Steve King’s Reverse Analogy for Same-Sex Marriage

Rep. Steve King, the second dumbest man in Congress (Louis Gohmert is even dumber), went on Glenn Beck’s radio show and offered an incredibly tortured analogy between same-sex marriage and slavery, without recognizing that it casts him in the role of a racist defender of slavery.

Likening any such ruling to Roe v Wade, the Iowa Republican declared that “the public will not accept a huge decision of the Supreme Court that’s not a decision of the people” before confusingly comparing it to the Dred Scott decision by seemingly suggesting that it would take a constitutional amendment and decades of legislation to overturn any decision legalizing gay marriage.

“Dred Scott back in 1857, the court thought that they were going to solve the slavery question by telling Congress that they couldn’t free the slaves and telling the county that slaves could never be citizens,” King said. “They made that decision and that helped move us towards a civil war … Then in 1866, there was a civil rights act; that wasn’t enough to get the job done. There was the Thirteenth Amendment that freed the slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment that guaranteed them full citizenship and then we still were a hundred years before we got the Civil Rights Act.”

“If all of that to eliminate slavery, do they really think that they can do what they’re going to do to marriage, with one decision of the Supreme Court and society is going to accept that?” he asked. “Society is in for a long battle.”

So the argument is that the people will not accept equality for gay people, just like they didn’t accept equality for black people, so they’ll continue to work to discriminate against them and oppress them. But the only ones who could possibly do that are King and his fellow bigots. I don’t think he intended that with this analogy, but it’s the inevitable conclusion.

"You're right: I wasn't very tactful or understanding in my response."

Black Men Get Longer Prison Sentences
"research takes […] intellectual honesty.Ah. There's the problem."

Trump’s Blatant Hypocrisy on Sexual Harassment
"If there is no war on xmas how come the Coke Cola adverts always sings ..."

Bakker Declares Victory in Mythical War ..."
""Mum ,where's my scrambled eggs "?"They are in the radiator ""

Bakker Declares Victory in Mythical War ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • theDukedog7 .

    Hey Ed, where’s that same-sex marriage right in the Constitution?

  • zenlike

    Hey Mike Egnor (theDukedog7) where in the constitution is it stated that the US is a theocracy in which christofascists like you get to dictate your moral laws to the rest of the populace?

  • colnago80

    Re zenlike @ #2

    Are you sure that Dukedog7 isn’t David Duke or Don Black.

  • theDukedog7 .

    still searching for the gay marriage clause in the Constitution… searching…. searching…. searching…

  • John Pieret

    Is theDukedog7 really Michael Egnor … of Egnorance fame? The man who first proved (but is now joined by Ben Carson) that you can become a highly skilled meat cutter without being either rational or capable of understanding the concept of “evidence”? That Mike Egnor?

  • Chiroptera

    theDukedog7, #4:

    Have you read the court decisions that upheld marriage equality? ‘Cause I’m pretty sure they tend to tell you the Constitutional principles that were involved in their decisions.

  • zenlike
  • zenlike

    Not sure if you should believe it though, never thrust a christian to tell the truth. Then again, he sure sound like him, same idea’s, same ignorance, same pompousness, same pathetic attempts at got-cha and tu quoques…

  • StevoR

    @1 & 4. theDukedog7 :

    How about :

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    Preventing gay couples from marrying violates that most famous line I think.

    Okay its not the Constitution but rather the United States Declaration of Independence but still.

    Nb. In the archaic language of the time “men” was supposed to cover everybody – women and others too.

    PS. Maybe also try the Constitutions preamble where it notes we need to ” “to form a more perfect Union” .. 😉

  • theDukedog7 .

    Oh heck, maybe that gay marriage right is in the Declaration of Independence— I’ll look there…. searching… searching….

  • theDukedog7 .

    Since there’s nothing about gay marriage in the Constitution, why are the Supremes deciding this, rather than the voters through the legislative process. Ya know, that democracy thing…

  • Chiroptera

    How about the Ninth Amendment:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Translation: If you need to see rights explicitly stated in the Constitution, then you don’t understand the Constitution.

  • bybelknap

    It’s in the ninth amendment.

  • bybelknap

    Damn.

  • zenlike

    theDukedog7,

    Since there was nothing about interracial marriage in the Constitution, why where the Supremes deciding this, rather than the voters through the legislative process. Ya know, that democracy thing…

  • Chiroptera

    I only beat you by a second. Probably literally.

  • Chiroptera

    The Fourteenth Amendment:

    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.

  • StevoR

    Hey theDukedog7 where does it say in Constitution that there can’t be equal marriage?

  • Evan Brehm

    Now that some people have mentioned it, this Dukedog7 commenter does sound like Michael Egnor. Complete lack of understanding of just about every issue not related to being a neurosurgeon? Check. Delusions of expertise about any issue other than being a neurosurgeon? Check. Both of the above taken to an especially egregious extent when the issue involves Constitutional Law? Check. Juvenile and snide remarks? Check. The only thing he hasn’t done is accuse his opponent of being a socialist with no evidence to back up his claim.

  • John Pieret

    There is also the 14th Amendment: “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.”

    States and the Federal government have created some 1,000+ rights, benefits and responsibilities that married people have that unmarried people don’t, among them automatic inheritance, the right to visit spouses in hospital and to make medical decisions for them if they are incapacitated, the right to adopt a spouse’s children and many more. If states deny liberties shared by some citizens without due process of law (i.e. on irrational basis or based on animus) or deny some people equal protection under the law by denying them protections other citizens enjoy, again on an irrational basis or based on animus, that is unconstitutional and the law must be struck down.

  • dingojack

    Also, no one need point out to you that the US DoI & Constituion fails to mention a whole bunch of things, for example women voting, inter-racial marriage, the US Airforce, radio & TV transmission, transmission (& use) of electricity, motor vehicles (in fact most of the most popular kinds of transport), electronic computers and even electronic communications via the internet*. Are these ‘anti-democratic’ too?

    Dingo

    ———-

    * Since neither mention the lattermost, how are you even posting here? How ‘anti-democratic’ of you! Why do you hate America so?!? & etc. @@

  • theDukedog7 .

    @17

    It’s not an equal protection issue. The law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and gays are permitted to marry persons of the opposite sex, just as straights are. No equal protection issue. No one gay or straight has the right to marry just anyone they want.

    If gay marriage were a Constitutional equal protection issue, a pedophile could claim equal protection because he was denied the “right” to marry a toddler.

    The issue is about the definition of marriage—should it be between a man and a woman, or can it be same sex? That is not an equal protection issue, it is an issue about what marriage means, which is something to be decided by the American people, through the democratic process, not by nine old lawyers fabricating things in the Constitution.

  • raven

    dumb troll:

    still searching for the gay marriage clause in the Constitution… searching…. searching…. searching…

    It’s right next to the Heterosexual Marriage Clause in the Constitution.

    And below the Equal Protection Under the Law Clause in the US Constitution.

    You need to wake up your thinking brain service dog and have it read it to you.

  • dingojack

    Ah — I see a little projection concerning relationships that lack consent.

    Quelle surprise!

    Anything you’d like to confess – Dog?

    Dingo

  • Evan Brehm

    #22

    Ah yes, the old “IT WILL LEAD TO PEDOPHILIA” slippery-slope argument.

    Right-wingers, here’s a debating tip. If you’re warning about how gay marriage–or any other issue–will lead to legalized pedophilia, you’re not going to be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain.

  • colnago80

    Re Egnorance @ #22

    Egnorance really shows his stupidity here. The difference between same sex marriage and marriage between adults and children is the children can’t give informed consent.

  • rietpluim

    @theDukedog7 #22 – The law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and gays are permitted to marry persons of the opposite sex, just as straights are. No equal protection issue. So a man is allowed to marry a woman, but a woman is not allowed to marry a woman? Congratulations, you just changed discrimination based on sexual preference into discrimination based on gender. So an equal protection issue either way.

  • rietpluim

    Geez I can’t believe the bigots still make this stupid argument.

  • dingojack

    SLC – A Freudian slip, on Dog’s part, do you think?

    😉 Dingo

  • colnago80

    Re dingojack @ #29

    Now, now, I have seen absolutely no evidence that Egnorance is a pedophile.

  • colnago80

    Re Egnorance @ #22

    By the way, the same thing holds about slippery slope arguments that legalizing same sex marriage will lead to people marrying their dogs. Dogs, and other animals, can’t give informed consent.

  • zenlike

    Strange, still no answer from Egnor on my question if the court was right in redefining marriage to include interracial marriages.

  • dingojack

    SLC – “The lady protests too much, methinks.”

    Dingo

  • John Pieret

    The law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and gays are permitted to marry persons of the opposite sex, just as straights are. No equal protection issue.

    Exactly the same “argument” used by those who opposed interracial marriage. Both races can marry within their race and both races are forbidden to marry outside their race, therefore no equal protection problem. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. It is the right to engage in the rights and benefits of marriage with the person you love that was at stake in Loving and it is what that is at stake here.

    If gay marriage were a Constitutional equal protection issue, a pedophile could claim equal protection because he was denied the “right” to marry a toddler.

    Are you really a moron or do you just play one on the internet? A marriage is a relationship between two consenting adults. That’s why there have always been age limitations on when people can get married (some of which have been shockingly low, due to the “democracy thing” you go on about). The same goes for bestiality, since the animal can’t give informed consent.

    it is an issue about what marriage means, which is something to be decided by the American people, through the democratic process, not by nine old lawyers fabricating things in the Constitution.

    So come right out and say it! You think voters can ban interracial marriage and Loving was wrongly decided, right?

  • tfkreference

    I’m surprised it took 22 comments to get to the “already equal” argument. I put the over-under in the mid-teens.

  • Chiroptera

    theDukeDog7, #22: If gay marriage were a Constitutional equal protection issue, a pedophile could claim equal protection because he was denied the “right” to marry a toddler.

    Actually, considering parents’ religious “rights” to deny their children life-saving medical treatment or to give them a substandard education and in other ways treat children as if they were their parents’ property, I would think that a parent’s right to “marry their toddler” would be more in line with the religious right’s claims of liberty.

    Out of curiosity, just to probe whether you really understand the concept of rights or even morality, why do you think it would be wrong for an adult to marry a toddler?

  • some bastard on the internet

    The Dumbass @22

    It’s not an equal protection issue. The law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and gays are permitted to marry persons of the opposite sex, just as straights are. No equal protection issue. No one gay or straight has the right to marry just anyone they want.

    It’s not an equal protection issue. The law defines marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race, and blacks are permitted to marry persons of the same race, just as whites are. No equal protection issue. No one black or white has the right to marry just anyone they want.

    Regressive Mad-Libs is such a fun game!

  • theDukedog7 .

    @34 Pieret

    #1: Interracial marriage cuts my way, not yours. Both laws redefining marriage as between people of the same race and people of the same sex are perversions of what marriage actually is and traditionally has always been: a union of man and woman, without regard to race. I defend traditional marriage, and oppose all efforts to redefine it, either by bigots or gays. I also point out that laws against miscegenation were Democrat laws.

    #2 The fact marriage is between two opposite-sex consenting adults is the traditional Christian definition of marriage, and I’m glad to see that you agree. If you insist that the “opposite sex” clause violates the 14th amendment, why doesn’t the “consenting adult” clause violate the 14th amendment too? Sauce for goose, sauce or gander, or goose, or whatever.

    #3 I certainly agree with Loving that race should play no role in marriage law. I don’ t know enough about the decision or the reasoning to know if the decision was well-reasoned constitutionally, but I agree with the outcome. I defend traditional marriage, which is defined as opposite sex and color-blind. Why would you imagine that I support racial restrictions on marriage? I’m not a Democrat.

  • dingojack

    “… why doesn’t the “consenting adult” clause violate the 14th amendment too?”

    Because minors are still citizens of the US, numbnuts, the States have to protect their rights too!

    Dingo

  • zenlike

    theDukedog7 . says

    what marriage actually is and traditionally has always been: a union of man and woman, without regard to race.

    Fuck of you dishonest shitbag, ‘traditional’ marriage in the US was for centuries within one race. Your fellow bigots claimed the same some decades ago.

    I defend traditional marriage, and oppose all efforts to redefine it,

    Except when it was redefined to include interracial marriage.

    I also point out that laws against miscegenation were Democrat laws.

    And the whole southern strategy didn’t happen. Dishonesty again. Isn’t lying against your religion Egnor?

    #2 The fact marriage is between two opposite-sex consenting adults is the traditional Christian definition of marriage, and I’m glad to see that you agree.

    Except that the US is secular and not christian, so who gives a fuck about what the christian definition is?

    If you insist that the “opposite sex” clause violates the 14th amendment, why doesn’t the “consenting adult” clause violate the 14th amendment too? Sauce for goose, sauce or gander, or goose, or whatever.

    You don’t understand consent. Quelly surprise.

    Why would you imagine that I support racial restrictions on marriage? I’m not a Democrat.

    Except you spout the same bigoted views as those southern democrats, who by the way all flocked to your republican party after the civil right era. Lying again.

  • dingojack

    Weird how legally defining marriage in a manner that is suitable for Christians is exactly how Dog expects the government to behave…

    a) Does that mean non-Christians (approximately 21.6% of the population BTW) aren’t actually married? Are they all ‘living in sin’? Are those children growing up in broken homes? Won’t somebody think of the children & etc.

    b) Would Dog be comfortable if other religious practices, such as dietary or dress standards were enforced by the government? Especially if they weren’t Christian practices?

    @@

    Dingo

  • Chiroptera

    theDukeDog7, #38: If you insist that the “opposite sex” clause violates the 14th amendment, why doesn’t the “consenting adult” clause violate the 14th amendment too?

    Let me ask again, what do you find is wrong with adults marrying children? And how does that apply to same sex marriage but not interracial marriage?

  • whheydt

    Re: reitpluim @ #28…

    They make the same stupid (and invalid) arguments because that’s all they’ve got. If they had an intelligent argument, the word would get around to use it and they all would.

    Notice how many times really dumb arguments have been used in the various cases around the country and intelligent judges have shown where the holes are. The favorite one being “it’s for the children”, which begs the question, not only are marriages permitted between people who are obviously not ever going to have children, but in–IIRC, the Ohio case–the law permitted some marriages ONLY if the participants were too old to have kids of their own.

  • dingojack

    IANAL – but as this is a Federal case, isn’t it the Fifth (rather than the Fourteenth) amendment protection of equality that is relevant here? [See here for details]

    Dingo

  • Hoosier X

    Where in the bible does it say that it’s a sin to make a cake for a gay wedding?

  • Chiroptera

    dingojack, #44:

    In the US, questions about who is allowed and who is not allowed to marry and under what conditions are left to state law. The Fifth Amendment, when originally ratified, applied only to the Federal government and its actions; in so far as the the Bill of Rights now apply to the states as well, that is because of the the Fourteenth Amendment. I believe that is called the “Incorporation Doctrine.”

  • dingojack

    Hoosier X – perhaps it’s covered in the bible’s ninth amendment — or is it the US Constitution’s ten commandments?

    Anyway – it was one of those complicated booky-things that Jesus wrote!

    @@

    Dingo

  • Hoosier X

    dingojack – Perhaps it’s between the verses that say, “It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” and “if men came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys.”

  • Phillip IV

    that it casts him in the role of a racist defender of slavery.

    Which seems like pretty shrewd casting, actually. If his brilliant performance as “unhinged bigot” in “Congress” is anything to go by, a part as a racist defender of slavery could easily earn him an academy award! He seems born for it, really.

    (I’m also impressed, time and again, by his sheer dedication to the actor’s craft. Nobody’s ever caught him out of character anywhere! What a method actor!)

  • colnago80

    By the way, for those who might never have encountered Egnorance before, he is also a creationist IDiot who denies the Theory of Evolution, which he quite fails to understand.

  • John Pieret

    Interracial marriage cuts my way, not yours. Both laws redefining marriage as between people of the same race and people of the same sex are perversions of what marriage actually is and traditionally has always been: a union of man and woman, without regard to race.

    How do you define tradition? Throughout most of the history of the US (and it’s US law we’re talking about) interracial marriage was illegal and it remained so in large parts of the US until 1967. Why do you get to determine what the “true” tradition of marriage is? As Judge Posner said in the Seventh Circuit decision:

    The state’s argument from tradition runs head on into Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), since the limitation of marriage to persons of the same race was traditional in a number of states when the Supreme Court invalidated it. Laws forbidding black-white marriage dated back to colonial times and were found in northern as well as southern colonies and states. … Tradition per se has no positive or negative significance. There are good traditions, bad traditions … Tradition per se therefore cannot be a lawful ground for discrimination—regardless of the age of the tradition.

    Nor is “traditional” marriage (in your definition) as universal as you may think:

    http://www.livescience.com/50725-same-sex-marriage-history.html

    What’s your rational basis for opposing same-sex marriage? And, no, “Christian tradition” doesn’t count under the Constitution. I can easily give a rational basis why the “consenting adult” clause doesn’t violate the 14th amendment and for not sexually abusing children or animals who can’t give informed consent to sexual relations: it is doing things to their bodies that they are incapable of understanding and freely agreeing to … much like raping an unconscious person. Surely, you are not morally obtuse enough to say that because the Constitution prohibits punishing consenting adults for having sex outside of marriage, that that means the Constitution prohibits punishing rapists?

  • Hoosier X

    Based on his understanding of the Constitution and the kind of reasoning he’s using to argue against same-sex marriage, I suspect dukedog is actually a conservative Supreme Court justice. I don’t know which one but I’m ruling out Clarence Thomas because of dukedog’s ability to almost form a coherent thought.

    Also, dukedog is way too polite to be Scalia.

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    The gay marriage clause, dukedog, is right next to the straight marriage clause.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @51:

    “What’s your rational basis for opposing same-sex marriage?”

    I’ll type slowly, so you can understand.

    There are two issues at hand.

    Issue # 1: is gay marriage a right under the Constitution?

    Issue #2: should we have gay marriage in the US?

    These are not the same question. In fact, it is perfectly possible to have opposite true answers. It may be that gay marriage is a right under the Constitution, but we shouldn’t have it in the US. This sort of argument is often made by opponents of the Second Amendment: the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but it is a bad thing for our country. It is also possible that gay marriage is not guaranteed under the Constitution, and that it should be permitted in the US. This is often an argument made by Libertarians.

    I make two arguments, one for each proposition. One is an observation of fact obvious to all, the other is an opinion.

    #1: It is a fact that gay marriage is not a right under the Constitution. Gay marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at all. By precedent and tradition marriage has been a matter for the States. Gay marriage is not a matter of Equal Protection, because a violation of equal protection would entail a law for all that was applied differently to some. For example, a law against murder that didn’t apply if the victim was black (as a Democrat you’ll be entirely familiar with this scenario). Now, marriage laws apply equally to all. Neither gays nor straights may marry the same sex. So there is no violation of Equal Protection. Now you may argue in you little SJW whine that “the law discriminates, because it does not allow gays to marry anyone they want”. The fact is that the law has never allowed anyone to marry “anyone they want”. Marriage has always been discriminatory: you can’t marry your sister, or your mother, or a dead person, or ten people, or your dog, or a child, or yourself. Marriage laws are quite discriminatory. Alert: all laws are discriminatory. All laws entail rules that permit some things and forbid others. Laws against rape discriminate against rapists. Laws against speeding discriminate against speeders. So the argument “But laws against gay marriage discriminate” is stupid. Hence, you make the argument. But it is nonsense.

    My observation is not really an argument. It is a statement of fact, obvious to all. Those who disagree with it are either too stupid to see it, or are simply lying.

    Continued…

  • theDukedog7 .

    @51:

    So the Supreme Court’s job is simple. “There is no right to gay marriage in the Constitution. The issue should be decided by the People, through their legislatures, as per the Ninth and Tenth Amendments” is the only honest ruling. Only four of the Justices are honest consistently, so we’ll have to see how it goes.

    Issue #2: should we have gay marriage in the United States?

    This is a separate question about legislation, mostly applicable to the States. I have one vote, like you do, and this is what I believe:

    I oppose gay marriage. But it’s an odd kind of opposition. I don’t oppose gay marriage like I oppose gambling, say. I oppose gay marriage like I oppose male hysterectomies and female prostate cancer. Men can’t have hysterectomies and women can’t have prostate cancer, so I oppose such things, not because they can happen–they can’t–but because they are nonsense. No one can marry someone of his or her own sex. The reason for this is that marriage is a sacrament. It is a tangible manifestation of a Divine reality. It is a manifestation of the Love within the Holy Trinity. It is necessarily male and female, necessarily consensual, and necessary permanent.

    People can’t marry people of the same sex, just like men can’t have hysterectomies and women can’t get prostate cancer, because of what marriage really is.

    Now of course the government can issue pieces of paper that say “marriage” and give them to same-sex couples. But that is a lie, and I oppose lying. So I oppose gay marriage.

    Now I endorse many of the secular arguments made by opponents of gay marriage–it’s bad for society, bad for kids, will be used as a cudgel to drive religious people out of business and out of the public square (this is already happening).

    But my reasons are metaphysical–Catholic to be specific. Now I’m sure that tiny SJW heads are exploding now. “He has no right to impose his religious views… yada…. yada.” But I do have a right to vote and advocate for my beliefs, and I have no less right to do so than you do.

    Of course I think I’m going to lose this argument, temporarily. Evil is spreading very fast in this country. We Christians are used to being countercultural. We started in the catacombs, and we’ve been fighting evil in the world for two thousand years. Ultimately we’ll prevail. But we will never submit.

  • colnago80

    Re Egnorance @ #55

    As a matter of fact, there is no right to any marriage in the Constitution. In fact, the word marriage appears nowhere in that document. The concept of marriage is strictly a human made artifice.

    The reason for this is that marriage is a sacrament. It is a tangible manifestation of a Divine reality. It is a manifestation of the Love within the Holy Trinity. It is necessarily male and female, necessarily consensual, and necessary permanent.

    The holy Trinity. A concept that Jefferson, Adams, and probably Washington rejected.

    But my reasons are metaphysical–Catholic

    Ah yes, Egnorance is a communicant of the Raping Children Church, the world’s greatest criminal conspiracy. The Mafia is a set of alter boys compared to the Raping Children Church. The muckdamucks in that criminal conspiracy envy the ISIL and only wish they had the authority to behave likewise.

  • Lofty

    Marriage is a contract recognized by the State. You don’t need a church to get involved in the transaction, anytime, secular marriage is just fine, yanno. So why can’t the State redefine marriage whatever way it wishes? And why is this evil?

    But we will never submit.

    Of course not. We need some people to point and laugh at for their stupidity.

  • zenlike

    As stated already above, but of course entirely ignored by Egnor the ignoramous, the southern racist democrats all ran over to the republican party some decades ago. Also stated above, the US is a secular nation so arguing from your theocratic vision of what the US should be is entirely irrelevant.

    Fuck of you bigoted fascist.

  • zenlike

    theDukedog7 . says

    But that is a lie, and I oppose lying.

    BWAHAHAHA. What a dishonest lying shitweasel you are Egnor.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @56

    Altar boys, not “alter boys”. This is not a thread about transsexualism.

  • zenlike

    theDukedog7 . says

    Evil is spreading very fast in this country.

    Yes, you theocrats have been quite busy in recent years.

    We Christians are used to being countercultural.

    Member of the dominant cultural group in western society for the last 2000 years. Calls himself countercultural. The stupid, it burns.

    We started in the catacombs, and we’ve been fighting evil in the world for two thousand years.

    You are a catholic. You ARE part of the evil.

  • Hoosier X

    I must have read a different bible because I didn’t get the idea that hating fags was the most important part of Jesus’s teachings.

    If this is what your christian tradition is all about, you can have it, as more and more Americans are realizing every year.

  • John Pieret

    Issue # 1: is gay marriage a right under the Constitution?

    Issue #2: should we have gay marriage in the US?

    Neither of those are rational basis for discrimination against any class of people. There is a specific prohibition against discrimination based on irrational motives or animus.

    Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at all.

    Marriage is, indeed, not an enumerated right in the Constitution or Bill of Rights and, yet, SCOTUS has found a number of times that the right to marriage not only exists but is a “fundamental right.”

    By precedent and tradition marriage has been a matter for the States.

    Except when a state denies due process and/or equal protection of the laws to a class of people when exercising that power, which is what Loving specifically held and which Justice Kennedy again pointed out in Windsor.

    equal protection would entail a law for all that was applied differently to some. For example, a law against murder that didn’t apply if the victim was black

    Precisely. A class of people would be treated differently under the law merely because of who they are or the animus of the majority toward them.

    marriage laws apply equally to all. Neither gays nor straights may marry the same sex.

    No, straight people can marry the person they love while gay people cannot. Justice Roberts made the point in the oral arguments that this may be viewed as sex discrimination (I hope you aren’t going to claim that sex discrimination by government is permissible simply because a right to be free from such discrimination isn’t an enumerated right under the Constitution), in that ‘Sue can marry Joe but Dave can’t marry Joe, based only on Dave’s sex.’

    And, of course, you next shovel as many red herrings on board as you can. You can’t marry a close relative because the state has a rational basis in wanting to prevent genetically defective children due to inbreeding. You can’t marry a dead person because they are no longer legally a person and couldn’t give informed consent in any case. Polygamy is a closer case (after all, the “religious tradition” you appealed to before had all those “holy men” in the Old Testament practicing polygamy) but the state can still regulate it because it presents problems of who gets to make medical decisions, who inherits, who can adopt which children, etc. Many many laws would have to be revised, which is not the case with SSM … any law that refers to a “husband” or “wife” or “spouse” would simply apply to the parties of a SSM in the same way. We’ve already gone through the pedophilia and bestiality. All of those cases have rational basis not including animus and “tradition.”

    And you have yet to give a rational reason to treat gay people as a class, based either on their sexual orientation or their sex, differently under numerous laws than straight people.

    My observation is not really an argument. It is a statement of fact, obvious to all.

    I have to agree that you don’t really have an argument but the the statement that it is obvious to all and that those who disagree with it are either too stupid to see it, or are simply lying is just delusional, given the millions of words written on both sides by people learned in the law, which you are clearly not. If you are the Michael Egnor people have suspected, I can only imagine how you’d react to a lawyer like me barging into your OR and telling you that you don’t know what you are doing and if you disagree you are stupid or lying, This is just a way of picking up your bat and ball and going home because you don’t like how the game is going.

    It is a tangible manifestation of a Divine reality. It is a manifestation of the Love within the Holy Trinity. It is necessarily male and female. … my reasons are metaphysical–Catholic to be specific. Now I’m sure that tiny SJW heads are exploding now. “He has no right to impose his religious views… yada…. Yada.”

    This might surprise you but I think you have every right to vote based on your religious beliefs. You can also vote based on the color of a candidate’s eyes or on the lyrical quality of a proposed law. You can vote even though you are thoroughly ignorant of the issues. But what the state or the voters of the state can’t do is use the power of the state to deprive others of due process and equal protection of the laws because the majority have a “metaphysical” and “religious” belief that those people are bad and what they do is wrong. Our Constitution was specifically designed to protect the minority against the “tyranny of the majority.”

    As for the supposed “secular arguments” against SSM, I think they have been clearly shown to be false “fig leaves” covering up the real situation … the majority in many places panicked when a hated minority might somehow become “respectable” and others went along because the idea of SSM seemed “strange.” The reason the public has changed so much and so quickly is, for various reasons, they got to know gay people, many of them family and friends, and realized they were just people like them. Anyway those supposed briefs have been extensively briefed and will be extensively scrutinized by the court.

    As to the “cudgel to drive religious people out of business and out of the public square,” it will be no bigger than the one used on owners of businesses of public accommodation who claimed their religious beliefs justified segregation. You, like George Wallace before you, will still be able to express your disapproval of people you don’t like and what they do.

  • John Pieret

    Incidentally, I am leaning towards the theory that this is the Michael Egnor of Egnorance fame. The snideness and attempts for cheap rhetorical points were there but the pomposity was missing. His:

    My observation is not really an argument. It is a statement of fact, obvious to all. Those who disagree with it are either too stupid to see it, or are simply lying.

    … filled in that gap. And then there was his appeal to Catholic dogma, another Egnor trait.

  • theDukedog7 .

    Notice, in Pieret’s “argument”, the disdain for democracy. Rather than admit the obvious–there is no constitutional right to gay marriage–and simply allow the issue to be resolved via the democratic process, lawyer Pieret insists that lawyers and judges should decide this issue for the American people.

    Redefinition of marriage, like abortion and school prayer and several others issues of contention in our nation, should be decided by the people, by discussion among millions of thoughtful citizens and in legislatures around the country.

    Instead, the definition of marriage will depend largely on Anthony Kennedy’s digestion. The status of the most fundamental human institution will be decided in America–ostensibly a democracy–by one judge.

    It’s worth noting that among gay marriage supporters this respect for democracy is virtually absent. Virtually no one on the gay marriage side says “there’s no constitutional right, obviously, but we should debate and resolve this issue democratically.” , although that is the truth. This is a big part of the reason for my utter disgust with the Left. This usurpation of the rights of the American people is, in Justice White’s words, an exercise in raw judicial power. It is illegitimate.

    In context, Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, like Obama’s presidency, is of whole cloth with the moral rot of the Left. This is all about power.

  • Moon Jaguar

    Lofty @ 57: thank you and damn right. The word “marriage” drives Xtians fucking crazy so let the Xtians have it. The rest of us are content with the civil rights.

  • spamamander, internet amphibian

    Moral Rot really went downhill since they became mainstream. I’m a much bigger fan of Unfettered Debauchery.

  • John Pieret

    I don’t have “disdain” for democracy, I simply recognize it’s limitations … and the wisdom of the Founders in making as sure as they could that those limitations would be ameliorated by preventing the “tyranny of the majority.” As Winston Churchill said: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Being honest about how democracy can oppress classes of people (see, for example, slavery in America) is not “disdain.”

    Rather than admit the obvious–there is no constitutional right to gay marriage–and simply allow the issue to be resolved via the democratic process, lawyer Pieret insists that lawyers and judges should decide this issue for the American people.

    Rather than accept the ignorant opinion of a dilettante, I have read many of the briefs and opinions of people trained in constitutional law concerning this issue and it is obvious that it is not at all obvious that gay people are not constitutionally entitled to the same rights, privileges and responsibilities that the law bestows on straight people when they marry … rights that cannot be taken away by the irrational and/or bigoted feelings of the majority.

    Virtually no one on the gay marriage side says “there’s no constitutional right, obviously, but we should debate and resolve this issue democratically.”

    Well, since we have nothing but your terribly uninformed opinion that there is “obviously” no constitutional right to gay marriage, when, on the other hand, we have some sixty-six opinions by judges (appointed by both conservative and “liberal” presidents … as if we’ve had any of the latter in the last 50 years) that find that there is just such a right, why should anyone on the gay marriage side say that?

    The simple fact is that the opponents of SSM (and you in particular) have been unable to come up with a rational basis to deny gays the same rights straight people have or demonstrate that the SSM bans weren’t based on animus.

    And, BTW, what does Hillary have to do with what we’ve been discussing? Now you are just sputtering incoherently at the things you hate whether or not it has anything to do with the subject.

  • whheydt

    It appears that Dukedog7 is suffering from seeing Constitutional rights in the same way that a religious authority approaches such issues. He appears to think that only rights explicitly granted (the “enumerated rights”) are the ones people get to have. He is using an “everything that is not forbidden is mandatory” model. He is, of course, wrong since the (through amendment) the Constitution specifically states that any right not reserved to the Federal Government is retained by the several states or the people, as they fit.

    Thus, while there is no *enumerated* right to SSM, neither is there an enumerated right to marriage by anyone else, so marriage is one of those unenumerated rights, and the courts–likely including SCOTUS–will see that that right applies to same-sex couples in exactly the same way that it has been applied to opposite-sex couples.

    One might also point out that there are members of any number Christian denominations that strongly believe that Catholics are *not* Christians, so he might want to think long and hard about what sort of constraints there are on the government, at all levels, to preserve *his* religious liberties and not be so quick to disparage the exercise of such rights by others with whom he does not agree.

  • dingojack

    Dog whined: “It is a fact that gay marriage is not a right under the Constitution. Gay marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at all.”

    See mine #21.

    Dingo

  • John Pieret

    whheydt:

    One might also point out that there are members of any number Christian denominations that strongly believe that Catholics are *not* Christians, so he might want to think long and hard about what sort of constraints there are on the government, at all levels, to preserve *his* religious liberties and not be so quick to disparage the exercise of such rights by others with whom he does not agree.

    As in this recent example: “Queen of May? The Spirit of Jezebel is Hiding Behind These Altars”

    http://www.charismamag.com/blogs/the-plumb-line/23245-queen-of-may-the-spirit-jezebel-is-hiding-behind-these-altars

    There are parts of America where the majority would be happy to take away Egnor’s right to freedom of religion if they could. The only thing that’s stopping them is the Constitution that he so misunderstands.

  • colnago80

    Re John Pieret @ #71

    Well, most “Christians” reject the notion that Mormons are Christians.

  • colnago80

    Folks, we can sum up Egnorance’s arguments very simply. Anal sex is icky.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @71:

    We neither need or want your “protection”. You violate the Constitution as a matter of course, and the only thing preventing you from completely trashing the First Amendment is the Second Amendment. We know very well what happens to Christians when atheist scum like you take power.

  • John Pieret

    We neither need or want your “protection”. You violate the Constitution as a matter of course, and the only thing preventing you from completely trashing the First Amendment is the Second Amendment. We know very well what happens to Christians when atheist scum like you take power.

    Aw, and here I thought we were (mostly) having a rational discussion about rights and the Constitution and it turns out you are just another “conspiracy theorist” who thinks everyone is out to “get you” unless you threaten to shoot them! The funny thing is, despite your stupidity, I and people like the ACLU will go on protecting your right to be an idiot.

  • dingojack

    Oooh, did that hit a nerve, Dog?

    In fact, Dog, gun ownership has no correlation to freedom of speech, nice try though.

    You’ll notice that the ‘atheist scum’ are, in fact, just another sect of the cult of Christianity. If they’ll eat their own with such vicious relish, then imagine what they’ll do to the population generally.

    Dingo

  • whheydt

    Re: the DukeDOg7 @ #74…

    Can you name as many as TWO members of Congress that have publicly acknowledged being atheists?

    By the way, there are SIX of your co-religionists on SCOTUS, plus 3 Jews. There are NO atheists on SCOTUS. Any decision stating that SSM is a Constitutional right will have to be endorsed by a MINIMUM of two Catholics.

  • zenlike

    theDukedog7 . says

    We neither need or want your “protection”. You violate the Constitution as a matter of course, and the only thing preventing you from completely trashing the First Amendment is the Second Amendment. We know very well what happens to Christians when atheist scum like you take power.

    And yet here you are, arguing that mandatory school prayer is OK if the majority of the people vote for it. You do understand what the first amendment says right?

    Your ignorance is disgusting to watch.

  • Chiroptera

    Well, I imagine that the DukeDog7 and his ilk think that the First Amendment says,

    Section 1: The government shall do the stuff I like and can’t do the stuff I hate.

    Section 2: Oh, and fuck you, libtards!

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    Calling people scum and threatening to shoot them. Stay classy, dukedog.

  • colnago80

    Re Egnorance @ #74

    Well, ratfucker Egnorance shows his true colors by threatening to impose a 2nd amendment solution against those have the temerity to have an un-Egnorance thought in their head.

    Oh by the way, Egnorance is also an AGW denier, in addition to being an evolution denier. Total schmuck. Hey Egnorance, how about HIVAIDS? Is that a scam too

  • colnago80

    If Dukedog7 isn’t Egnorance, he might be David Berlinski, the fake mathematician. Berlinski is as big a pompous asshole as Egnorance is.

  • Hoosier X

    Should a surgeon have the right to refuse to operate on a patient who is homosexual if the surgeon believes he is justified in his refusal because of his sincere religious beliefs?

    Discuss.

  • Hoosier X

    When an American christian claims he is being persecuted for his religion, should he ever be expected to explain how he is being persecuted and to give examples of said persecution (preferably citing factual accounts of incidents that actually happened) ? Or are vague unsupported generalizations enough to prompt sympathetic nods from the members of the press?

    Discuss.

  • whheydt

    Re: Hoosier X @ #83,,,,

    More to the point…should patients have a right to be notified that a surgeon that is going to operate on them is a bigot that hates an identifiable class to which the patient is a part? Should said surgeon be required to post a large indemnity bond against any actions that could–by any stretch–be considered malicious to the person under the knife?

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    Hey Ed, where’s that same-sex marriage right in the Constitution?

    It is a fact that gay marriage is not a right under the Constitution. Gay marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution.

    The 9th amendment. According to the constitution IMAO, the federal government never has the power to pass a law against a group of informed consenting adults based on mere animus. Laws allowing straight-marriage but not gay-marriage are based purely on animus. Plus the 14th to apply against the states.

    The purpose of the 9th amendment was that the anti-federalists (a political party in 1790s) wanted a bill of rights, but the federalists (another political party in the 1790s) thought that having an explicit list of enumerated rights would denigrate the old common law methods of judges protecting other rights not enumerated. They compromised with the 9th amendment. The purpose of the 9th amendment is to defeat your argument in advance. The constitution protects more than just the enumerated rights of the constitution.

    PS: Unfortunately, several supreme court decisions have effectively gutted the 9th amendment, but I suspect you would only care about original intent / original meaning.

    Every law allowing straight-marriage but not gay-marriage is sex (and gender) discrimination. Imagine any other context and imagine the application of the sex/gender rules. Example: imagine congress passing a law that says only women can sell cars to men, and only men can sell cars to women. That’s a clear and genuine case of sex / gender discrimination in contact law, and marriage laws are no different. “But it’s tradition” is no excuse for continuing clearly illegal sex / gender discrimination. Of course, this is assuming you believe some combination of the 9th amendment, 14th amendment, and 19th amendment prohibit sex / gender discrimination. I would be curious if you think the current constitution allows for sex / gender discrimination, and if you think that’s a good idea.

    Ever read the Federalist Papers, the official guide to the constitution? I assume not.

    It’s not an equal protection issue. The law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and gays are permitted to marry persons of the opposite sex, just as straights are. No equal protection issue. No one gay or straight has the right to marry just anyone they want.

    If gay marriage were a Constitutional equal protection issue, a pedophile could claim equal protection because he was denied the “right” to marry a toddler.

    Laws against gay marriage are based on pure animus, whereas laws against sex with children and marrying children are not based on mere animus.

    Laws against gay marriage are violations of sex / gender discrimination protections, whereas laws against sex with children violate no such constitutional protection. It’s generally accepted that age discrimination laws are valid when they discriminate against minors, especially when used for the protection of the minor.

    Try to imagine using that argument when congress passes a law that says only women can sell cars to men, and only men can sell cars to women.

    If you insist that the “opposite sex” clause violates the 14th amendment, why doesn’t the “consenting adult” clause violate the 14th amendment too?

    Because one is sex / gender discrimination and based on pure animus, and one is age discrimination against minors for the protection of the minor. Sex / gender discrimination is generally illegal. Age discrimination against minors is generally legal.

    Since there’s nothing about gay marriage in the Constitution, why are the Supremes deciding this, rather than the voters through the legislative process. Ya know, that democracy thing…

    Notice, in Pieret’s “argument”, the disdain for democracy. Rather than admit the obvious–there is no constitutional right to gay marriage–and simply allow the issue to be resolved via the democratic process, lawyer Pieret insists that lawyers and judges should decide this issue for the American people.

    We do not live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. Perhaps the biggest difference is the checks and balances between the legislative branch and the judicial branch to ensure that the tyranny of the majority cannot oppress any minority.

    Democracy is mob rule, and that is horrifying, and it is right to have disdain for democracy. The majority has no right to oppress a minority over mere animus, and that’s all you have against gay marriage. That is the fundamental premise of a constitutional republic – the principle of having structure in place to prevent the majority from oppressing a minority on the basis of mere animus. You cannot throw that out without throwing out the entire point of the US government. Example: What do you think might happen today if gun rights were put to a popular vote?

    I defend traditional marriage, and oppose all efforts to redefine it, either by bigots or gays.

    Tradition is never a valid excuse. Human happiness, freedom, material wealth, safety, and general well-being always trumps tradition. Tradition is always used by the side of bigots, racists, sexists, etc., and never by the winning side.

    I also point out that laws against miscegenation were Democrat laws.

    This is dishonest and you know it.

    http://cjonline.com/blog-post/lucinda/2013-02-05/how-dixiecrats-became-republicans

    We neither need or want your “protection”. You violate the Constitution as a matter of course, and the only thing preventing you from completely trashing the First Amendment is the Second Amendment. We know very well what happens to Christians when atheist scum like you take power.

    Generally atheists and atheist groups are hardcore defenders of the 1st amendment. Groups like the ACLU defend Christians and atheists. Around 99% IIRC of the people served by the MRFF are Christians. We do and will defend your right to be Christian and to expose your false and hateful ideology. If you find a case of wrongul persecution of Christians, I’m sure basically everyone present will also be outraged and will agree that the wrongful persecution of Christians should cease. Of course, wrongful persecution is different than allowing you to enforce their views on other people, whether by forced prayer attendance in school, or other laws promoting Christianity.

  • Kermit Sansoo

    theDukedog7 says: We neither need or want your “protection”. You violate the Constitution as a matter of course, and the only thing preventing you from completely trashing the First Amendment is the Second Amendment. We know very well what happens to Christians when atheist scum like you take power.

    .

    If the founding of this country is any indication, when atheist scum like us take over we stop various religious groups from persecuting other religious groups.

  • abb3w

    @65,

    Rather than admit the obvious–there is no constitutional right to gay marriage–and simply allow the issue to be resolved via the democratic process, lawyer Pieret insists that lawyers and judges should decide this issue for the American people.

    You consider it obvious that there is no constitutional right to gay marriage; others consider it obvious that there is. This seems the essential character of a “controversy”, not to mention a question of law. From Article III of the Constitution:

    The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

    In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

    Marriage is not among the scope of currently extant statutorily enumerated exceptions. Ergo, the Constitution says this legal question of conflict alleged between statutes and the fundamental guarantees of the Constitution is presently one for the courts — although howsoever they decide, the political question will still ultimately remain within the ambit of the federal legislature and States, if they can muster the consent to enact an Amendment under Article V to more fully resolve the issue.

    Contrariwise, I suspect it will be easier to pass an Amendment to legalize gay marriage rather that one to impose an explicit Constitutional ban.

    Nohow, I suggest you should re-read the ruling of Loving v Virginia. Any argument you make opposing gay marriage that is paralleled therein (EG: “both sexes have the right to marry the same sex” to “the law punishes both races equally for miscegenation”) seems unlikely to be either legally persuasive to the courts or politically persuasive to the electorate.