Institution of marriage gathers strength in NY
With Friday night’s vote in the New York Senate, the Empire State is set to become the sixth state, in addition to the District of Columbia, in which gay marriage is legal. And because New York will be by far the largest state to take that step, the number of Americans able to marry others of the same gender will effectively double.
This is, of course, the end of Western civilization and of the foundation on which it is built, which is the institution of marriage. Or not.
Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing at the National Review’s “The Corner,” has likened the vote by elected representatives in New York to the brutal repression exercised in North Korea, bizarrely claiming that we Americans are “witnessing tyranny today that is fostered by a false sense of freedom, a tyranny that faux tolerance ferments.”
John Guardiano, writing in the American Spectator, also laments the decline of marriage:
“…. the institution of marriage is [under threat] — so much so that marriage rates in America have plummeted and out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed.
National Review’s Rich Lowry notes, for instance, that the number of Americans in intact first marriages has dropped from 73 percent in the 1970s to as little as 39 percent today, depending on socioeconomic status. And the poorer and less educated you are, the more likely you are to suffer from the political and cultural degradation of marriage.
Just 45 percent of moderately educated, middle-income Americans are in intact first marriages. For the poorest and least-educated Americans, the corresponding figure is 39 percent.”
Personally, I’m a strong believer in marriage, both as a living arrangement for adults and as the best possible setting in which to raise children. (”Best possible,” however, should not be confused with “only;” the unpredictability of human beings and the realities of life do not allow such blanket statements.)
However, I’ve never seen even a vaguely convincing argument that gay marriage has any affect whatsoever on the status of marriage among heterosexual couples.
Guardiano, for example, tries to suggest that gay marriage has “everything” to do with some ill-defined campaign by ill-defined forces to undercut marriage and bring the country down around our ears.
“Sure, this breakdown in the family has occurred independent of the push for ‘marriage equality’,” he writes. “But it is still part and parcel of an overarching effort to undermine and deprecate traditional marriage and the traditional family. It is still part of a broader political and cultural movement to decouple marriage from its principal purpose, which is the care and raising of children.”
What nonsense.
The care and raising of children is certainly “A” purpose of marriage, and is in fact one reason that gay couples seek that right. However, it is not THE purpose of marriage.
The existence of millions of loving couples who are childless either by choice or by nature refute that claim. Marriages of older couples beyond their child-bearing years refute that claim. Guardiano and others who make such an argument actually belittle marriage by stripping it down to a crude, single-purpose functionality — the raising of children — that seeks to deny its deep emotional rewards and challenges.
The suggestion that gay marriage is part of a guerrilla effort to undercut marriage itself is further undercut by hard data. In general, gay marriage has gained a foothold in those states in which marriage is already strongest, and it is rejected in states where marriage is more threatened.
Massachusetts, the first state to make gay marriage legal, has by far the lowest annual divorce rate in the country, at a mere 1.8 percent. New York has an annual divorce rate of 2.5 percent.
Georgia, in contrast, has an annual divorce rate of 3.2 percent.
In fact, the seven jurisdictions in which gay marriage is now legal, including the District of Columbia, have an average annual divorce rate of 2.7 percent. The average annual divorce rate in the 28 states in which recognition of gay marriage is explicitly banned, including Georgia, is 3.9 percent.
For the record, the New York bill contains explicit protections to ensure that religious organizations cannot be forced to recognize gay marriage or be forced to host marriages, receptions or similar ceremonies. While such protections are probably unnecessary, I think they’re also entirely appropriate. The histrionics of Lopez and others about tyranny aside, this is not an attempt to use government to impose something; it is an attempt to convince government to allow all of its citizens, not just some, to share in the benefits, rights and obligations of a critically important human institution.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
834 comments Add your comment
Mel
June 27th, 2011
3:26 pm
Thulsa Doom, 1 Timothy 2:9… “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments.”
I guess that means God doesn’t like gold necklaces at all. Or pearls. That’s a lot of people going to Hell.
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
June 27th, 2011
3:26 pm
jewcowboy @ 3:22
I told you because the majority of the people in a state say so ………… as in Georgia.
Now please see my 3:21
DebbieDoRight
June 27th, 2011
3:27 pm
scout: Now, give me a legal reason to prohibit polygamy ………. remember LEGAL
Because it’s against the law in 50 states.
Doggone/GA
June 27th, 2011
3:28 pm
“I guess that means God doesn’t like gold necklaces at all”
Or even BRAIDS!
Aquagirl
June 27th, 2011
3:28 pm
Jewcowboy, if they couldn’t produce one in Perry v. Schwarzenegger you probably won’t find one here. Silly talking points, yes. Actual reasons which are valid in the real world….not so much.
@@
June 27th, 2011
3:29 pm
Debbie:
Must would choose to have someone to love them, (parents) over anything else.
You’re making assumptions on their behalf…something I never do when working with children. It’s disrespectful. Children have a voice and it should be heard.
Mel
June 27th, 2011
3:29 pm
Doggone/GA, all those poor little children who wear braids. Sinners.
Peadawg
June 27th, 2011
3:30 pm
“Because it’s against the law in 50 states.”
And gay marriage is against the law in…what…43 states? Not a good reason, Debbie.
Joe Mama
June 27th, 2011
3:31 pm
1811 — “May I suggest: “The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States” by Benjamin F. Morris.”
You may. And may I suggest Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England?”
Anyone purporting to have an interest in the Framers and their original intent can’t be, IMO, considered serious unless they are conversant with Blackstone’s.
http://www.amazon.com/Blackstones-Commentaries-Laws-England-volumes/dp/1584773618/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309202957&sr=1-3
Aquagirl
June 27th, 2011
3:32 pm
Laura Ingalls is going to hell? Pa is gonna be upset about that one.
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
3:32 pm
“Because the majority of the people in a state “say” so.”
So if the majority of the state says blacks and whites cannot marry, that is legal? Just because something is the law, does not make it legal.
“Now, give me a legal reason to prohibit polygamy”
Because the state can limit the benefits received to a certain number of people, but they can not regulate who enters that contract as long as they are of legal age.
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
June 27th, 2011
3:32 pm
The problem with the under 30 argument is that most people tend to become more conservative in their viewpoints as they mature. Not true for all people as we often see evidenced on this blog by those who just can’t tolerate views different from their own.
Joe Mama
June 27th, 2011
3:33 pm
Doom — “Yes. And there was never any religious influence ever in the writing of old English common law.”
By all means, elaborate upon your claim. Demonstrate the action and influence of which you speak, sir.
Gale
June 27th, 2011
3:34 pm
And there was a time when the majority of people in Georgia thought slavery was a good thing. Just because a majority of people believe something does not make it right — or constitutional.
DebbieDoRight
June 27th, 2011
3:35 pm
@@: You’re making assumptions on their behalf…something I never do when working with children. It’s disrespectful. Children have a voice and it should be heard.
(a) I did say MOST not all. (b) I worked in DFACS for 3 years, I’ve seen more abused, disenfranchised, and victimized children than you will have any idea of and I truly believe that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Joe Mama
June 27th, 2011
3:35 pm
BTW, 1811, here’s the Wiki page on Blackstone’s Commentaries; I thought I’d save you $250 by helping you see what it’s about without you having to pony up for a copy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Laws_of_England
Peadawg
June 27th, 2011
3:36 pm
“And there was a time when the majority of people in Georgia thought slavery was a good thing.”
Apparently a lot (farmers mainly) still do!
Mel
June 27th, 2011
3:36 pm
Amen, Gale.
Peadawg
June 27th, 2011
3:36 pm
“BTW, 1811, here’s the Wiki page”
Epic fail on using Wikipedia, which is something a 7 year old could modify, as proof on anything.
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
3:37 pm
thulsa Doom,
“So if someone disagrees with you then they are a bigot.”
No…as I posted before to be bigoted means one regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance. Merely disagreeing with someone is not bigotry.
“I’ll just call you a religious bigot- especially given your speire faerie comments.”
I would suggest you look you look up Spéir Faerie.
“You are definitely a bigot.”
Most assuredly…I’m a total bigot to people who don’t bother to think. And to people who wear flip-flops.
Thulsa Doom
June 27th, 2011
3:38 pm
Debbiedo- 43 out of 50- the numbers have it on a NATIONAL level. Is there something about this you don’t understand.
Joe mama- if someone disagrees with me its a logical fallacy. Nope. Here’s a logical fallacy Joe. You stated by opposing someone else’s rights that I’m constraining them. You see its a logical fallacy on your part to assume that someone has a “right” to gay marriage. Your welcome Joe.
Mel and doggone/GA, Nice try but you’re simply evading the issue of what God says on homosexuality. And he couldn’t be more clear sir- and ma’am.
I’ll be back in a while to shoot some more fish in a barrel. Ya’ll don’t go nowhere.
Joe Mama
June 27th, 2011
3:38 pm
This just in: Blagojevich guilty as all hell.
DebbieDoRight
June 27th, 2011
3:38 pm
PDawg: And gay marriage is against the law in…what…43 states? Not a good reason, Debbie.
(A) “Gay” marriage is not defined or “against the law” in 43 states. A few states, such as georgia, has defined marriage as “being between a man and a woman” but has not criminalized “Gay Marriage”.
(B) Polygamy IS defined by 50 states and IS a criminal offense punishable by the state(s).
JM
June 27th, 2011
3:39 pm
I expect the biggest impact from this will be a 2 to 3% rise in the divorce rate in New York over the next few years.
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
3:39 pm
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.),
“The problem with the under 30 argument is that most people tend to become more conservative in their viewpoints as they mature. ”
I would refer you back to the comments I posted earlier by CEO of the Focus on the Family, where even they concede they’ve lost the fight against marriage equality.
Adam
June 27th, 2011
3:40 pm
Recon: The problem with the under 30 argument is that most people tend to become more conservative in their viewpoints as they mature.
Cite please?
If true, my guess is that’s called early onset Alzheimer’s.
Joe Mama
June 27th, 2011
3:41 pm
Octodawg — “Epic fail on using Wikipedia, which is something a 7 year old could modify, as proof on anything.”
Epic fail on retort, given that Wikipedia pages are often (and in the case of this one, ARE) highly sourced with footnoted links.
Further epic fail on retort as I clearly said that I was using it to save 1811 money, not to prove anything.
Final epic fail on retort as 1811 and I simply traded Amazon links, and as we all know, Amazon doesn’t prove anything either.
Final score: Octodawg fails at identifying fail. (pointing, laughing)
TGT
June 27th, 2011
3:41 pm
As if gays are that interested in marriage anyway. As a proponent of gay marriage has noted, “There are many gays and lesbians who strongly value the right to marry, but few (none, more or less) who think of it as a gay ideal to have relationships that are as close as possible to the traditional hetero myth/ideal. The possibilities for different types of relationships have been common currency in the gay community and gay press for as long as there has been an open gay community.”
DebbieDoRight
June 27th, 2011
3:41 pm
recon: The problem with the under 30 argument is that most people tend to become more conservative in their viewpoints as they mature
That’s true. I saw a picture of Tina Turner and Cher with dresses on to their knees the other day.
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
3:41 pm
Peadawg,
“Epic fail on using Wikipedia, which is something a 7 year old could modify, as proof on anything.”
You do know they have sources at the bottom right? If its something that say [needs citation] then be wary, but if has a link you can click on it and see if its legit.
Adam
June 27th, 2011
3:43 pm
For those going “If someone disagrees with a liberal, then ______” are making blanket statements that make no sense and only serve to inflate the person’s ego, thinking they have scored some points somehow. And, somehow, this makes you right and that anyone who disagrees with YOU is wrong.
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
June 27th, 2011
3:43 pm
Most of the framers of the Constitution were Christian believers. Only two didn’t identify with any particular denomination but none the less believed in God. To believe that our laws are not based to a large extent on Judeo-Christian principals is incorrect.
Mel
June 27th, 2011
3:44 pm
Thulsa Doom, I’m not evading the issue at all. I’m merely pointing out (by quoting other Bible verses), how ridiculous your argument is. And how you are picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you want to believe in.
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
3:44 pm
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.),
“To believe that our laws are not based to a large extent on Judeo-Christian principals is incorrect.”
And what is the 14th amendment based on?
oldguy
June 27th, 2011
3:44 pm
Ah the libs are restless!! Must be the humidity!
BTW they are missing a very important point in two of their favorite topics “Gay Marriage” and “Imigration”.
Let me elaborate::
40 million illegals in the US? And who are they? Poor Latin americans…..and what are they 99% Catholics….
Ergo…..when the libs get their way on legalizing them to vote Kiss gay marriage goodby!!!
Its not a random happening that the Gay marriage vote went down in Calif. Where are there a large number of illegals??
p.s. Only Jay would claim the NY vote would strengthen marriage!!! what a HOOT!!
Dick Morris
June 27th, 2011
3:44 pm
If a person doesn’t know that generally speaking that you’re much more liberal in your younger years and that this is backed up by sociology studies, voting polls, demographic studies, etc. then they don’t know squat. In general people tend to become more conservative as they grow older.
Mel
June 27th, 2011
3:45 pm
Recon, do your research. Most of them were not Christian. They were deists. There’s a difference.
Joe Mama
June 27th, 2011
3:45 pm
Doom — “Joe mama- if someone disagrees with me its a logical fallacy. Nope.”
No, Doom. I identified the specific logical fallacy in which you engaged. It’s not my fault that you’re not intelligent enough to know what it is. Perhaps you need some education on the topic?
“Here’s a logical fallacy Joe. You stated by opposing someone else’s rights that I’m constraining them.”
I did no such thing. I pointed out that you are *advocating* the constraint of the civil rights of others, of which there is ample evidence in *your own posts.* That’s a fact.
“You see its a logical fallacy on your part to assume that someone has a “right” to gay marriage.”
Not in the least. You clearly aren’t familiar with the Constitution.
Please come back and challenge me on this point, Doom. I can’t wait.
“Your welcome Joe.”
Child, you have nothing to teach me with regard to logic and argumentation. (laughing)
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
3:46 pm
“Its not a random happening that the Gay marriage vote went down in Calif. Where are there a large number of illegals??”
Who can’t vote…
Adam
June 27th, 2011
3:46 pm
Recon: To believe that our laws are not based to a large extent on Judeo-Christian principals is incorrect.
Sure, but the Founders were also smart enough to make SURE that church and state were SEPARATE. The main reason? They knew the religious types were mostly NUTS, even if they, themselves, had some beliefs.
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
June 27th, 2011
3:46 pm
Joe Mama:
I am very familiar with it. Doesn’t change a thing.
For anyone to believe our government/laws are not based on Judeo/Christian precepts is naive beyond belief.
BTW: Did you know in the U.S. Constitution, the President of the United States has 10 days to consider a bill before signing ? Sundays excepted !!! No working on Sundays !!!
Oh, and the Constitution is dated “in the year of our Lord” ……….. Lord meaning Jesus the Christ.
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
June 27th, 2011
3:47 pm
Debbie:
You are correct …………… the law is the law.
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
June 27th, 2011
3:48 pm
Mel, you’re wrong again. Just two were deists, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.
Peadawg
June 27th, 2011
3:49 pm
jewcowboy,
Try asking a college professor if you can site a wiki page for a term paper. They would probably point and laugh at you.
Adam
June 27th, 2011
3:49 pm
More conservative with age? NOPE!
HA! Debunked. Not that this will stop you, but just know you are WRONG, even if you are a good CON that doesn’t admit to anything.
DebbieDoRight
June 27th, 2011
3:50 pm
scout: Sundays excepted !!! No working on Sundays !!
Scout, in jewish religion SATURDAY is the holy day NOT Sunday.
“Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.”
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
3:51 pm
“For anyone to believe our government/laws are not based on Judeo/Christian precepts is naive beyond belief.”
It’s actually based on English Common Law, which is based .
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_fa2c1730-e483-5e59-8ea1-1b2df9fcc62f.html
Gale
June 27th, 2011
3:53 pm
oldguy @3:44 Once again, majority vote does not make a law constitutional. The majority could vote for slavery today and guess what? It would be overturned because it is unconstitutional. The majority simply cannot walk roughshod over the minority with a vote.
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
3:53 pm
Peadawg,
“Try asking a college professor if you can site a wiki page for a term paper.”
Which is why I pointed to the references at the bottom and said to wary of the ones needing citations.
oldguy
June 27th, 2011
3:54 pm
hey jewcowboy,
you think illegals don’t vote??
Have I got part interest in a bridge in Brooklyn for you!!!!
No ID required remember!!
Thulsa Doom
June 27th, 2011
3:55 pm
Oh Lordy,
I’ve done it now. Joe Mama is starting in with the novels again. Stick to one point Joe. I know you have a short attention span but concentrate sir! I’m not going to get into writing novels back and forth with you. So please tell me where in the U.S Constitution gays have a right to marriage. Tell me specifically where it is mr. constitutional scholar. Be specific on this one point sir. I knows you can do it. I just knows it.
Adam
June 27th, 2011
3:56 pm
Peadawg: Yes, you can’t cite wikipedia as a source. You can, however, cite wikipedia’s sources as a source.
I grow tired of this tirade against wikipedia. Yes, anyone can edit it, but there are moderators that come in and make sure things are accurate, or throw up flags to let you know the information might not be accurate. My favorite was this:
Could Computing
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
It contains too much jargon and may need simplification or further explanation
too much jargon? The entire CONCEPT of cloud computing is basically jargon!
Thulsa Doom
June 27th, 2011
3:58 pm
For anyone to believe our government/laws are not based on Judeo/Christian precepts is naive beyond belief.- Scout
It is kind of staggering to sit there and watch Joe Mama act like our govt/laws are not based on Judeo/Christian beliefs. Its nothing short of remarkable to witness this.
oldguy
June 27th, 2011
3:58 pm
Hey Gale,
Is that why supporters of Gay Marriage don’t support putting it in a Ref. to be voted on by the general public??? Don’t trust that 53% of the voters???
There goes that “one man one vote” thing again!!
you can’t trust those stupid voters!!!
Adam
June 27th, 2011
3:59 pm
Joe Mama: My suggestion is to start talking to another blog poster about the same issues, since the one you are talking to is only doing this to get attention and inflate ego. Don’t drop the subject, just disengage from the stage performance of a has-been.
Joe Mama
June 27th, 2011
4:00 pm
1811 — “For anyone to believe our government/laws are not based on Judeo/Christian precepts is naive beyond belief.”
Well, that’s your opinion, and you’re welcome to it.
“BTW: Did you know in the U.S. Constitution, the President of the United States has 10 days to consider a bill before signing ? Sundays excepted !!! No working on Sundays !!!”
So? Everybody likes a day off.
“Oh, and the Constitution is dated “in the year of our Lord” ……….. Lord meaning Jesus the Christ.”
Typical convention of the time. Do you think you could find the word “Jesus” or “Christ” anywhere in there for me?
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
4:01 pm
oldguy,
“you think illegals don’t vote??”
Do you have proof…
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
June 27th, 2011
4:02 pm
Thulsa Doom,
The fact is that we have some make believe Constitutional lawyers who think for example that the 14th. Amendment provides rights for sexual proclivities.
Gale
June 27th, 2011
4:03 pm
oldguy, This gay person does not support putting gay marriage to the vote because she believes civil rights should not be subject to a vote.
Thulsa Doom
June 27th, 2011
4:04 pm
Consumer spending is now at its weakest point in a year and a half. Yep. Looks like Jay definitely wants to focus on side issues like gay marriage as opposed to the economy.
Where are the Obama folks on the ECONOMY? WHERE DEY AT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joe Mama
June 27th, 2011
4:05 pm
Doom — “I’ve done it now. Joe Mama is starting in with the novels again.”
Oh, look, Slow Doom is upset about others being smarter than him. Soon he will claim that smarties are discriminatin’ agin’ him.
“Stick to one point Joe.”
I’m quite on point, Doom.
“I know you have a short attention span but concentrate sir! I’m not going to get into writing novels back and forth with you.”
Then you may leave if you don’t care for my posts. Attend to your own posting behavior, and I shall attend to my own.
“So please tell me where in the U.S Constitution gays have a right to marriage. Tell me specifically where it is mr. constitutional scholar. Be specific on this one point sir. I knows you can do it. I just knows it.
Right here.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt9_user.html#amdt9_hd2
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
4:05 pm
Thulsa Doom,
“Its nothing short of remarkable to witness this.”
Yeah staggering huh? The American legal system is based on English Common Law, and what is that based on: http://www.scribd.com/doc/36387774/The-Islamic-Origins-of-the-Common-Law-John-A-Makdisi
Tundra Dude
June 27th, 2011
4:05 pm
Institution of marriage gathers strength in NY
Even if it does that, is that necessarily a good thing…??
My sis swears a professor once made the statement:
_Marriage *causes* mental illness_
As a professional bachelor, I thought that was worth keeping in mind.
Maybe he’s wrong…..it’s those prone to MI (emotionally-weak/dependent types) who seek refuge in
marriage….(?)
oldguy
June 27th, 2011
4:07 pm
Civil right???? I don’t remember any Amendment that addresses Gay rights.
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
4:07 pm
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.),
“The fact is that we have some make believe Constitutional lawyers who think for example that the 14th. Amendment provides rights for sexual proclivities.”
Try case precedence: Lawrence v Texas…it even covers your proclivities…however they range.
Thulsa Doom
June 27th, 2011
4:08 pm
Recon,
Make believe constitutional lawyers? Are you talking about Joe Mama or Obama? In the Navy we called them sea lawyers. Guys who talked about nonexistant rights, what was legal/illegal, etc. Sea lawyer Joe is on board today.
Joe Mama
June 27th, 2011
4:08 pm
Adam — “My suggestion is to start talking to another blog poster about the same issues, since the one you are talking to is only doing this to get attention and inflate ego.”
I appreciate your advice, Adam, but Doom’s no problem. He’s little more than bluster and ego, and he looks for places to irritate you. Unfortunately for him, it’s a lot easier to get *him* irritated than it is for him to irritate others. I know the species well.
“Don’t drop the subject, just disengage from the stage performance of a has-been.”
Again, not a problem. Doom will shriek incessantly about how he’s ‘winning;’ he’s about as persuasive as Charlie Sheen in that regard
.
DebbieDoRight
June 27th, 2011
4:09 pm
hey jewcowboy,
you think illegals don’t vote??
Have I got part interest in a bridge in Brooklyn for you!!!!
No ID required remember!!
If you could please cite just 10 examples in the state of georgia of that claim, it would be appreciated. Thanks!
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
4:10 pm
oldguy,
“I don’t remember any Amendment that addresses Gay rights.”
Try the 14th.
Joe Mama
June 27th, 2011
4:12 pm
1811 — “The fact is that we have some make believe Constitutional lawyers who think for example that the 14th. Amendment provides rights for sexual proclivities.”
The fact is that no one here’s said anything of the sort.
Marriage is a public institution. You and your ideological compatriots want to restrict who can engage in it based on little more than your own personal and religious discomfort with their sexual preference.
It was people like you 50 years ago who prevented interracial marriage, and they were overcome.
People like you today will likewise be overcome.
Resistance is futile.
DebbieDoRight
June 27th, 2011
4:12 pm
Try case precedence: Lawrence v Texas…it even covers your proclivities…however they range.
Thulsa Doom
June 27th, 2011
4:12 pm
jewcowboy,
I guess if one guy says it it must be true. There ya have it. Our legal system was based on Islam which of course came about in the 7th or 8th century- well after Judaism and Christianity.
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
4:12 pm
Joe Mama,
“Resistance is futile.”
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
4:15 pm
Thulsa Doom,
“I guess if one guy says it it must be true.”
Then present a refutation.
oldguy
June 27th, 2011
4:16 pm
Of course there are no specifics on voting We are not allowed to require ID!!!
Thulsa Doom
June 27th, 2011
4:16 pm
Still waiting for the sea lawyer to show me where in the constitution that gays have a right to marriage. Where it be?
Resistance is futile? True enough. You are resistant to facts. I may have to yank your sea lawyer credentials.
DebbieDoRight
June 27th, 2011
4:17 pm
Doomed Janus – good news!! Joe Mama has provided a link (earlier) that posted a “Test For Dementia” Link on it!! Now you can finally see that you’ve lost your ever loving mind!!!
oldguy
June 27th, 2011
4:18 pm
The 14th says nothing about “Gay rights” try searching for the term in the ammendment.
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
4:18 pm
“Of course there are no specifics on voting We are not allowed to require ID!!!”
Self-reinforcing delusion…nice!
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
4:19 pm
oldguy,
“The 14th says nothing about “Gay rights” try searching for the term in the ammendment.”
Are you really that simple?
DebbieDoRight
June 27th, 2011
4:19 pm
Doomed Janus: Still waiting for the sea lawyer to show me where in the constitution that gays have a right to marriage.
It’s in the Bill Of Rights. You know that Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness part……………..
Thulsa Doom
June 27th, 2011
4:20 pm
jewcowboy,
You’re welcome.
http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-16-4-a.html
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
4:21 pm
Thulsa Doom,
“Still waiting for the sea lawyer to show me where in the constitution that gays have a right to marriage. ”
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “
Thulsa Doom
June 27th, 2011
4:22 pm
Debbiedo,
That’s very broad. Please show me something specific sea lawyer Debbie. Under that broad definition I have a right to do hard core drugs for recreation if it makes me happy.
BADA BING
June 27th, 2011
4:23 pm
Blago guilty of trying to sell Senate seat. In prision he will have to worry about his own seat.
oldguy
June 27th, 2011
4:23 pm
Ah, another of those wonderful ethical Chicago Democrat politicians bites it!!!
By By Blogo!!! Only a matter of time until Obozo goes the same way!!
Gale
June 27th, 2011
4:24 pm
jewcowboy, you are so much more patient than I.
Joe Mama
June 27th, 2011
4:25 pm
Doom — “Still waiting for the sea lawyer to show me where in the constitution that gays have a right to marriage. Where it be?”
I don’t know what sea lawyer you’re talking about but I already posted what you asked for. Would you like for me to post it again?
“Resistance is futile? True enough. You are resistant to facts.”
What facts do you think you have, insurance salesman? (laughing, pointing)
Tom Middleton
June 27th, 2011
4:27 pm
Well, it’s just common sense, Jay. If we always come down on the side of freedom with every issue we face, we have no choice but to become more understanding, more compassionate, and more accepting of those around us, and ultimately a more united America than at any time in the past.
This, of course, will be the best medicine possible for everything that ails us and even those throughout the world who can see what we’re doing and want it for themselves right where they are.
Our enemies will stumble and fall in no time if we can somehow keep this up, even those among us fearful of a one-world government and ultimate loss of freedom. For by advancing freedom for everyone, we will be eliminating even the need for government, or at least so much of it as we have right now.
Maybe in a thousand years or so when peace is the norm and humankind’s guard is down from a lack of threat and oppression, some Hitler will try to take over it all for his own gratification and power. But freedom will win even then, for basic human nature is all about freedom and cannot be denied for very long, as history has shown us again and again and again!
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
4:28 pm
Thulsa Doom,
Nice link…but there are no citations or direct links to Common Law within it. Plus it is discussing civil law rather than common law. Civil law is of the Napoleonic variety vs the US/Britain/Canada based common law.
Thulsa Doom
June 27th, 2011
4:28 pm
jewcowboy,
I still don’t see it in there. Here’s what I think happened. The framers of the constitution- Patrick Heny, Franklin, Adams, etc. they were all pro gay marriage and just forgot to put it in there. For the most part these men were deeply religious and so I’m sure they were pro Adam and Allen getting married. They musta just plum forgot to put it in there.
Joe Mama
June 27th, 2011
4:28 pm
Doom — “That’s very broad.”
*Many* rights are broadly defined. *Very few* rights are specifically enumerated; that’s why the Framers said (essentially) ‘don’t presume that it’s not a right of The People if we didn’t list it here.’
“Please show me something specific sea lawyer Debbie. Under that broad definition I have a right to do hard core drugs for recreation if it makes me happy.”
Please, Doom, do some drugs, get caught and use that defense in court. I would like to hear from you how well that defense plays with the judge.
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
4:28 pm
Thulsa Doom,
“Please show me something specific sea lawyer Debbie. ”
I posted it…the 14th amendment.
TruthBe
June 27th, 2011
4:30 pm
Homosexuality is an abomination to the LORD thy GOD. JESUS CHRIST the LORD said to “Love the Sinner and Hate the Sin”. NEVER did JESUS say to embrace the sin or encourage the sinner’s (gays) sin / behavior. Homosxuality is a sin just like any other sin period. And Jay you and the rest of the liberals and the corrupt media should be ashame of yourselves promoting this perverted sin. GLADD and the rest of the gay organizations won’t stop with just gay marriage they will corrupt and pervert of aspects of moral social behavior and values. Folks GOD will not be mock.
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
4:31 pm
Thulsa Doom,
“I still don’t see it in there.”
If you are going to play stupid, I think we are done here. Are all rights explicitly enumerated in the US Constitution? Where is the Constitutional right for straight specifically enumerated?
Thulsa Doom
June 27th, 2011
4:32 pm
jewcowboy,
Hell you oughta be glad I at least posted that- at first I wasn’t even going to waste a few minutes looking up what we already know. I didn’t even see the point in posting something that is plainly obvious and self evident to just about everyone. If I tell you the sky is blue do I need to post the scientific reason as to why it is when it is self evident and everybody pretty much knows it.
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
4:32 pm
TruthBe,
“Folks GOD will not be mock.”
No…but you will be.
DebbieDoRight
June 27th, 2011
4:32 pm
Doomed Janus: That’s very broad. Please show me something specific sea lawyer Debbie. Under that broad definition I have a right to do hard core drugs for recreation if it makes me happy.
(A) You already “do” hard core drugs (witness your posts on this blog).
(B) Did you take that test for Dementia yet? Or did you forget?
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
4:34 pm
Thulsa Doom,
“at first I wasn’t even going to waste a few minutes looking up what we already know. ”
So you post something about civil law rather than common law?
“when it is self evident and everybody pretty much knows it”
Yeah…it’s pretty self-evident the Sun revolves around the Earth…not need to find out the truth. You are quite the lazy person aren’t you?
DebbieDoRight
June 27th, 2011
4:34 pm
If you are going to play stupid…..
Too late!