Supremes’ ruling on gay marriage important, not critical
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Friday that it hear arguments in two important but very different cases involving gay marriage, raising the odds that it will soon establish the basic legal architecture for how that issue is handled in the future.
One case, out of New York, addresses how the federal government must handle gay marriages that are conducted in states where such marriages are legal. The second, out of California, raises the more fundamental question of whether gay marriage is a right protected under the Constitution’s promise of equal protection.
Given the range of legal questions at stake in those two cases, the court’s final ruling next June could take any number of turns. And you just know that Justice Antonin Scalia is itching to get his hands on this issue.
However, it is also important to point out that however the nine justices decide, all final decisions on the matter will be made by the American people. And they have already made it clear that we will not be going backward on this issue, and that whatever the Supreme Court’s ruling this year, in time the right to marry will be extended to all Americans, gay or straight.
Young people support that right overwhelming. Despite the stern opposition of their church, almost 60 percent of Catholics support it. According to a Pew poll in July, political independents support it by an 11-point margin. Black Americans, long dubious of the notion, also support it in increasing numbers.
As recently as 1996, 65 percent of Americans rejected the notion of gay marriage; only 27 percent supported it. Yet in the July Pew poll, 48 percent of Americans supported it and just 44 percent opposed it. That is an extraordinary shift in public opinion in just 16 years, on an issue that that you might think people might be stubborn about.
So do your worst, Justice Scalia. At worst, you and others can temporarily affect the pace of the change that is taking place across this country. But you cannot affect the final outcome.
– 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
1,132 comments Add your comment
stands for decibels
December 8th, 2012
3:43 pm
. In that, it would seem, today’s so-called conservatives would be the first to support gay unions.
A conservative case for gay marriage? what the heck. I will link it again.
http://sullivanarchives.theatlantic.com/homosexuality.php
(This is the piece that turned my hetero mind around on the issue, forever. It was 1989 and I haven’t looked back. Figured if a conservative could support it, what kind of liberal was I for opposing it?)
JamVet
December 8th, 2012
3:44 pm
Almost seems like an inner fight to squash his own “demons” so to speak.
Brother both, between here and Galloway’s the whack factor is through the roof today. I’m talking unashamed rabid racism:
Gary
December 8th, 2012
9:56 am
You are exactly right its all about race. The non-white portion of our society has made such minimal evolutionary progress that we, your keepers are fed up. Your races are no better than your caged cousins in the zoo totally dependent on the keepers and handlers for their every need in life.
Ben
December 8th, 2012
12:43 pm
The man (Gary) has a point. The only work I see left to do is the eradication of the minority based political party and its members.
BOB
December 8th, 2012
1:12 pm
Because that half breed SOB encourages all that’s wrong with this country. He feels sorry for the poor and wants to make their lives better at the expense of the people who work.
benji
December 8th, 2012
1:58 pm
I wake up every morning hoping to read in the news that the SOB has been shot. Who knows how long it will take to get that smell out of the WHITE HOUSE.
I believe that these recent elections are starting to reveal rampant right wing desperation. They are proving themselves to be little more than irrational reactionaries refusing to let go of some romanticized, idealized past.
And I predict that even worse days are ahead for some of these small minded, impotently enraged conservatives…
Corey
December 8th, 2012
3:45 pm
@Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
12:57 pm
Where did your being heterosexual come from? Were you molested as a child by a heterosexual? Did your heterosexuality fall from the sky? DNA is more than physical attributes.
stands for decibels
December 8th, 2012
3:46 pm
And if you can’t be bothered to read the piece I linked, just read the last graf, which I’ll paste here:
“If these arguments sound socially conservative, that’s no accident. It’s one of the richest ironies of our society’s blind spot toward gays that essentially conservative social goals should have the appearance of being so radical. But gay marriage is not a radical step. It avoids the mess of domestic partnership; it is humane; it is conservative in the best sense of the word. It’s also about relationships. Given that gay relationships will always exist, what possible social goal is advanced by framing the law to encourage those relationships to be unfaithful, undeveloped, and insecure?”
Well? any marriage equality opponents want to answer THAT one?
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
3:47 pm
“Where did your being heterosexual come from? Were you molested as a child by a heterosexual? Did your heterosexuality fall from the sky? DNA is more than physical attributes”
Why am *I* being targeted for these DNA comments? I couldn’t care less if being gay or not-gay is in your DNA or not. *I* am the one who said it DOESN’T MATTER ONE BIT.
josef
December 8th, 2012
3:48 pm
DOGGONE
And, again, being EOI…color of the skin was not the issue at all. In Louisiana one whole class of people, numbering in the hundreds of thousands and many of them slave owners, went to bed one night one race, and woke up the next morning Black…
I’m not out to be argumentative here, please don’t misunderstand, but once we step back from the comfortable dichotomy of race as the determining factor and begin to look at slavery from the perspective of one human owning another (not just whites owning blacks), the layers one uncovers are a study in the complexities, contradictions and enigmas produced by the Peculiar Institution.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
3:50 pm
“And, again, being EOI…color of the skin was not the issue at all”
Josef, Josef…I’m not concerned a damn about what happened THEN. I’m trying to make the point that our so-called Caucasian “Christian” homophobes have no fear they will wake up one day with black skin. There does, however, appear to be an underlying fear that they MIGHT wake up one day and have to admit they are gay.
getalife
December 8th, 2012
3:51 pm
The majority decided they could judge others to discriminate and hate.
Allow me to retort:
Ezekiel 25:17. “The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.” Jules.
Boom.
Christian Conservative
December 8th, 2012
3:52 pm
Brosephus™:
And I’m saying let them live their private lives in private without having to redefine traditional values to try and support their abhorrent behavior….
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
3:52 pm
Jam
Will check out Galloway. td and CC post there. Those two trip me out.
Their clowning ways are almost up there with Little Brain and Criberius at Wingfield’s. And of course some of our regulars here.
josef
December 8th, 2012
3:53 pm
SFD
“This is the piece that turned my hetero mind around on the issue, forever. It was 1989 and I haven’t looked back.”
With that, you have just joined JohnnyReb and President Obama in my pantheon of straight “heroes.” You acknowledge that you have evolved on this matter, have questioned your own “beliefs,” found them wanting and have evolved.
Deliver me from the, and, yes, I realize the weight of the word I’m using here, “liberals” who would have me believe they came out of the womb and lived a lifetime without those prejudices.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
3:55 pm
“And I’m saying let them live their private lives in private without having to redefine traditional values to try and support their abhorrent behavior”
But nobody is trying to do that. ALL that is needed is do redefine the LEGAL description of marriage. If you still prefer to stick to the “traditional” description…that is your right.
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
3:56 pm
Get
Good one.
What do they call a qtr punder in France?
josef
December 8th, 2012
3:56 pm
DOGGONE
Okay, I got it. Ooops! However, I wasn’t thinking in terms of homophobes being particularly confined to white and Christian,,, sorry…we’re on the same road, just reading different signs…
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
4:00 pm
CC
Have you been able to come up with a reasoned answer as to how your life will change if gays can marry and how that impacrs you to believe as you see fit and practice?
josef
December 8th, 2012
4:00 pm
Conservative Christian
My private life? Pretty much the same as yours, All you have is an idea of what goes on behind my closed doors. The difference is, you actually think about what goes on behind mine. I really don’t what goes on behind yours, Nor am I particularly interested. Why are you so taken with mine?
Brosephus™
December 8th, 2012
4:02 pm
And I’m saying let them live their private lives in private without having to redefine traditional values to try and support their abhorrent behavior….
Nope, you’re saying much more than that, even if you don’t want to acknowledge it.
Mick
December 8th, 2012
4:02 pm
Damn liberals
getalife
December 8th, 2012
4:02 pm
Both,
A royale with cheese.
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
4:02 pm
Not only why, how it will change as well…..
Thanks
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
4:04 pm
“we’re on the same road, just reading different signs”
Yep, that was apparent!
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
4:05 pm
Get
Don’t be a square daddio
The one liners in the movie imo are pretty damn comedic and great for a movie that wasn’t a comedy
RF
December 8th, 2012
4:05 pm
” If your child comes out of the closet will you be happy for them?”
Good lord, no!! But I’d be no more worried than if one of them came to me and said, “I’m getting married.” Either way, they’re heading down a path for life that is fraught with challenges, and I’d be cautious in support of either situation. BUT, that doesn’t change the fact that I would love them the same as I do now- unconditionally. They’re my children, but at some point they become independent individuals. All I can do is hope I’ve helped them become the best they can be without excuses. I love my children, sexual orientation aside. My love for them isn’t conditional upon their sexuality, and won’t be. I don’t know how people can call themselves loving parents and condemn a child for accepting and admitting the reality of who they really are. I would be guilt-riddled if I thought my child had denied the truth just to please me.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
4:08 pm
“I would be guilt-riddled if I thought my child had denied the truth just to please me”
Or worse, for fear of you
Brosephus™
December 8th, 2012
4:09 pm
dB
If you’re still here, did you get my Christmas to you present last night?
stands for decibels
December 8th, 2012
4:10 pm
aw shucks, josef. that was nice. but it’s no big thing; just doing what my heart tells me is right.
a friend of mine puts it best: “Gay marriage doesn’t threaten OUR marriage.” Blessedly, it’s no longer a lonely position to take; it is, per the polling Jay’s cited, very much in the mainstream nowadays.
td
December 8th, 2012
4:13 pm
DebbieDoRight — Minister Of Propaganda
December 8th, 2012
2:58 pm
Donovan: I see natural things in this world as the way it should be. I don’t see dogs having sex with cats and cats having dog babies. I don’t see lions sleeping with baboons or great white sharks playing with seals.
I guess you don’t wanna be around when, according to the bible, this will happen:
Isa 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
Isa 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den.
Isa 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea
I see you took this totally out of context to make some perverted point.
Now if you add the first 6 verses then you will see that Jesus is the one that has to power to make all of the verses you mentioned happen and only he has that power. He will show the power when you, I and everyone else accepts his power and gives their heart and soul to his will.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
4:14 pm
“everyone else accepts his power and gives their heart and soul to his will.”
But it would certainly appear that not everyone has been given the same message as it concerns his will.
RF
December 8th, 2012
4:15 pm
“redefine traditional values to try and support their abhorrent behavior”
Who’s asking you to redefine those values? You’re allowed any values you choose, and the law doesn’t dictate them, nor should it. Allowing legal unions between same-sex partners is about allowing a legal definition of a marital union. The church can go right on preaching against it as a sinful lifestyle without any prohibition whatsoever. What you see as abhorrent behavior is your opinion, and you’re not going to be required to give that up. But you can’t expect that opinion to be legitimized by law.
josef
December 8th, 2012
4:15 pm
SFD
It may not be a big thing to you, and believe me, I’m happy to hear you say that, but for me it IS a big thing. I stand in awe of the sea change that came when good straight people stood up and quietly said “no, no more.”
Gay folks can take a lot of deserved pride in our triumph, but we would never be anywhere near where we are now if it weren’t for folks like you. It is time, and then some, that y’all receive the honor due.
Corbin Sharpe. I think, therefore I am...I think
December 8th, 2012
4:15 pm
This same sex BS gives me a headache. Marriage is a religious thing. If they would just do away with religions, the world would get along with each other much better. The bottom line though, is EQUALITY for ALL people. Understanding, tolerance, acceptance….then life is as it should be.
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
4:16 pm
td
Who is “everyone”? Everyone as I see it doesn’t believe in your God and many who do have different intrepretations than you do.
stands for decibels
December 8th, 2012
4:16 pm
Bros, no I had not seen it, but I went back and… niiice.
tanx!
and I will share.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPXWZxtDooY
josef
December 8th, 2012
4:18 pm
RF
Some people will never be able to grasp just how “traditional” mine and your home/family values are.
Citizens for Scientific Literacy in Government
December 8th, 2012
4:18 pm
The slow march of secular humanism will continue to deliver equality.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
4:19 pm
“but we would never be anywhere near where we are now if it weren’t for folks like you”
Josef, have I ever told you the story of my own revelation on tthe question of “race relations” that ultimately led me to my opinions on “gay relations” as well?
stands for decibels
December 8th, 2012
4:19 pm
I don’t know that it was quite such a sea change. As a not-that-secure hetero kid I’d made my share of stupid, homophobic “jokes” that made me wince as a young adult. I knew gay people who were wonderful friends, and at some point I just realized that I was clinging to some kind of stupid moral superiority in thinking that preserving marriage for heteros was necessary because of social stability.
I knew that argument was utter crap, by the time I read Sully’s piece. It was easy to change my mind at that point, I just needed a Thatcherite to show me the way I guess.
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
4:21 pm
And I’m saying let them live their private lives in private without having to redefine traditional values to try and support their abhorrent behavior….
Thought that pretty tolerant you until the 2nd to last word. Then you got all judgmental.
Why should any citizen who is not breaking the law have to live their life in some sort of seclusion due your personal discomfort?
They are not asking to do the nasty in the parking lot of the Georgia Dome.
You seem obsessed with the sexual aspect of it.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
4:21 pm
“Marriage is a religious thing”
No, it isn’t. It’s a “legal thing” and it would not be such an issue if religion hadn’t muscled in on it.
td
December 8th, 2012
4:22 pm
hey BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
4:16 pm
td
Who is “everyone”? Everyone as I see it doesn’t believe in your God and many who do have different intrepretations than you do.
And when he returns you and those others will be the first ones bowing on your knees asking for forgiveness for the unbelief.
The other half of your brain.
December 8th, 2012
4:23 pm
However, it is also important to point out that however the nine justices decide, all final decisions on the matter will be made by the American people. And they have already made it clear that we will not be going backward on this issue, and that whatever the Supreme Court’s ruling this year, in time the right to marry will be extended to all Americans, gay or straight.
Does that mean that the final decision on Obamacare will be made by the people? What a stupid thing to say.
The Supreme courts decision will be the law of the land, like it or not. They will probably support it, but to say the people will decide is just plain dumb, the majority of people were against Obamacare and we still got it shoved down our throat.
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
4:23 pm
@td
You really should avoid weighing in here. The last time you did, I spanked you with the fact that your marriage would have been null and void here in GA a short 43 years ago.
Didn’t see you for a week after that.
stands for decibels
December 8th, 2012
4:23 pm
You seem obsessed with the sexual aspect of it.
Is there a marriage equality opponent anywhere who ISN’T?
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
4:24 pm
td
and that is your right to believe it but except for your “faith” you have no proof
but thanks for playing
stands for decibels
December 8th, 2012
4:24 pm
anyhow, dinner prepwork awaits. Excellent late-afternoon, all.
Brosephus™
December 8th, 2012
4:25 pm
dB
I heard that earlier this week in a news segment on the radio. On Thursday, I heard it again on one of the XM Radio stations. I figured it had to be legit if XM played it. I can’t listen to it without fits of uncontrollable laughter though. It’s hard to overlay the rap thug image with someone who would know the lyrics to “Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer”.
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
4:25 pm
look
not much different than his sparatic appearances since the election
he talk his much bigger than his walk
josef
December 8th, 2012
4:25 pm
DOGGONE
Please post it. I’m very interested in this aspect.
SFD
Funny thing about such, isn’t it? There I was in my youth a rebel against any and all things “traditional,” and what did I do? Grew up, got married and had kids, and “all that!” I strongly suspect there’s a closet Thatcherite in all of us!
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
4:26 pm
“Is there a marriage equality opponent anywhere who ISN’T?”
If they exist…they don’t come here
RF
December 8th, 2012
4:27 pm
“Some people will never be able to grasp just how “traditional” mine and your home/family values are”
Goodness, ain’t that the truth? Marriage equality opponents just can’t seem to get past the fact that there are an increasing number of healthy, happy heterosexual adults out there propagating and participating successfully in the American landscape that are the products of single and couple-led same-sex households. Just galls ‘em to no end, as Granny would have said.
Taylor R.
December 8th, 2012
4:30 pm
Doggone @ 3:24
I respectfully disagree.
The case argues for gay marriage. The word “gay” makes it distinguishable, when, at the same time, they argue that there is no difference between the two. But in reality there is.
The only thing that will change is that the law will mistakenly use the word “marriage” to refer to two different kinds of sexually intimate human relationships.
Absent infertility issues, heterosexual intercourse possesses the ability to produce offspring,. Homosexual sex does not—it can’t even be defined as intercourse (see William Jefferson Clinton)
If this happens, we will need to pay close attention to the consequences. Judges and public officials will then be required to recognize as a marriage any sexually Intimate bond between two people who want to call themselves married. Which means that there will no longer be any basis for distinguishing legally between a heterosexual union and a homosexual relationship. It will mean that when a mature mother and son, or father and daughter, or trio or quartet of partners come to the courts or to the marriage-license bureau to ask that their sexually active relationship be recognized as marriage, there will be no legal grounds of a non-arbitrary kind to reject the requests. Because if it is now arbitrary and unjust to recognize heterosexual marriage as something exclusive and different from homosexual relationships, then it will be arbitrary and unjust not to grant the request of other partners to call their sexually intimate and enduring relationships marriage..
But, of course, since legal declarations cannot turn reality into something it cannot become, a variety of conundrums, contradictions, and anomalies will inevitably arise. And the only way to resolve them will be to revise the law so it squares with, and does justice to, reality. If, that is, anyone is interested in crafting the law to do justice to reality.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
4:31 pm
“Please post it. I’m very interested in this aspect.”
It’s really not very exciting, even though it had a profound effect on me. I can’t even remember the name of the movie, but I say it many years ago and it concerned the evolution of a young man on the question of race (that’s how I remember it anyway.)
At one point in the movie, he was having dinner with his very conservative parents and their conservative guests and they were being snide in remarking about the race question and he said something like “Do you know what NAACP stands for?” And in response to the “of course we do” looks on their faces he said “Ni**ers Aren’t Always Colored People”
And just that one sentence led me to rethink the attitudes that were pretty normal in my family, and eventually to apply that change in attitude to gays as well. And BTW, my family weren’t and aren’t rabid racists or bigots. More what I call “casual bigots” in that they would not work to harm blacks or gays, but it just never occurs to them that how they talk about them is harmful.
josef
December 8th, 2012
4:32 pm
RF
“Bless their hearts. They’re as good as they know how to be.”
–Granny Jefferson
td
December 8th, 2012
4:32 pm
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
4:24 pm
td
and that is your right to believe it but except for your “faith” you have no proof
but thanks for playing
And it is also my right to convince my legislators that my set of morals and values are what is in the best interest of this nation and should be the law of the land.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
4:33 pm
“The only thing that will change is that the law will mistakenly use the word “marriage” to refer to two different kinds of sexually intimate human relationships”
No, it won’t. There is no legal requirment to have any sort of “sexually intimate” relationships in a marriage. A legal marriage confers certain rights and privileges of a legal kind on the partners in that marriage. It doesn’t require them to have sex at all.
RF
December 8th, 2012
4:33 pm
“I strongly suspect there’s a closet Thatcherite in all of us!”
That’s okay as long as they don’t bring back those hairdos!! OIY!
I’ve noticed in my life teaching that some of the most rebellious youngsters become some of the most “normal”, middle-class folks as they grow up, especially once they have kids. If that doesn’t settle you down, nothing will, in my experience. I think most of us want something of the security and stability of the stereotypes.
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
4:34 pm
Gee Taylor – all that typing and it comes down to incest and polygamy.
Surprised you didn’t trot out the goat.
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
4:35 pm
” It doesn’t require them to have sex at all.”
Not sure if and where this still exists, but not getting any used to be grounds for divorce.
I think the legal term was “alienation of affection”.
td
December 8th, 2012
4:36 pm
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
4:25 pm
look
not much different than his sparatic appearances since the election
he talk his much bigger than his walk
And while you are on these boards telling everyone what the rules we play by should be, I am out actually convincing my legislators and the Governor that people like you do not represent what is in the best interest of this state and to not listen to your opinions.
RF
December 8th, 2012
4:37 pm
“More what I call “casual bigots” in that they would not work to harm blacks or gays, but it just never occurs to them that how they talk about them is harmful.”
That about sums up my experience with much of my family and many friends who identify themselves as “conservatives.” They think it’s okay to make ugly, negative jokes about someone’s race and quote the Bible in the same conversation. They don’t realize how their words spread out into the world and actually hurt.
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
4:37 pm
td
And did I say it wasn’t or you just back to being a dumb a$$ as usual?
I have no issue with whatever religion you are or not, however I did and will quesion when you lump “everyone” in as if they are bound to your faith or even care about it
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
4:38 pm
“Not sure if and where this still exists, but not getting any used to be grounds for divorce.”
It still can be used. But it’s still not a legal requirement for marriage. If both partners are Ok with a no-sex union, they can get married and the law won’t refuse them
td
December 8th, 2012
4:39 pm
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
4:33 pm
“The only thing that will change is that the law will mistakenly use the word “marriage” to refer to two different kinds of sexually intimate human relationships”
No, it won’t. There is no legal requirment to have any sort of “sexually intimate” relationships in a marriage. A legal marriage confers certain rights and privileges of a legal kind on the partners in that marriage. It doesn’t require them to have sex at all.
If that is true then why can a person get a annulment of a marriage due to it not being consummated and get a divorce on the ground of withholding sexual relations?
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
4:40 pm
BTW, forgot this “I think the legal term was “alienation of affection”.”
That is not the argument used for a no-sex marriage. That is generally the sort of argument used for an unfaithful partner.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
4:41 pm
“I am out actually convincing my legislators and the Governor that people like you do not represent what is in the best interest of this state and to not listen to your opinions”
That’s Ok. We’re doing the same.
Taylor R.
December 8th, 2012
4:41 pm
“A legal marriage confers certain rights and privileges of a legal kind on the partners in that marriage.”
Legal kind.
BINGO!
Those who now argue that same-sex couples should be included, as a matter of civil right, within the legal definition of marriage are appealing to the constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment. But this is entirely inappropriate for making the case for same-sex “marriage.” To argue that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all citizens, both men and women, does not say anything about what constitutes marriage, or a family, or a business enterprise, or a university, or a friendship. An appeal for equal treatment would certainly not lead a court to require that a small business enterprise be called a marriage just because two business partners prefer to think of their business that way. Nor would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those of us who pray before the start of auto races should be allowed to redefine our auto clubs as churches..
The simple fact is that the civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration. Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about. Law that is just must begin by properly recognizing and distinguishing identities and differences in reality in order to be able to give each its legal due..
One kind of social relationship that government recognizes, for example, is a free contract by which two or more parties agree to carry out a transaction or engage in some kind of activity. Let’s say you contract with me to paint your house. The law of contract does not define ahead of time what might be contracted; it simply clarifies the legal obligations of the contracting parties and the consequences if the contract is broken. Governments and lawyers and the law do not create the people, the house, the paint, and my desire to paint your house for a price that you want to pay. The point is that even in contract law, the law plays only a limited role in the relationship. The law encompasses the relationship only in a legal way.
Brosephus™
December 8th, 2012
4:42 pm
And it is also my right to convince my legislators that my set of morals and values are what is in the best interest of this nation and should be the law of the land.
You also have the right to convince your legislators that the moon is made of dried sour mash and that mining it will be in the best interest of the nation and should be the law of the land. Either example you choose (yours or mine) does not in and of itself indicate that your thinking is factually correct and should be applied to people who don’t think as you do.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
4:42 pm
“If that is true then why can a person get a annulment of a marriage due to it not being consummated and get a divorce on the ground of withholding sexual relations?”
Grounds for a divorce are not requirements for marriage. There’s no legal requirement that you be faithful to your spouse, but being UNfaithful can be grounds for a divorce.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
4:44 pm
“Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law ”
that’s right…and it’s high time the law recognized that heterosexual marriage is not the only kind of marriage that needs LEGAL protections
USA Patriot
December 8th, 2012
4:44 pm
Can’t take credit for this, it was posted by Mr. Right at 9:38 this morning, but kinda brings a different perspective on the issue….”Less and less straits want to get married and the queers seem to think it’s important to get married, crazy world!”
Rock on! & Merry Christmas!!
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
4:44 pm
If I were a hateful, emotionally stunted kind of person td, I’d start lobbying the legislature to ban marriages between caucasians and asians.
And I bet I could get quite a few conservative rednecks to sign the petition.
But I am not and I wouldn’t cuz I could not give a rat’s derriere about with whom you decide you want to have carnal relations.
RF
December 8th, 2012
4:45 pm
“Which means that there will no longer be any basis for distinguishing legally between a heterosexual union and a homosexual relationship”
If that homosexual “relationship” becomes a legal union, then you’re right. If it remains a “relationship” without any request for, or intention of becoming a legal union, then you’re also right. But the fact is, a legal union, aka marriage, is just what it is, a legal union, that shouldn’t have to be based on the gender of either person in the union. That’s the truest, unbiased definition of it.
Now as to the other situation you mentioned, equality of marriage does not suddenly allow polygamy, incest, or any other legally prohibited activity. A legal marriage isn’t dependent upon the sexual relationship, nor should it be. According to folks who emphasize abstinence until marriage, which is a popular teaching in many churches in this world, sex shouldn’t happen until afterwards anyway.
Taylor R.
December 8th, 2012
4:46 pm
All things being equal…@ 4:34
“Gee Taylor – all that typing and it comes down to incest and polygamy.”
All things being equal, it should and will. Anything short of that would warrant discrimination.
td
December 8th, 2012
4:46 pm
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
4:41 pm
I doubt very seriously if you know any Republican legislators in this state much less interact with them on a regular basis. I had dinner with mine last night at our yearly county Republican party Christmas party.
josef
December 8th, 2012
4:47 pm
DOGGONE
Excellent story. It is a part of that evolutionary process. It is confronting what you call, and I agree with the applicability of the term, “soft bigotry.” That is perhaps the most pernicious. I think a lot about my own upbringing. My grandfather was always one for analyzing it and questioning it at every turn. My grandmother, though, never saw any reason to. She made a point of whether or not one was “our people,” and that was not defined in her world view in terms of race, creed, color or (except for Yankees) national origin. I remember when as a child I asked her just who “our people” were. Her answer was. “you know.” Well, as much as I would like to say, no, I didn’t. I did.
She would have slapped me silly had I ever disrespected in any public shape, form or fashion, those who were not “our people,” I also knew that as far as she was concerned there was a line that separated “us” from “them.” Granddaddy accepted the reality, but questioned its morality and ethics. She didn’t.
jimmie
December 8th, 2012
4:47 pm
The Gay population also has a right to self-exterminate..get on with it
Thulsa Doom
December 8th, 2012
4:49 pm
td,
Liberals taking the bible out of context??? Say it aint so. The last time we had this discussion on homosexuality and what the bible says about it here some fella with the handle socrates took the libs to school whenever they took the bible out of context. I just got my popcorn and watched.
RF
December 8th, 2012
4:50 pm
“The point is that even in contract law, the law plays only a limited role in the relationship. The law encompasses the relationship only in a legal way.”
EXACTLY! So why then should law define and restrict marriage? Your premise could be easily applied to what the SCOTUS is about to consider. If marriage is a “contract”, then what is the actual limit of the governments ability to set conditions on that contract?
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
4:50 pm
“There’s no legal requirement that you be faithful to your spouse”
Adultery is a misdemeanor in GA
TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 6. SEXUAL OFFENSES
O.C.G.A. § 16-6-19 (2008)
§ 16-6-19. Adultery
td
December 8th, 2012
4:50 pm
Look before I leap…
December 8th, 2012
4:44 pm
If I were a hateful, emotionally stunted kind of person td, I’d start lobbying the legislature to ban marriages between caucasians and asians.
And I bet I could get quite a few conservative rednecks to sign the petition.
Well my Republican legislators, the Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General and Superintendent of Education thinks my Asian wife is one of the most conservative, kindness people in this state. So go ahead and lobby them all you want. Please let me know when because I would love to come and hear the conversation.
josef
December 8th, 2012
4:50 pm
td
Were your county’s Republican Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and non Believers invited to the Christmas Party…
getalife
December 8th, 2012
4:51 pm
jim,
Hate much?
You must be a con.
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
4:52 pm
td
that tid bit of info you gave Doggone and $1 will get you a copy of the AJC
RF
December 8th, 2012
4:55 pm
“Well my Republican legislators, the Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General and Superintendent of Education thinks my Asian wife is one of the most conservative, kindness people in this state”
OH geez, now td’s married to Michelle Rhee…
barking frog
December 8th, 2012
4:55 pm
For a long time marriage conveyed certain tax benefits
not extended to single people and now the tax code contains
a marriage penalty. All benefits should be extended to
individuals without regard to their family. The existence
of a contract should not bind others to that contract and
marriage should not provide inherent benefit
outside that contract.
Thulsa Doom
December 8th, 2012
4:56 pm
“If I were a hateful, emotionally stunted kind of person td, I’d start lobbying the legislature to ban marriages between caucasians and asians.
And I bet I could get quite a few conservative rednecks to sign the petition”
Its always amusing to watch someone who is not a hateful, emotionally stunted kind of person turn around and use a bigoted term like rednecks.
josef
December 8th, 2012
4:56 pm
td
Why, you ole name dropper you! I bet we’ve met…
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
4:56 pm
As usual td, you miss the point.
Between the blinders you wear and the immense glare of your hypocrisy, I am surprised you manage to hit the commode during your morning pee.
josef
December 8th, 2012
4:58 pm
THULSA
“Its always amusing to watch someone who is not a hateful, emotionally stunted kind of person turn around and use a bigoted term like rednecks.”
Your mouth to G-d’s ears.
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
4:58 pm
next thing you know td will be telling us how he had tickets to the Romney inauguration….
He was going to win big, right td?
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
4:59 pm
“I doubt very seriously if you know any Republican legislators in this state much less interact with them on a regular basis”
The seriousness of your doubt is not proof that you are correct. And there are other ways of petitioning legislators besides having dinner with them
RF
December 8th, 2012
4:59 pm
Look, let’s face facts here folks. The opponents are such because they’re either grossed out about the sexual relations for homosexual men, or don’t see how they could happen for lesbians. At the heart of all this legal mumbo-jumbo they want to throw at us along with a little dollop of GAWD is the simple fact that they’re just plain out grossed out (or perhaps secretly and guiltily attracted) by what they envision the intercourse to be.
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
4:59 pm
Most of the rednecks I know Thulsa, wear that term as a badge of honor.
Jeff Foxworthy, a native son of GA, has made a fortune using that term.
However, if you found it offensive, then I offer my sincere apologies.
td
December 8th, 2012
4:59 pm
josef
December 8th, 2012
4:50 pm
td
Were your county’s Republican Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and non Believers invited to the Christmas Party…
All members of the Republican party in my county were invited. My wife is Buddist and has no problem with going to a Christmas party. She is not as sensitive to such matters so I guess that is what makes her a conservative and not a wimpy lib.
getalife
December 8th, 2012
4:59 pm
td,
Well, laddy freaking da.
Have you ever lived in a van down by the river?
Thulsa Doom
December 8th, 2012
5:00 pm
“that tid bit of info you gave Doggone and $1 will get you a copy of the AJC”
Holy cow. The newspaper stand copy is up to a buck now. I thought it was only fiddy cents a year or 2 ago. Glad my cheapskate self just reads it online now.
Doggone/GA
December 8th, 2012
5:00 pm
“If marriage is a “contract”, then what is the actual limit of the governments ability to set conditions on that contract?”
Except there’s no “if” about it. Marriage IS a legal contract.
Look before I leap...
December 8th, 2012
5:02 pm
well the opposition argument seems to boil down to:
Gay sex is ooogy.
-or-
Creflo Dollar/Pat Robterson/Billy Graham tell me gay sex is ooogy (But I’d like to hear more)
They BOTH suck
December 8th, 2012
5:02 pm
td
Did your friends Rove and Morris make it to the dinner? Seems they are not getting booked on Fox lately, thought they might have dropped in to give you some of their latest predictions….
Brosephus™
December 8th, 2012
5:04 pm
And there are other ways of petitioning legislators besides having dinner with them
Doggone
That’s true for the typical legislators. Georgia’s legislators have shown, over time, to have an affinity for the three free G’s… Girls, Golf, and Grub.