere.
    You just don’t approve of the proof given.

  • “After gay marriage, expect conservative amnesia”

    By Jonathan Merritt

    Did anyone catch that Merritt turned off the comments on his anti-Christian hit piece?

    “Conservatives” are never going to cower at the gay agenda. Nor will they ever show obeisance to the rainbow idol.

    There isn’t one conservative he referenced or quoted that couldn’t have been the same voices as any of the Apostles. Same gender marriage is stricly a secular issue.

    If Merritt thinks he is going to influence sincere and honest Christians that homosexual pride can be affirmed in The Church, he is delusional. JUST LIKE ABORTION, this is issue will never be settled in the hearts and minds of honest Christians all over this planet.

    His is just another slick propaganda ploy and nothing else.

  • Abortion ends a life. Gay Marriage ends a nation.

    Bye-bye America. We’ll miss you.

    You were very special, until you got stupid and messed up straight to Hades.

  • So your god is a dummy and you are a replica of him. Go find yourself a better god already. Sheesh, Greg, get an f’ing brain already.

  • Actually, Greg1 and Guster, religion has changed its rules over time quite dramatically. It usually just lags the times though. Merely an always obsolete fiction, that’s all religion is -at best, anyway.

  • JR, you are getting left behind by reality. The redefinition is happening, and you are too weak to do a darn thang about it.

  • Hey! JR has joined the gay team! Wonderful, JR. Kisses all round! We knew you were just suppressing all along.

  • ADignorantium,

    While watching your mind play out the impressive propaganda tactics of the gay agenda, I guess I should try at least some reality. Jesus, believes in the version of Christianity that holds that marriage is immutably man and woman/husband and wife. Did I write “believes” instead of believed? Well, “Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever.”

    While “western” Christians are also being driven by media powers, the concerns for “black” Churches burned down is just as ignored as Muslims extinguishing Christians and Christianity wherever Islam goes.

    And last time I looked, which was this exact moment, anti-Christians/”liberal Christians” ignore not only Christian Churches being burned down, but Christians being slaughtered en masse by Muslims worldwide. But ADignorantium, THAT doesn’t make new converts to the Democratic party now does it?

    Be careful not to throw rocks FROM inside your glass house. Your grip may slip.

  • Eric,

    Bad analogy sir. The internet IS destroying society one conscience at a time. Also car accidents caused by texting is now an epidemic. And soon to be pandemic as the IT age spreads worldwide. And gay marriage doesn’t just insult and blaspheme “the sacrament” of marriage; it makes it a hate crime too. That’s hurting in any definition of the term.

    “In the same way, God has given them over to a reprobate mind . . .”

    If there was a shred of humanity, honesty and integrity in the gay pride movement, no matter who is meting it out, the immutable fact is that Christians that ALSO, like Jesus, hold that marriage is immutably man and woman/husband and wife, are in every way believing in “the faith delivered only once to the saints,” correctly and truthfully.

    Those that have imposed or manipulated gay pride and same sex marriage into Christian life have no Biblically honest path to do so.

  • Your religion is your business, not mine. – Larry


    You look like a professional anti-Christ. Or at least one with a heck-of-a intense and all-consuming anti-Christian hobby.

    Sooo common these days.

    At least you have plenty of company.

  • Ted,

    You spell english words very well for a kindergartner.

    Do your mommies know you’re cruising the internet?

  • You are all about hate, nothing more. You’ve lost the fight. Ha ha. You are such a loser.

  • Ro Na, I know this sounds unpleasant, but both Eric and Ted have NO use for your message of repentence. They despise that message. They despise believing the Gospel. They despise salvation itself.

  • Yes, I also noticed that Merritt turned off his comments, BB. Thanks for putting that on the table. And yes, it does smell a little fishy, as with his current article.

    On the other hand, every time Merritt turns off his comments, he turns them off for everybody — not just the conservatives.

    That demonstration of evenhandedness is really important here at RNS, because it has NOT always been clear that — especially under the previous editor-in-chief’s watch — preventing posters from commenting would be done in a fair, evenhanded manner.

    Meanwhile, as for “the success of the gay marriage movement”, hey it’s VERY successful (if one avoids talking about the damages of gross sin to individuals, families, and the shared values of the community).

    It may even be successful right up till the nano-second that God does an intervention, (otherwise known as “Divine Judgment”), upon this backslidden nation.

  • Doc- You are right but maybe one day it will sink in/get through to
    them so all we can do is just keep preachin the Truth. Lukewarm
    people are the hardest to reach and the Bible warns if people are
    lukewarm they will be spit out of the Lords mouth so all of these
    so called “Christians” who think God is all love better read their
    Bible again cause 1 Corinthians 5,6 and 7 plus Romans 1:18-32
    and Matthew 7:13-23 also Luke 13 make it clear all sin is wrong!
    Bible says to Repent and then believe the Gospel to be saved! Luke 13 says to Repent or perish! We all must Repent!

  • Every dispensation in time has had it’s effect and it’s testimony. SCOTUS is simply reflecting the wishes of this nation with a 15-20 year delay of popular opinion. We have been living in relative peace in the USA for over 60 yrs. and idle hands have been at work in every class of people here and globally. Selfishness affects us all; no matter our persuasion. Crisis internationally is going to change the world we live in and hatred directed at those to blame will consume those who will not fight. Pray to yourself, your God, your demigod, your Idol or bend over and kiss your arse goodbye because it’s almost over… and then we will see… Cheers to all whatever you believe!

  • BB- Mr. Merritt has turned off comments for some time, but only because of the kind of hate that you, BQRQ, JR, and Dog, Greg and others spew.

  • Bqr, you’re obsessed by by images of gay men as pedophiles, but it’s just not true, except in your own head.

    Greg1, I don’t see how homosexuality can be evil. Most homosexuals are adults in loving relationships. They aren’t evil. They are pretty normal. They go to work and come home tired like everyone else.

  • Ben, we love you, and are only trying to bring you home to the King. Hate is a cardinal vice, not a virtue. God is Good, and calls each of us to repent of sins. Was John the Baptist a hater (Matthew 3:2)?

  • Susan, homosexuality is what it is. I know many gay people, and have no ill feelings towards them. But homosexual marriage is a bridge too far. It will destroy society. The problem with gay marriage, is–although they mean well–have now been given the right to adopt children, and be worked into society as if nothing is askew with their lifestyle. I find it simply amazing that all these new gay people are coming out of the woodwork. My suspicion is that since it is becoming socially acceptable, and people are choosing to go with that lifestyle, kind of like the new tattoo craze. I keep hearing that it is not their choice, that they are born like that. But for those who believe in evolution in its most radical form, and by default, natural selection, I’d ask can you believe in both natural selection AND the there is a gay gene?

  • Well, the planet is overpopulated and with global warming, it will become harder and harder to feed everyone.

    I do believe in natural selection, but not everyone who can give birth to a child or father a child is capable of being a good parent. I’ve seen Gay parents do a better job of raising a child than their birth parents would. I think that there have always been Gay people, but Gay people have often faced persecution so they stayed in the closet. I still don’t see how Gay marriage will destroy society. I think it will do just the opposite.

  • I’ve seen too many times, though, that the first reaction to things is usually telling whether it will be both morally and socially aligned with a wholesome society. I can only speak for myself, but when I first heard that some people were actually gay, I was taken aback, as if I’d witnessed a whipping, or saw someone being burned. And I think that is God’s way of letting us know that it is not good, sort of like instinct in an animal. We are all born with a conscience, and we can certainly numb it if we continue to expose ourselves to the oddity, but it is best to listen to the small voice of God in our heads, and say, this is something we need keep at arm’s length. My thought is God knows best; he has told us in Sacred Scripture, as well as in the Natural Law. We should listen.

  • I’m Kar La Ro Na Michelle CC44 Doc Anthony the RepentBot and I must spam here with Repent many times daily else I will implode. Repent! REPENT!
    Repent! Bring out your dead! Repent!
    Repent! Bring out your dead! Repent!
    Repent! Bring out your dead! Repent!
    Repent! Bring out your dead! Repent!
    Repent! Bring out your dead! Repent!
    Repent! Bring out your dead! Repent!
    Repent! Bring out your dead! Repent!

    Or just don’t bother.

  • So what you are saying is you don’t know a damn thing about the people you profess to hate and have little experience in dealing with them like human beings.

    If the voice inside your head was saying that it was a good thing to treat people like crap, you probably need to seek professional help. The little “God” inside your head is an anti-social cretin.

  • “I know many gay people, and have no ill feelings towards them.”

    Except when you said that they deserve no amount of respect and dignity. That is pretty ill feelings.

    Why do you have to lie so badly? Own up to your malice and prejudice in an honest fashion.

  • No Larry, I am saying that everything, from every aspect, and every angle, tells us that gay marriage is very wrong: nature tells us, our consciences tell us, God tells us through his Word, and our experiences tell us. Only once we’ve deadened our consciences, does gay marriage seem fine. God speaks to each of us in many ways; He is the Source of everything there is, so I believe He knows what is best for us. You will meet him someday, and it will all be clear to you then.

  • Difference or something completely new often makes us feel uncomfortable. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong. People have felt the same way about interracial couples. Would you say that is wrong too.

    God tells us through his words, but they are not always simple or easy to understand. The Hebrew Bible is how people at a certain time and place understood God’s words. We ought to have humility when we try to determine what God wants through his words.

  • Be Brave, where do you get your knowledge of what lesbians do? You probably get it from anti-homosexual web sites.

  • Funny then Greg1 that your idiot of a god created so many gay animals. Your comments and your beliefs are stupid.

  • No, Greg, your (fictional) god of your horrid bible cannot be called good. Since you are referencing that awful Christian book of hate, let’s take a look at a few of its nasty guidances
    Numbers 31:17-18
    17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
    18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
    Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
    1 Timothy 2:11
    “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
    Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
    Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.

  • Humility is right, something you show no signs of calling God an idiot.
    Something “new” like legalized gay marriage and abortion should always be “uncomfortable”, for they are flagrant dismissals of what is good and ordered by God. All things that previously bloomed in the dark should be kept there, not brought into the light to cause scandal and the deterioration of a moral society. God’s Word is not cemented in a certain time or place, it is alive forever……to help us. Who are humans to challenge perfect Wisdom?

  • All of this misses the simple point that neither Roe nor Obergefell was based on the Constitution. In both cases, the majority decided ahead of time what outcome they wanted and then constructed cockamamie arguments to justify their decision.

    The problem is that when it comes to such antics, two can play the same game….In fact, a century ago, conservative jurists did the same thing…..knocking down liberal laws even though they were perfectly constitutional.

    It’s wrong no matter which sides does it. Thus one can be pro-choice and against Roe, and pro-gay-marriage and against Obergerfell.

    The point about constitutions is that process is at least as important as outcome. If not, there’s no sense in having them in the first place.

  • If this were 1973, David Gibson would be making the same argument about Roe that he’s now making about Obergerfell.

    He doesn’t know any more than anyone else does what the future holds. The only thing we know about Gibson is that he is hoping that he’s right.

  • LOL….another day, another opportunity for Larry the Lefty to bully dissenters from his highness’s dour political orthodoxy.

  • Susan, the world is not “overpopulated.” That foolish theory was debunked long ago, with Ben Wattenberg’s “The Birth Dearth.”

    The problem is quite the opposite — decades after a worldwide baby boom after WW II, zero-population-growth fanatics pressed the panic button and the result is that much of the West is heading for very serious pension crises, with not enough younger people to support the elderly in the coming decades.

    In fact, thanks to China’s decades-long, one-child-only policy, that country is headed for a humanitarian catastrophe, with hundreds of millions of elderly people and not enough younger ones.

    Gay marriage really has nothing to do with this issue….

  • The strongest fact that should give any thoughtful person some pause about gay marriage is the fact that no society in history — from puritanical to libertine to everything in between — seems even to have contemplated it, let alone pushed for it.

    If the Greeks and Romans, who certainly were no sexual prudes, heard about it, they’d have laughed themselves to death over it….I can picture a cynical Roman wondering whether Caligula and Nero had managed to reincarnate themselves and convince gullible Americans what a great idea it was.

    It seems to be a unique, manufactured, make-believe demand that came literally out of nowhere about a generation or two ago, was probably begun by heterosexual countercultural lefties as a gag to tweak “uptight conservatives” and then at some point transformed from being satire to being quite serious.

    Then, all it took for it to go mainstream was to convince the kinds of people who read People magazine and watch The View and soap operas.

  • I noticed that Mr. Merritt has done so, but you’re too charitable….I’ve read enough of Merritt to notice that he doesn’t like being challenged. Most of the other writers here apparently don’t have the same problem.

  • if you want to see the constitutional basis of both cases look no further than the decisions themselves and the 14th Amendment. The ignorant whining concerning both decisions is getting ridiculous. Fact of the matter is, in both cases the people supporting the bans came up short for valid rational and secular reasons for them. They still do.

  • “The strongest fact that should give any thoughtful person some pause about gay marriage is the fact that no society in history — from puritanical to libertine to everything in between — seems even to have contemplated it, let alone pushed for it. ”

    Which is why the people looking to uphold a gay marriage ban LOST.

    An argument from tradition is not a legal argument nor one justifying a restriction on actions. They are (were) pushing for it now, that is all that mattered for the Court at the moment and there wasn’t a single secular and rational reason why they could not have it.

  • I am not the one saying an entire group of people are unworthy of being treated like humans. That is all you and Greg1. 🙂

    I am a bully for pointing out one’s own prior malicious statements. Riiiight.

  • “decades after a worldwide baby boom after WW II, zero-population-growth fanatics pressed the panic button and the result is that much of the West is heading for very serious pension crises, with not enough younger people to support the elderly in the coming decades.”

    The problem being the baby boom, not the contraction.

    Also the problem had to do with the baby boomers destroying the economic and social safety nets of prior generations. Conservative efforts at destroying organized labor, undermining government assistance programs and encouraging the public to take on greater levels of personal debt dug the graves for that generation.

  • Larry, if you were brought up in the old South, you’d be wearing a hood with your “progressive” buddies, cheering on that lovely “progressive” Segregator-in-Chief, Woodrow Wilson, as you bully black people and call me a *@#%^-lover for defending them from your depredations.

    Bullies and bigots are often one and the same…..In your case, you’re an anti-Christian bigot, but put you in a different time and place, and you’d just as likely hate others.

  • Larry, the ultimate point of the argument from tradition is to refute the nonsensical notion that not having gay marriage is a function of a specifically religious point of view. The fact that no society in history ever had it, including societies that had no problem whatsoever with homosexuality, really makes your argument look silly.

    As for the legal argument, if you’re referring to the SCOTUS ruling, if I didn’t know your penchant for defending the legally indefensible, I’d think you’re joking. But you’re not, of course. Yes, under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th, of course there should be no discrimination pertaining to marriage. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that you can’t create a constitutional right for gay marriage under that clause until you first redefine the word, “marriage” to include gay marriage. And even you must know that this is what legislators are supposed to do, not judges.

  • Of course it had something to do with the contraction, Larry. If the boom were followed simply by a regression to the mean, as opposed to a historic plunge, the result would have been manageable.

    As to “destroying safety nets,” I’m not sure what you mean. Social Security has been expanded in almost every direction, far beyond its original mandate. Current seniors are getting far more than what they put into the system. Transfer payments of every kind are larger than ever in the federal budget.

    It makes obvious sense to raise the Social Security retirement age, since people are living much longer and are generally healthier than their predecessors at every stage of life. Just look at what 40-year-olds looked like fifty or sixty years ago compared to today.

    If we have the maturity to make such decisions, we’ll probably be okay as a society, but not so with China. It has dug a hole for itself that will lead to unimaginable suffering.

  • Which again is not a legal argument. Nor one that had to be considered by SCOTUS since religious considerations are not element to civil laws concerning marriage rights.

    ” But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that you can’t create a constitutional right for gay marriage under that clause until you first redefine the word, “marriage” to include gay marriage.”

    Also not a legal argument. Redefinition is not an argument without some explanation why it is a bad thing.

    You may have noticed that the defendants in the SCOTUS case, despite having literally dozens of people submitting amicii briefs did not use arguments like yours when defending gay marriage bans. Because they are both half-baked. Anyone could simply respond by saying there is no explanation why “tradition” needs to be upheld or why “redefinition” is bad enough to warrant banning such changes.

    All you are telling me is you did not understand the decision you criticized.

  • So you are saying unchecked population growth is a good thing? Where in the world is that ever true?

    China dug itself into a hole because it sought to reduce population growth without doing what works best: widespread education and gender equality in professions. What the developed world has been doing right for 2 generations.

  • Wrong as usual, Larry. After Roe, plenty of pro-choice liberal lawyers and scholars opposed it because it was so transparently divorced from anything remotely connected to the Constitution’s text. They worried aloud that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander — that someday, they would be on the receiving end of similarly nasty conservative rulings that would gut liberal legislation that was perfectly constitutional.

    Neither decision has a thing to do with the “rational and secular” mantra you’re fond of repeating. Both rulings were examples of outcome-based jurisprudence, where judges decide what policy result they want beforehand and then ransack the Constitution for something, anything, to justify it. The problem is that in both cases, there’s no such thing remotely in the text….unless you believe in magical, mystical codes lurking therein, awaiting the right judges to put on their magicians’ hats and find them.

  • Jack, you have an overactive fantasy life and a terrible case of projection.

    I am not the one arguing about traditions of keeping people from having civil liberties. Nor do I support the idea of segregating open commerce based on “sincerely held beliefs” The hood fits, your should wear it and wear it proud.

  • In the modern world, population is self-regulating, Larry, and you and China’s dictators seem not to have noticed it. You don’t need fanatical, draconian governmental responses to keep it “in check.”

    Population growth, when coupled with basic freedoms and rule of law, brings economic growth in the modern world. That’s why in India alone, over the past 30 years, literally hundreds of millions of human beings are no longer in dire poverty, but have moved into the middle class.

    With economic growth comes a rise in prosperity — which, in turn, leads to a leveling off in population growth, as people delay marriage and family for schooling and other pursuits.

    The idea that population growth is some uncontrollable monster than consumes limited resources is the old Malthusian myth that belongs in the same boat with belief in a flat earth. It’s based on a primitive conception of what constitutes wealth and resources and where both come from (hint:not from the ground).

  • Larry, western societies are not in quite the shape that China is in when looking ahead, but some like Japan are going to suffer, too.

    The one thing the world should have learned about population growth is that the answer to high-population-growth nations is not to reduce the growth, but to bring to those nations political and economic freedom. Once we do that, two things happen: First, there is economic growth leading to prosperity, and second, a reduction in population growth rates as a consequence of that prosperity.

    But a lethal combination of Marx and Malthus have led to foolish attempts to drive down population while doing nothing to produce economic growth by allowing more freedom.

  • Larry, I never said that the tradition argument was by itself a legal argument. It is simply a factual reality that prevents an honest person from making the flawed legal argument that not having gay marriage is somehow based on a uniquely religious perspective. It knocks out any argument that states not having gay marriage are in any way violating the Establishment clause, even if we accept for argument’s sake your wildly expansive view of the meaning of the clause.

    The argument that that the Equal Protection Clause demands recognition of same-sex unions as marriage relies on the assumption that we have already redefined marriage to include same-sex unions. But that’s the very thing that was in dispute in the first place. Thus the argument is circular.

    Put another way, you can’t change rules in the middle of the game by changing the meanings of relevant words. That’s for the legislative branch.

  • Jack, you still can’t come up with reasons for upholding gay marriage bans. Even after several were allegedly argued before SCOTUS (but came up woefully empty). “Tradition” and “redefinition” are still just begging the questions rather than addressing the issue.

    The anti-abortion crowd hasn’t come up with anything new in 42 years. They still can’t overcome the notion of a right to privacy which Roe and its modern update (the case you really should be talking about) Casey v. Planned Parenthood, used as the basis for upholding abortion rights.

    You still appear unfamiliar with what a common law legal system and 214 years of judicial review means when dealing with the text of the constitution. It means judge interpretation is what guides the decisions of courts. Not nonsensical parsing and “founder intent”.

    It is only pure ignorance on your part which guides your accusation of partisan politics being the primary force at play here.

  • Japan has a cure for its population deficit problems which it doesn’t discuss much outside its own media. Immigration.

    It is the same solution the rest of the developed world is using. Encouraging home grown growth is silly when you have large sources of people outside who can be brought in with less damaging effects on families and the economy.

    The main result of China’s one-child policy has not been population reduction by family size but creating a world wide diaspora of ethnic Chinese.

    Malthus died with the Green Revolution. Marx’s ideas finally died in 1989. Everyone else got the memo but you.

  • Larry is just being Larry. He takes a radical-left view of the First Amendment’s Establishment clause, smuggling in a French view to displace the American view and context.

    Hard-left people are into the French Revolution, not the American. It’s an old story.

  • Jack, where is your explanation why anyone needs to give a crap about tradition when upholding a ban on an action? Please explain why redefining marriage to include gay marriage is so bad it requires a ban?

    As usual, you miss the point. Under the Equal Protection Clause, legal restrictions on activities require legitimate government interests. The question before SCOTUS was not whether gay marriage was a legal right, it was whether it was something that could be justifiably banned. To justify a ban, the burden is to prove why its necessary. You didn’t read the ruling. That much is clear.

    This is why you guys lost.

    You can pretend it was partisan politics, but the truth was, you couldn’t cough up a reason to ban gay marriage that demanded to be taken seriously.

    “…you can’t change rules in the middle of the game by changing the meanings of relevant words. That’s for the legislative branch.”

    A common law legal system and 200+ years of judicial review says…

  • Larry, I’m merely pointing out the obvious — that the sort of provincial bigotry you display is more a personality trait than an ideological inclination. Thus, if you were brought up in the pre-civil-rights south, you’d likely be wearing a hood and getting all worked up against black people. It’s your inability to transcend environment and upbringing that distinguishes bigots like yourself.

  • Larry, you keep stumbling over the obvious: The “tradition” observation — that no society in history endorsed gay marriage — refutes the silly idea that our society’s not having gay marriage was based on some uniquely religious objection. It means that even if you succeed in stretching the First Amendment’s Establishment clause like a rubber band, you can’t commandeer it for your purposes here. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

    As for the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th, again, your argument is circular. A court can’t affirm an equal protection claim regarding marriage simply by declaring its own redefinition of the word, “marriage.” If they can redefine the word, “marriage” without prior legislative action, what’s to stop them from redefining any other words to suit their fancy? Why not redefine the word, citizen, for example, in connection with the 14th? Ponder the “possibilities.”

  • Sorry, Larry, but I’m not the one filling these boards with claptrap that mimics Malthus and Marx. Your views distinctly mirror both of these flawed theorists…and the fact that they’re dinosaurs only highlights your own failure to come to grips with the modern world.

    I couldn’t agree more that immigration is a big part of the solution for the trouble that you neo-Malthusian lefties caused by your obsessions about population growth. But the same argument for immigration works for population. The idea that the world today needs fewer people is reactionary foolishness. What the world needs is more freedom and democracy and the economic growth that results from it…..and with that growth comes prosperity and finally a population that regulates itself.

  • Well, Larry, I guess you’ve never heard of federalism. States don’t require some sort of unique justification for the mundane assertion that marriage is between male and female. It’s the other way around. Since marriage is supposed to be a state issue, as are other issues not otherwise specified, it’s the Court that needed to provide some extraordinary reason not to respect the wishes of the people in each state, as expressed through their elected branches, on the matter.

    In the end, it provided no such reason.

    This isn’t the first and it won’t be the last SCOTUS ruling that has no relation to anything besides the personal politics of the Court majority. History is littered with such examples.

  • Jack, you obviously didn’t read the decision.

    You are unfamiliar with the notion of judicial precedent.

    You don’t have an argument worth a damn because you can’t justify gay marriage bans in any substantive way.

    “States don’t require some sort of unique justification for the mundane assertion that marriage is between male and female. ”

    They couldn’t come up with why it must be that way. Saying its “mundane” is not a reason. They had to explain why it was necessary to create such a limitation under the circumstances. They came up empty. As do you.

    “This isn’t the first and it won’t be the last SCOTUS ruling that has no relation to anything besides the personal politics of the Court majority. History is littered with such examples.”

    Ignoramuses have been making such pronouncements for decades. Why stop now? It keeps reactionary politicians well funded for doing nothing of note.

  • You brought them up. It was claptrap when you made the reference. I can’t help it if you like spouting retrograde nonsense.

    “Your views distinctly mirror both of these flawed theorists”

    My suggestion is that you actually read about those theorists. You obviously know nothing about them if you are attributing my posts to their ideas.

    “you neo-Malthusian lefties”

    Ad hominem Jack has officially taken over. You have become too silly to bother responding to.

  • Larry, if you don’t want to be associated with Malthus and Marx, change your zero-sum views about population and wealth so they differ from them.

    Until then, don’t complain when people connect the obvious dots after reading your posts.

  • Apparently you don’t understand American federalism, Larry, because from a federalism standpoint, your analysis is upside down. Like most other matters, marriage is supposed to be a state issue. That being the case, the burden is not on a state to give a reason for its law, but on a court to prove that the particular law violates the Constitution. The fact that five justices are personally offended by the law is no substitute for such proof.

    Of course, a court can say anything it likes. It can say the moon is made of green cheese or that the square root of 25 is 116, but that doesn’t make it correct. Likewise, a government can do what it wishes with dissenters, from calling them bigots to ripping their tongues out of their mouths, but again, none of this changes anything regarding facts or logic.

  • Stumble nothing, your argument is missing important elements to it and you know you can’t provide them.

    You didn’t read the decision and can’t get around the idea that equal protection arguments REQUIRE the government to justify a legal ban on an action.

    So why is gay marriage so bad it had to be banned? You won’t say. You can’t. This is why that side lost.

    You never knew the rules of the game. So your nonsense as to what could or could not be defined or done meant nothing. You guys lost and you are too ignorant to know why.

  • Abortion was legalized by SCOTUS with one case, and not with a consensus of the American public in the 50 states of the United States. SCOTUS determined that life as a person only starts when the brain is developed to a certain point, and, of course, they wouldn’t have agreed to HEAR the case if they hadn’t wanted to legalize abortion without having to get the consensus to legalize abortion from the American people.

    The same thing has happened here except, of course, I believe that it was a foregone conclusion that SCOTUS was going to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 States because The Department of Defense had already recognized same sex marriage for the troops of The Armed Forces of the United States in 2014. Article 125 of The Uniform Code of Military Justice has to be declared null and void because it treated sodomy, anal sex, and adultery as Court Martial Offenses since the UCMJ code was introduced.

    Was this all about national defense and…

  • I’m sure that The Supreme Court of the United State is hoping that the decriminalization and destigmatization of SODOMY, anal/oral sex, for ALL Americans will result in GAYS being more monogamous and less promiscuous. The Department of Defense favored same-sex marriage for the TROOPS in 2014 and dismantled Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice so it must have something to do with National Defense. Apparently, the view is that TESTING will become routine for AIDS/HIV and other Venereal Diseases and that the Pandemic of HIV/AIDS will be controlled and ended.

    But what if it has the opposite impact on the Pandemic of AIDS/HIV and other venereal diseases because when the STATE appears to condone and license SODOMY, anal and oral sex, that is no longer illegal, with the marriage license, will this encourage more experimenting with unsafe sex among younger and less educated populations —and actually worsen the Pandemic of AIDS/HIV. Who knows?

  • Bring it… Sounds like you need you a** kicked by a fa**ot and I’m just the one to do it. You better rethink your ideas of what gay men are. I don’t know one who isn’t ready for this fight.

  • Agree with this article. Anyone who thinks same sex marriage is going to continue to be a hot button issue the way abortion has is in denial. With abortion, it can be argued that there is a victim. With marriage, you can’t argue that. All the reasons that have been put forth against it fall apart because most gay couples who marry are simply boring, monogamous couples, many with children and families of their own. That doesn’t hurt marriage. That strengthens it.