Same-Sex Marriage Is the Law of the Land, Four Years Hence

Same-Sex Marriage Is the Law of the Land, Four Years Hence July 16, 2019

We’ve recently passed the four-year anniversary of the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States. Let’s revisit the conservative reaction after that decision to see if cats are now marrying dogs, or whatever it was that conservatives were sure would follow.

Consider another Supreme Court decision

Justice Alito dissented from the opinion:

I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and school. . . . By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas.

Well, yeah. If you hate the idea of either homosexuality or same-sex marriage, you can speak your mind, and I support you in that. Make your argument. Tell us why it’s bad for society rather than simply being something that doesn’t work for you personally. But where your opinion conflicts with others’, they may also speak their mind, and you may get your feelings hurt. Such is life as an adult. You think this is unique? You think Loving v. Virginia in 1967 wasn’t a bitter pill for those who supported laws against mixed-race marriage?

As public opinion in favor of same-sex marriage becomes even stronger, your views will be seen as increasingly marginalized and weird. You will be on the wrong side of history. No one’s forcing you either way, but don’t be surprised or outraged when fewer and fewer see you holding the moral high ground.

Politics—the tail wagging the dog

One straight-married woman, interviewed just after the Obergefell decision, said that it, “essentially ends marriage as we know it.” It threatens society because “marriage is the fundamental building block for the family and society to flourish.”

This is an impressive Machiavellian win for the conservative PR machine, but it refers to a reality that we don’t inhabit. This decision doesn’t threaten their marriage or my marriage or indeed any straight marriage at all.

Glenn Beck, always eager to throw gasoline on a fire, said that the civil disobedience necessary in response to same-sex marriage is now martyrdom—literal martyrdom.

The number that I think will walk through a wall of fire, you know, and possible death, is anywhere between 17,000 and 10,000. That is an extraordinary number of people that are willing to lay it all down on the table and willing to go to jail or go to death because they serve God and not man.

Who does he imagine will be on the other side, killing these pastors? And what would be pastors’ crime? Churches can already refuse to marry any couple—mixed-race, same-sex, whatever.

And, unsurprisingly, zero pastors were martyred, and no one came back to Beck demanding that he address his failure.

One pastor had to walk back a bold declaration made just before the decision was announced.

We are not going to bow. We are not going to bend, and if necessary we will burn. . . .

The preachers need to get out front, the leaders need to get out front, out front of these ordinary citizens and say, “Shoot me first!”

 Oops. Didn’t really happen.

Precedent in Loving v. Virginia

Conservatives always hate when the conversation comes back to the 1967 Loving decision, which threw out state laws against mixed-race marriage. They handwave that they’re not comparable.

To some extent they’re right, though not for the reasons they imagine. Let’s look at how the 1967 Loving decision is different from Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

Obergefell squeaked by with a 5-4 vote. Loving was 9-0.

Today, the public is strongly in favor of same-sex marriage—approval reached 50% in 2012. On the eve of Obergefell it was 60% for and 37% against (Gallup), and the favorable number increases at more than a percent per year. Today, all states but two have more citizens supporting same-sex marriage than opposing it.

But public opinion was very different at the time of Loving: just 20% in favor of mixed-race marriage and 73% against it in 1968, one year after the decision. Approval was even less in the white demographic. And remember that laws against mixed-race marriage had been dismissed in most of the country at that time.

Consider approval ratings from a few more years: 4% approved mixed-race marriage in 1958, 50% in 1995, and 87% in 2013.

I don’t know which is more shocking—that nationwide approval was so low in 1958, that it took almost three decades after Loving to reach 50%, or that it wasn’t 100% in 2013! (The cartoon xkcd has an excellent graph.)

Conservatives four years ago declared that they were going to hold their breath until they turn blue (or get jailed or executed by the thousands if Glenn Beck’s fantasy came true), and yet public opinion is strongly in favor of the Supreme Court decision. Think back to 1967 with the Loving decision, where the unanimous Supreme Court was way out in front of public opinion.

Public response to Loving

Given conservatives’ rending of garments about same-sex marriage four years ago, I wondered what the public reaction was after the mixed-race marriage decision 52 years ago. I burrowed through online newspapers of the time. I wanted to find Southern newspapers (Loving overturned laws against mixed-race marriage in 17 Southern states) full of outrage at a meddling, activist court “legislating from the bench.” I expected to find scandalized opinion pieces predicting God’s retribution on society, supported with Bible verses.

I didn’t find a single one. I found instead many copies of a few nationally syndicated articles soberly summarizing the Loving decision, but that was it—just a simple statement of the facts. People seemed ready to accept the decision and move on.

That things are so different today, with many conservatives refusing to move on, makes clear that this is not Christians standing up for what’s right but just politics. Christians, keep in mind politicians’ Chicken Little games. Citizens can ignore politics when things are fine, but if Christians are under attack, they must circle the wagons and support Christian politicians. If there’s no reason to circle the wagons, they’ll invent one.

Ignore politicians’ made up crises. Have you stopped to think how hardhearted you look when you stand in the way of two people who want to get married?

A special thank you to my family of birth
for relentlessly and colourfully demonstrating
the cruelty of anti-gay sentiment,
thus driving decent people away from hatred
and into the arms of justice and equality.
— Nathan Phelps,
who left his father’s “God Hates Fags” church

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 6/26/15.)

Image credit: Nate Steiner, flickr, CC
.

"I stole the argument from Neil. I see this is a new article. Imma gonna ..."

How Much Faith to Be an ..."
"Now I feel silly for not thinking about Commandment Number One in my reply."

How Much Faith to Be an ..."
"How is "man of great stature" not a giant? It doesn't have to be a ..."

Would God Want You to Tell ..."
"Coincidentally, Neil Carter at "Godless in Dixie" has put up an OP on the prayer ..."

How Much Faith to Be an ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Cozmo the Magician

    Still waiting for people to give me wedding gifts. After all, my gay toaster and I are still happily married to our bi microwave.

    • larry parker

      What more could you possibly need?

      • A trans blender?

        • epicurus

          Neutral gender blender! (Sorry, couldn’t resist)

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          What about a gender bender blender?

        • epicurus

          3 speeds and pulse.

      • Cozmo the Magician

        solar power.

        • TheNuszAbides

          We’re talking Type I civilization here, yes?

    • Greg G.

      Do you have one in the oven yet?

      You have my best wishes, your toaster has my muffins, and your microwave has my sympathy.

    • Raging Bee

      What, you marry your wedding gifts and expect MORE wedding gifts?!

      • Cozmo the Magician

        You have me confused with Roy Moore.. R@p[ little girls so that they make moore little girls.

        • Raging Bee

          ISWUDT.

    • Michael Neville

      You didn’t get the embroidered toilet paper holder I sent?

      • Cozmo the Magician

        nah, I canceled my Amazon acct because they stopped showing Lucifer online.

  • Wisdom, Justice, Love

    People will sacrifice for a good cause. Look at Civil Rights. Lots of people gave the ultimate sacrifice, so others could vote, attend university, etc. What would a Christian look back on and thank the martyrs for? What would the martyr’s sacrifice mean? What would be the benefit that Christians didn’t have that they gained thanks to martyrs?

    The Christians know there isn’t much they would die for. They aren’t exactly oppressed in the US, so there’s nothing they should gain that would be worth the price.

    And martyrdom requires more action than thoughts and prayers.

  • smrnda

    On Alito’s concern, since when was there any ‘right’ to one’s opinions being popular?

    • Maybe he’s a delicate snowflake.

      “You have the right to be offended, and I have the right to offend you” was (I believe) Ricky Gervais’s observation.

  • Michael Neville

    Conservative Christians want to play the “we’re so persecuted” game so much that they manufacture persecution where it doesn’t exist.

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Imagined martyrdom is built into the fabric of Christianity. It’s a feature, not a bug.

  • epicurus

    I usually bring up divorce being allowed as a counter to anti gay marriage people, but heterosexual people living together before marriage is very common and is also something that they should be railing against as it really does make a mockery of “sanctity” of marriage, and turns it into just a piece of paper.

    • Wisdom, Justice, Love

      That’s one of the many aspects that become absurd at best, and hypocritical at worse in their position. If God sanctions marriage, then surely he sanctions divorce. Will Family Court now be held in church? Will Divorce LAWyers have to register with churches or Christian organizations?

      And living together is a technicality. People can live in the same dwelling without having sex. Wink.

      • epicurus

        Ironically, I’ve read over the years that people who live together first before getting married to ensure compatibility have about the same divorce rate as those that marry without cohabitation beforehand.

        • ThaneOfDrones

          So Is Living Together Before Marriage Linked to Divorce or What?
          Why researchers can’t agree after decades of studies

        • epicurus

          I like the end of the 5th paragraph- “This is the same journal that just published a study finding the opposite.” haha

        • Greg G.

          It seems like they tend to compare divorce rates from the date of the wedding. Shouldn’t they compare divorce rates according to how long they lived together? If a couple lived together for two years before marriage and divorced after five years, they should be compared to the divorce rate of seven year marriages of those who did not live together before.

  • Polytropos

    they will risk being labeled as big&#8203ots

    Oh no, the poor things!

    By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas.

    This gets us to the bot&#8203tom of what’s really going on here and why the big&#8203ots for Jesus are so afraid. When they had enough of a majority to do so, they treated minorities very, very badly. Now they’re losing their majority and they’re afraid the people they used to marginalize will treat them the same way.

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Bingo. That said, I’m still trying to understand how allowing gay marriage marginalizes anyone. Not only does that argument lack legitimate basis, it lacks the superficial appearance of having basis!

      • Polytropos

        The problem we have in understanding it is that we’re approaching it from a rational point of view.

      • TheNuszAbides

        Pretty sure they’re just trying to borrow language from some successful/accepted/conceded civil rights movement or another. To generalize to include other such scenarios: trying to use the rhetoric of social justice progressives against them/us.

    • eric

      Maybe. Frankly I think the fear is more local and personal; mom and dad bigot are afraid that the government treating gays as normal citizens will result in their children not sharing their own bigotries.

  • JustAnotherAtheist2

    I’m not a particularly patriotic person, but I felt strong civic pride when gay marriage was finally allowed. I wish I felt that way more often.

    • TheNuszAbides

      This exactly!

  • skl

    That things are so different today, with
    many conservatives refusing to move on, makes clear that this is not Christians
    standing up for what’s right but just politics.

    There IS NO “what’s right”.

    There is only what people like, and the most powerful people
    determine which likes become law.

    For many centuries same-sex marriage was not even a
    consideration and homosexuality in general was not much liked (and its practice
    often illegal). Lately, for whatever reasons, these things have become “liked”
    enough to become law. Later still, maybe they won’t.

    But there is no “right” or “wrong” about it.

    • Raging Bee

      Actually, yes, there is, based on verifiable observation of the consequences of various actions. Just like there’s a “right” and “wrong” about civil rights, slavery, environmental policy, education, etc.

    • Rudy R

      There is no objective right or wrong. Actions that were considered right centuries ago are now considered wrong. What exactly is your point?

    • eric

      Okay, so morality is subjective. Does your own personal subjective morality support equal marriage rights for gays, or oppose it?

      • skl

        Not important.

        De gustibus non est disputandum.

        • eric

          What a wimp.

          And your excuse doesn’t even work; this is not just a matter of taste since opposers of SSM are asking the State not to grant rights to gay couples that straight couples can access (and before that, supporters of SSM asked the state to grant to gays). SSM opposers want to take away rights that citizens currently have. Silence on the matter of the legality of marriage – or, well, the legality of anything really – is not merely a matter of taste. This is exactly the sort of important civic conversation the 1st amendment was designed to encourage citizens to have – exactly the opposite of a de gustibus matter.

        • skl

          … this is not just a matter of taste…

          OK. This is just a matter of taste and power.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Exactly. So we take power away from those who abuse it by denying people their rights.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      You’d better take a look at a LOT of non-xtian societies the world over (that were summarily destroyed by xtian totalitarian zealots)

      Because those other cultures DID allow for many genders / sexualities.

    • There IS NO “what’s right”.

      There is only what people like, and the most powerful people
      determine which likes become law.

      I see no objective morality, if that’s what you’re referring to, but in the US, the Constitution protects the minorities. Think of just the First Amendment–a minority view can be stated in public, and the right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution. Even laws can’t shut that down.

    • Ignorant Amos

      For many centuries same-sex marriage was not even a consideration and homosexuality in general was not much liked (and its practice
      often illegal).

      And for many centuries it was a consideration and not illegal.

      Gay marriage is rare in history, but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look, a man of family and fortune, being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.” The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union”, the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.”

      Lately, for whatever reasons, these things have become “liked” enough to become law.

      More ignorant claptrap from the resident Dime Bar. The reasons are well understood ya dickhead.

    • Sophotroph

      Yes, yes, of course. In the absence of your favorite moral system, there is no right and wrong, no way to address or discuss them, we are all adrift on the boiling seas of nihilism, never again to touch sweet, sweet dry land.

      Or, you know, you could take an ethics course and be part of the conversation.

      Because the world is moving on, and nobody on either side is particularly concerned that a single shrill voice on the internet is yelling, “But you can’t! I say there’s no right or wrong! Pay attention to me!

  • JBSchmidt

    Loving v. Virginia was with regard to race with which one is born. Obergefell v Hodges was about people wishing to be recognized for their choices. That’s why it is irrelevant.

    With regard to the first portion of the article. Churches have been sued. Business have been sued and run out of business. One baker has been sued 3 times. If your position is morally correct, how can you let churches keep their tax exemption while not allowing a segment of the population from getting married in those churches?

    Also, as someone will say it. I am not a bigot if I choose to not approve of your decisions.

    • Jack the Sandwichmaker

      No businesses have been run out of business because of Obergefell. Some businesses which illegally discriminated against homosexual customers were sued and lost. But that discrimination was illegal whether same sex marriage was legally recognized or not.

    • Rudy R

      You know that homosexuality is a choice? More to the point, you know free will exists?

      And I for one wouldn’t call you a bigot if you are not intolerant of other people’s views.

    • eric

      how can you let churches keep their tax exemption while not allowing a
      segment of the population from getting married in those churches?

      Churches aren’t businesses, and they don’t make a contract with the state government to provide regular services to the public. Thus, when they choose not to provide regular services to the public, it’s not a big deal.
      However, when they do decide to start operating as a business, then nondiscrimination laws regarding businesses start applying to them.

      So, to give an example: your local church down the street that occasionally does a marriage for a nominal fee or donation is going to remain in the clear. The vast majority of it’s time and effort is spent on serving it’s congregation with regular Sunday services. It might also perform charity work in the community. Baptisms and weddings are likely not much more than a 1/month or 1/several month special event, and probably mostly involve present or past members of the congregation, their families, etc. In contrast, consider a Las Vegas wedding chapel that advertises it’s low low wedding prices and satisfaction guaranteed Elvis wedding in the papers and on the internet. The people who use it’s services don’t know the priest, have never before been there, will never come again, and the place has no congregation at all to speak of. It’s clearly operating as a business whose “goods and services” is a wedding. Such a chapel – while technically also being a church – is going to have to follow Nevada’s business nondiscrimination laws.

      Like many things in life, not every case is going to be clear and easy. There will likely be some gray areas the law has to deal with. But that doesn’t make the principle of the law difficult to understand; if you’re a house of worship, you can discriminate in who participates in your services. If you’re a business, you cannot discriminate against customers. If you’re both at the same time, then the state is going to look at what you primarily do and how you function, and make a determination as to what extent the laws governing businesses apply to you. Any church wanting to guarantee it is immunized from antidiscrimination laws that govern businesses has an easy path to their goal: don’t operate as a for-profit business. Sell nothing to the public, or at least sell so little to the general public that the money that you make from such sales is incidental to your overall operation and other revenue streams (such as congregation donations). Most churches in fact already operate this way, so it’s not typically an onerous requirement.

    • Greg G.

      Loving v. Virginia was with regard to race with which one is born. Obergefell v Hodges was about people wishing to be recognized for their choices. That’s why it is irrelevant.

      Do you think you could choose to love someone of the same sex as you? How do you know? Did you choose to love someone of the opposite sex? If you had to choose, unless you are bisexual, you probably made the wrong choice. Your whole reasoning is based on your religion’s rejection of reality.

      Have you ever noticed that the preachers who preach against homosexuality and anti-gay politicians are caught in a homosexual relationship at a rate of about one every month or two? They are fighting the desires that they were born with because their religion taught them it was bad. Their preaching is a battle against their inner feelings that they cannot change.

      Then there are the family values preachers and politicians who molest young girls. The preacher who was most upset when Texas failed to pass a law with the death penalty for women who get abortions recently admitted to molesting and raping his niece.

      I am not a bigot if I choose to not approve of your decisions.

      But you are a bigot if you choose to not approve of someone acting on the feelings they were born with. I feel sorry for those who choose to go against their feelings because their religion told them not to.

      • JBSchmidt

        “Do you think you could choose to love someone of the same sex as you?”

        Did I say anything about love? Love who you want. Love the one your with. I don’t care.

        Is the assumption that prior to Obergefell the government was in the cupid business only firing arrows at heteros? Or was there a different reason society had chosen to elevate heterosexual marriage to special status? Using the evolutionary model to care for kids/family; isn’t one relationship favored over the other within the human species.

        “They are fighting the desires that they were born with because their religion taught them it was bad.”

        We all find ourselves fighting urges that we shouldn’t indulge. If I use ‘love’ to describe my urge, by your standard, there is nothing I can’t indulge.

        “recently admitted to molesting and raping” “preach against homosexuality and anti-gay politicians are caught in a homosexual relationship at a rate of about one every month or two?”

        Those are two contradicting premises. If religion is wrong to subdue the urge toward homosexuality, why is it wrong to subdue the urge toward molestation/rape. I bet the latter loved his niece.

        “But you are a bigot if you choose to not approve of someone acting on the feelings they were born with.”

        Am I bigot for disapproving of the pedophile? How about the drug addict? What about a sociopath that has become a serial killer? If we are to take the Lady Gaga approach to life, ‘I was born this way.’ Can you provide a reason why I must approve of one over the other?

        • Greg G.

          Is the assumption that prior to Obergefell the government was in the cupid business only firing arrows at heteros? Or was there a different reason society had chosen to elevate heterosexual marriage to special status? Using the evolutionary model to care for kids/family; isn’t one relationship favored over the other within the human species.

          Marriage gives privileges to some people. Before Obergefell, it denied those privileges to certain people.

          We all find ourselves fighting urges that we shouldn’t indulge. If I use ‘love’ to describe my urge, by your standard, there is nothing I can’t indulge.

          If your urges would harm others, you should resist them. If they do not harm anyone and are pleasant or beneficial, go ahead and indulge yourself.

          Those are two contradicting premises. If religion is wrong to subdue the urge toward homosexuality, why is it wrong to subdue the urge toward molestation/rape. I bet the latter loved his niece.

          One causes harm to others. Is it that hard for you to understand?

          Am I bigot for disapproving of the pedophile? How about the drug addict? What about a sociopath that has become a serial killer? If we are to take the Lady Gaga approach to life, ‘I was born this way.’ Can you provide a reason why I must approve of one over the other?

          Just ask yourself, “Does it harm others?” If the greatest harm is irritation of bigots who don’t mind their own business, then go for it.

          Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the next person’s nose. Your freedom to practice religion ends when you try to practice it on unwilling people.

        • Rudy R

          If religion is wrong to subdue the urge toward homosexuality, why is it wrong to subdue the urge toward molestation/rape. I bet the latter loved his niece

          Molestation/rape is not between two consenting adults. Are you actually that fucking obtuse?

        • Greg G.

          That’s what happens when one substitutes religion for moral thought.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Remember…authoritarians don’t DO consent, sadly enough…

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Polarity of sexual desire isn’t malleable or choosable, it’s innate.

      It’s also on a spectrum, which is why YOUR KIND can claim some ‘cures’…you’re treating fluid bisexuals who can be more influenced by romance as extreme cases where polarity was ‘flipped’.

      ETA:

      how can you let churches keep their tax exemption while not allowing a segment of the population from getting married in those churches

      Churches are treated as 501(c)(3)s, but with special undeserved privileges that need to be rescinded…like not being forced to open their financial books for full transparency.

      Why do you ask?

    • LastManOnEarth

      Nice try, but you are a bigot.

      • Michael Neville

        Funny How JBS denied being a bigot. It’s almost as if he knew he’d be accused of it. The vast majority of non-bigots go their entire lives without publicly stating their lack of bigotry. So why did JBS make a special point of saying that he wasn’t a bigot?

        • LastManOnEarth

          “The lady doth protest too much”

    • Michael Neville

      So you’re coming out with that old canard, discarded by everyone except homophobic bigots, that sexual orientation is a choice. Got any evidence to support that nonsense?

      Churches have been sued.

      Give us the evidence that churches have been sued for homophobia.

      Business have been sued and run out of business. One baker has been sued 3 times.

      Who would have thought that bigotry would be bad for business?

      Also, as someone will say it. I am not a bigot if I choose to not approve of your decisions.

      You’re not a bigot because you disagree with us. You’re a bigot because you shoot off nonsense like sexual orientation is a choice.

    • Otto

      Even if it was a choice (it’s not)…why should it be illegal?

      I am not a bigot if I choose to not approve of your decisions.

      Freedom is about allowing people to do things you may not agree with.

    • Ficino

      Loving v. Virginia was with regard to race with which one is born. Obergefell v Hodges was about people wishing to be recognized for their choices. That’s why it is irrelevant.

      What you say is just dumb. Anti-miscegenation laws criminalized CHOICES. No one was born married to someone of another race. And religious affiliation is a CHOICE. If our choices of partners can be criminalized, in a similarly ordered state, your choice of religious affiliation could be criminalized. Where is the Inquisition when JBSchmidt is mouthing off?

  • ThaneOfDrones

    The sky has fallen. My conservative Christian* brother, who compared gay marriage to bestiality and wondered how people could be moral without God, is now in prison for raping the daughter of his second wife. The second wife has also divorced him.

    * but so ignorant that he has not even read the Bible

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      “Tell me what a person condemns, and I’ll tell you what their secret desires are…”

      • Michael Neville

        Anyone who eats Ben & Jerry’s Cherry Garcia ice cream is a blasphemer damned for eternity!

        <This diet is killing me. I want to eat all kinds of good-tasting stuff but I’ve got to lose 20 pounds>

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I feel similar pain.

          My secret sins are Ben & Jerry’s New York Super Fudge Chunk and Oreos.

          re weight loss…what’s somewhat working for me right now is just not eating on certain days of the week. I started with one day, and have since upped it to 3 (separated, not consecutive) days a week. It’s a lot easier for me than eating limited portions, which feels like punishment.

        • Pofarmer

          Unsolicited crazy talk-but. Started keto July 9th of last year. Lost slightly over 50 pounds. Am not on keto now but maintaining. This was fairly easy for me as you’re not hungry all the time, but you do have to cook a lot.

        • Impressive! I have a friend who’s rabidly keto. He might’ve started to lose weight, but he’s at a good weight now and says that mental clarity is the biggest benefit going forward.

        • Pofarmer

          The nice thing about keto is that you can reduce calories and not be insanely hungry all the time. It also really seems to reduce migraines.

        • Didn’t I hear that keto was invented to help children with seizures?

        • Pofarmer

          I believe that was the reason, yes, back in the 1920’s? They were trying all kinds of things with diet for cancer and such.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Many years ago I went on the Atkins Diet which is about getting ones body into a state of ketosis. It was too hard in the long term.

        • Pofarmer

          The hard core keto crowd does atkins for a break.

      • MadScientist1023

        …so does that mean my secret desire is to be a racist Republican?

    • TheNuszAbides

      My condolences to the [most immediate] victims.

  • MadScientist1023

    “By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas.”

    So this is a problem but this…

    By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have nontraditional ideas.

    …is perfectly fine?

    • eric

      Alito has some nice rhetoric there. But gay marriage is like divorce, sodomy, adultery etc. in that it’s legalization really has no effect – no marginalization – on those who choose not to practice it.

      And contra Alito, legalizing something does not necessarily make those who oppose it less popular. That’s been the case with mixed marriages, yes, but less so with divorce and not at all the case with adultery. There seems to require some extra component that brings on unpopularity. My guess is that this extra component is when the older restriction stops making sense to those who didn’t grow up with it. Young folk today understand why cheating might be painful to one’s partner, even if it’s no longer a legal matter in most states. But they (as well as the courts) don’t understand who gay marriage or mixed race marriage harms.

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Hearing something Alito said years ago (long deleted from my memory banks) was the moment it struck me that judges could be not just mistaken about the facts of a case, they could be mistaken about the law that pertains to those facts.

      It was eye opening in part because of how clear the issue was and how twisted Alito had to get to avoid the obvious.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Oh, but *this* minority FERVENTLY BELIEVES THEY’RE *RIGHT*…so that’s different, somehow…

      • MadScientist1023

        And the other minority doesn’t believe that? Ugh.

  • NS Alito

    Obligatory: No relation.

  • eric

    It seems like every man and every women had equal opportunity to enter into marriage.

    Wow. You just used the exact parallel argument racists against interracial marriage used in Loving.

    why is the LGBT community attacking people for not accepting them…

    Going into a cake store and asking to buy a cake is not an “attack.” And it’s not asking the baker to accept or approve of their lifestyle. Just sell them a cake. I’m sure many southern racists had to serve blacks when they were morally and theologically opposed to doing it, in the wake of desegregation. It didn’t mean they became non-racists. So don’t worry, we all understand that serving gays doesn’t mean or imply that you and your friends are accepting of them.

    Should I be able to force a Muslim/Jewish dinner to cook me pork?

    If she cooks pork for others, yes. OTOH if she doesn’t cook pork for anyone, no, you cannot make her do that just for you.

    See how easy this is to get? A business gets to decide what services they provide, but not illegally discriminate in who they provide it to. You can choose to go into business baking cakes. Or cooking pork. Or not, if you find cooking pork offensive. But you can’t open up a ‘whites only’ cake store. You can’t open up a ‘Christians only’ barbeque. And in exactly the same way, you can’t open up a ‘straights only’ business either.

    • “Should I be able to force a Muslim/Jewish dinner to cook me pork?”
      If she cooks pork for others, yes. OTOH if she doesn’t cook pork for anyone, no, you cannot make her do that just for you.
      See how easy this is to get? A business gets to decide what services they provide, but not illegally discriminate in who they provide it to.

      Nicely stated. One wonders if JBS is just now hearing these answers. I guess everyone has to start somewhere, but I suspect he’s not bothered to internalize these answers though having come across them many times.

      • eric

        One wonders if JBS is just now hearing these answers.

        I suspect you’re right about “not bothering to internalize.” My suspicion with fundies – when it comes to this, creationism, you name it – is that they’ve heard the mainstream answer many times. But in between being told, they go back to their church, or their right-wing radio, or whatever other source of propaganda they listen to, they get the right-wing version, they get fired up about it, and forget or ignore what they were told just days or weeks before.

        • And yet a good 5% of the Christian/apologetics articles I read are about doubt and what to do about it.

          It’s weird that you don’t see the same percentage in the scientific journals. I must not be looking in the right ones.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    Wrong as usual.

    Men could marry women, women could marry men, but what about women who wanted to marry women, or men who wanted to marry men?

    If a right isn’t legally available to ANYbody who wants to exercise it in ANY adult consensual, non-harmful way, then it’s unreasonably restricted.

    ALLOWING somebody to do something they DON’T want to do while RESTRICTING them from doing something very similar and nonharmful that they DO want to do is bigotry, pure and simple.

  • Steven

    Conservative Christians (which includes me) will always see the ACT of having sex with the same sex as a sin. The Bible clearly states that this act is a sin. For example, Romans 1:26-28 says, “That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved. Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.” This might put us in the minority opinion on this issue in America. We might, if not already, be marginalized because of it. How do you create a society that has people with differing views that does not marginalize anyone?

    Tyndale House Publishers, Holy Bible: New Living Translation (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2013), Ro 1:26–28

    • epeeist

      Conservative Christians (which includes me) will always see the of having sex with the same sex as a sin.

      But others don’t, or in fact don’t recognise that “sin” is a thing at all.

      How do you create a society that has people with differing views that does not marginalize anyone?

      Try to get people to realise that if actions are a) Consensual; b) cause no harm and; c) legal then it is really none of your business.

      To put it another way, if you and your fellows want to live by a particular set of precepts then fine (again assuming that these precepts are consensual, cause no harm and are legal). If you want to insist that others should live by your precepts then expect some pushback.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Why should anyone here care what conservative Christers like you think about anything, or what it says in yer silly book?

      Thankfully you lot are on the way out.

    • The Bible clearly states that this act is a sin.

      Noop, it doesn’t.

      Anyway, “The Bible says X” has no role in a country with a secular constitution (which is the case in the US).

      For example, Romans 1:26-28 says, “That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.”

      Y’know, I’ve never really understood this passage. “God abandoned them”? When/where is this supposed to have happened? Is this some hypothetical or imaginary situation?

      Anyway, read the passage again. Looks to me like we have heterosexual men and women committing homosexual acts. Yeah, that’s pretty weird. And that’s not what we’re talking about in modern society.

      This might put us in the minority opinion on this issue in America.

      Those against same-sex marriage are in a minority already. That’s not your point, but close.

      How do you create a society that has people with differing views that does not marginalize anyone?

      Uh, tolerance? If you’re a knitter and I don’t like to knit, maybe a law prohibiting knitting would be unnecessarily harsh since it doesn’t affect me one way or the other if you knit. If you’re gay and I’m not, an analogous approach applies.

    • Ignorant Amos

      At the heart of the claim that the Bible is clear “that homosexuality is forbidden by God” is poor biblical scholarship and a cultural bias read into the Bible. The Bible says nothing about “homosexuality” as an innate dimension of personality. Sexual orientation was not understood in biblical times. There are references in the Bible to same-gender sexual behavior, and all of them are undeniably negative. But what is condemned in these passages is the violence, idolatry and exploitation related to the behavior, not the same-gender nature of the behavior. There are references in the Bible to different-gender sexual behavior that are just as condemning for the same reasons. But no one claims that the condemnation is because the behavior was between a man and a woman.

      There was no word in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek for “homosexual” or “homosexuality.” These words were invented near the end of the 19th century when psychoanalysts began to discover and understand sexuality as an essential part of the human personality in all of its diversity. Consequently, it cannot be claimed that the Bible says anything at all about it. The writers of the Bible had neither the understanding of it nor the language for it.

      There is only one reference to sexual behavior between women, and that is in Romans 1:26. The context of this reference has to do with Gentiles rejecting the true God to pursue false gods; i.e., idolatry. And, the sexual behavior described is orgiastic, not that of a loving, mutual, caring, committed relationship. What is condemned is the worship of false gods.

      https://www.hrc.org/resources/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality

      • Steven

        Here is the other side. “Townsley (2011) argues that verses 26–27 focus on idolatry and that the sexual deviation noted here relates to sexual practices of goddess cults. Hence, what Paul rejects here isn’t same-sex sin but worship of false gods. As Schnabel (2015: 241) observes, cult prostitution doesn’t focus on idolatry, which calls into question Townsley’s reading. We have already seen the unanimous Jewish consensus on the evil of same-sex relations, nor is it persuasive to swallow up what is said about same-sex relations into idolatry (rightly du Toit 2007: 290–91). Paul’s argument is that idolatry leads to same-sex sin and myriad other sins (vv. 28–31). It doesn’t follow from this that these sins are indistinguishable from idolatry.“(1)

        I would also add that it is poor biblical scholarship to think that this passage is only referring to orgiastic sexual behavior. It is by no means explicit in the text. At best, the text is unclear. “Men did shameful things with other men” does not necessarily mean it was an orgy. Paul meant what other jews of the day thought that sex with the same sex was a sin because it went against the natural order that God had established. This would apply whether someone was biological born with an attraction to the same sex and even just engaged in loving sexual relationships with the same sex. Also, to say that Paul would change what he thinks on the issue today because of what we know now is putting words in Paul’s mouth. It is definitely not supported by the text.

        1. Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, ed. Robert W. Yarbrough and Joshua W. Jipp, Second Edition., Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2018), 105.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Here is the other side.

          Yeah, that’s the problem with an ambiguous book that is nothing more than a Rorschach test that allows any number of interpretations and facilitates the bigotry of knuckle draggers that don’t know how to keep their nasty noses out of other folks business.

          What gives those arsewipes you cite any authority?

          I would also add that it is poor biblical scholarship to think that this passage is only referring to orgiastic sexual behavior. It is by no means explicit in the text.

          Who cares? He said, she said. You seem to think that some religious prick writing nonsense to cult members back in the first century around the Mediterranean basin is in some way authoritative to everyone. It isn’t.

          At best, the text is unclear.

          No shit Sherlock. There was a reason why I cited a fellow Christian and cleric. With 45,000+ flavours of the cult, the Jesus prayer in gJohn is the biggest failure in Christian prayer answering.

          “Men did shameful things with other men” does not necessarily mean it was an orgy.

          It says “men”…plural.

          Paul meant what other jews of the day thought that sex with the same sex was a sin because it went against the natural order that God had established.

          How do you know?

          This would apply whether someone was biological born with an attraction to the same sex and even just engaged in loving sexual relationships with the same sex.

          Given your beliefs, whose fault was that?

          Also, to say that Paul would change what he thinks on the issue today because of what we know now is putting words in Paul’s mouth.

          Spoiiiing! There goes another meter.

          It is definitely not supported by the text.

          Says you, other Christians say different. See the problem? From where do you get your authority?

          What happened to “At best, the text is unclear” and why should anyone give a fuck about the rantings of a first century lunatic that didn’t know what he was talking about anyway?

          I can feel a “No True Scotsman” fallacy coming on.