Federal Judge to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer: Your Ugly, Hateful State May Not Deny Equal Benefits to Gay State Employees

Comments

1
Oh no! Now all of those traditional families will suffer!
/troll
2
"First: Fuck you, Jan Brewer".

Yes. and because on so many fronts and issues it really bears repeating.

so, again Fuck you, Jan Brewer. you slimy opportunist worthless hateful hack.
3
As a state employee in a 4 year relationship with my BF I was fucking ECSTATIC to hear this news. My BF suffers from a seizure disorder and since Brewer signed the bill we have been in a fucking mess trying to pay for his prescription since he isn't offered any worthwhile health benefits through his job and I can't cover him under the states plan. Seriously, words can't express how happy I am that they at least signed an injunction so that, even if just for now I can get him back on my plan. Thank you Lambda Legal, thank you.
4
Pearls of Wisdom from the Mormons:

"So, exactly how does legalizing same-sex marriage hurt our marriages, our children and our society? Once we abandon marriage to the whims and desires of adults seeking validation of their sexual lifestyles, we denigrate children and their needs – legally validating relationships that would deliberately leave them motherless or fatherless. And that hurts society. We have plenty of data to show what happens to children when they grow up without a father or a mother. Prisons are filled with adults who were fatherless as children. The financial burden of welfare and prison programs on society as a result of children growing up without their mother or their father is horrific. And that is not even taking into consideration the immense personal suffering that inevitably is too often hidden behind these statistics. During the House debate Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) hit the nail on the head when he explained that legalizing same-sex marriage does not just expand marriage, it undermines it. It alters it to the very core and “totally severs it from its whole purpose, and that is the relationship between a man, a woman, and a child.”

***Why does it seem like trying to understand someone who is explaining how same-sex marriage will hurt their opposite-sex marriage is like trying to listen to driving directions given by someone who is both tripping and a victim of Tourette's Syndrome? So, if I understand, marriage is for children? So, if you never plan to have kids, or can't have them, you shouldn't get married? I have not yet heard anyone explain EXACTLY how same-sex marriage hurts hetero marriage. People start spouting about "men/women/babies/blah", but never actually pin-point *how* it hurts them. How, precisely? Please give examples of the weakened state of Canadian marriages since 2006. Loveschild? Examples, please?
5
Court 1: God 0
In fact, given their ability to gain health coverage through "other means" (prayer), why not disqualify all religous folk from getting state employee health benefits?

(Seriously, having access to alternate providers of health insurance is their argument? lol)
6
Fuck those gingers.
7
John W. Sedwick (born 1946) is an American lawyer and judge. He is currently a judge on the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.

Sedwick was born in 1946 in Kittanning, Pennsylvania. He attended Dartmouth College where he received a B.A. in 1968. He then served in the United States Air Force as a Sergeant, 1969-1971. He graduated with a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1972. Later, he went into private practice in Anchorage, Alaska, 1972-1981. He then served as the Director, Division of Land and Water Management, Department of Natural Resources, State of Alaska, 1981-82. He returned to private practice, 1982-1992.

Sedwick was nominated by George H.W. Bush on July 2, 1992 as a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska to a seat vacated by Andrew J. Kleinfeld. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on October 8, 1992, and received his commission on October 9, 1992. He has served as chief judge, 2002-2009.
8
@6: exactly, Sili.
9
4/Canuck: So, if I understand, marriage is for children? So, if you never plan to have kids, or can't have them, you shouldn't get married? I have not yet heard anyone explain EXACTLY how same-sex marriage hurts hetero marriage. People start spouting about "men/women/babies/blah", but never actually pin-point *how* it hurts them. How, precisely?

I'm as puzzled as you are. The marriage-means-children folks never exactly say that only people who are going to have children should be allowed to get married, but that sure seems to be what they're implying. Yet, you don't hear them arguing for a ban on childless heterosexual marriages. (If anything, with the world's population exploding, we need more childless heterosexual couples.)

My gut feeling is that the allowing-same-sex-marriage-is-going-to-hurt-marriage argument is, for most people, just blowing smoke. I don't think they really believe that. They just want to act like they're "defending" something under attack, instead of what they are doing, which is forcing their values on (attacking) others.

There probably is a very small minority that is convinced that allowing same-sex marriage is somehow going to hurt marriage. But, from what I can tell, if they do feel that way they're incapable of articulating how.
10
Dan: "We are winning."

Absolutely. I'm sure it's frustrating for gays & lesbians to not have full equal rights but the tide is moving inexorably in that direction. I think each generation becomes less prejudiced, less influenced by hateful words in "holy" books.
11
Kiwibird83, I am so glad.
12
First the bigots came for the Irish, and I fought back, even though I wasn't Irish;

Then, they came for the Jews, and I fought back, even though I wasn't a Jew;

Then, they came for the blacks, and I still fought back, even though I wasn't black;

Then, they came for the gays, and I fought back some more, even though I wasn't gay;

Finally, the bigots came for each other, and I had to decide whether to fight back or not, even though I wasn't a bigot;

I still haven't made up my mind on that one yet...
13
I would also like to add: Suck it, Arizona!
14
Took long enough. Now we just need to sit all of our grandparents down and explain to them why this won't ruin the country.
15
Woot. Thanks for taking a break from the CHBP, Dan, to give us an update on this.
16
First: Fuck you, Jan Brewer!

Second: I keep hoping that the recent string of court rulings (Massachusetts, Mississippi, and now Arizona) might make those who seek to deny rights to a segment of the population wake up and realize that their hateful actions will not be supported by law, and that they're fighting a losing battle. Perhaps I've just had one too many drinks. (Sigh)
17
I live in Arizona. Can't wait to get out.

Need my wife or I say more?
18
@16 1) totally agree. 2) The night's still young! have some more. :-)
19
I really wish Obama had just left Janet Napolitano in Arizona, and picked someone else. Yanking her away to Washington and leaving Brewer as AZ governor has been a huge disaster.

Jan Brewer, you are a hateful shrew, and I hope your career as governor is a short one.
20
The state should not define marriage period.

If there is a concept of civil union, it should apply to all.

Anything else violates the Constitution as the Federal Court in Boston correctly adjudicated.

(I dare you to now provide a statistic of how many times the word adjudicated has been used in SLOG comments. See how that works?)
21
"gay(sic) and lesbians are born that way"?

not really.

many matter-of-fact acknowledgements that are factually incorrect make it into the public conciousness.

for a time.

fads eventually burn themselves out.

and their adherents.

22
@19 Yeah, a lot of us wish Napolitano had stayed in AZ. Brewer comes off as an idiot who rubberstamps everything the conservative hate machine sends for approval, without thinking for herself or the state.
23
@ Roma. The simple, unadorned reason is they don't want to share the institution with us. They feel that marriage, and all the heterosexual privilege that goes with it, is their's exclusively. We have no right to it, and allowing us to participate cheapens their own marriage because we're nothing to them but filthy perverts.

"We got ours...and we ain't sharin' it with no damn queers!" is all they've got.

When such ideas and feelings are fairly examined in the cold light of Constitutional principles they are seen for what they are: bigotry and class privilege.
24
I understand the need to force bigots to realize that there is no choice here, that GLBT folks are the way they are because that's who they are; although, I wouldn't care if it /was/ a choice. It just makes me a little sad we have to prove it's some incontrovertible fact because otherwise you folks just aren't people to them (and generally still aren't). We have to prove that your love and relationships in some way, rather than just allowing a little more love in the world.

What do I know, though? I'm twenty, naive, and restless. I'll go back to my low paying job and political science classes.
25
oh, web person! i can't get to page two. please fix. thank you.
26
@4 Not to mention that their entire argument concerning statistics is based off statistics about SINGLE parents. When they say fatherless children, they mean single mothers where the father has abandoned them, was abusive, or has died, for the most part. And they expect people to fall for it and think that a lesbian couple is equivalent to a struggling single mother.
27
@23 There it is. Like the neighbours who are appalled that the people moving into the McMansion next door won it in a home lottery, because it means they aren't the *same* as everyone else in the neighbourhood, I think you've got it: Conservatives have this white, church-sanctioned thing that is somehow better because they don't have to share it with people who aren't just like them. I think Roma is right, too, in that this may just be a knee-jerk reaction for a lot of conservatives, and once they start reading and listening they might change their minds...one hopes, anyway.
28
"Federal Judge to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer: Your Ugly, Hateful State May Not Deny Equal Benefits to Gay State Employees"

Would be awesome if that were an actual quote from Judge John W. Sedwick to the governor.
29
@21: We've seen incredibly substantial differences in neurochemistry between gay and straight men and between lesbian and straight women. And we've seen these differences in areas that typically don't change much over one's lifetime.
Thank you for playing, Alleged, please try again.
30
I must agree with Dan - Fuck you, Jan Brewer.
31
Dan, something you may not know is that Judge Sedwick was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican, George H.W. Bush. Place another point in the "we are winning" category.
32
@20: 172 results on google.
33
Yeah, but comments don't count, BC. Betcha a bunch of those uses are by me.
34
From an excellent Bill Moyers interview with David Boies and Ted Olson...

BILL MOYERS: You've always had a respect for your adversary in the courtroom. And this adversary was one of your friends. Charles Cooper, right?

TED OLSON: Yes.

DAVID BOIES: That's right.

BILL MOYERS: You served with him in the Reagan Justice Department. What was the most effective argument he made against you?

TED OLSON: Well, let me say something. I have great respect for him. He's a very fine lawyer. And he had a very fine group of lawyers and they were doing their best. You asked me the most effective thing that happened on the other side? I will, I didn't find any of their arguments effective. I have said from the beginning of this case, I've yet to hear an argument that persuades me or even comes close to persuading me that we should treat our gay and lesbian colleagues differently and deny them equality.

But what really happened, which was a very eye-opening event, during the course of the trial, during one of the earlier proceedings. The judge in our case asked my opponent, "What harm to the institution of heterosexual marriage would occur if gays and lesbians were allowed to marry?"

This went back and forth and back and forth. The judge kept wanting an answer. "What damage would be done to the institution of marriage if we allowed this to happen?" And my opponent said, finally, he had to answer it truthfully. He paused and he said, "I don't know. I don't know."

That to me sums up the other side. They say the traditional definition of marriage, but nothing by allowing the two couples that were before the court or others like them to engage in a relationship with their partner where they can be treated as an equal member of society hurts your marriage or my marriage or David's marriage or any other heterosexual marriage. People are not going to say, "I don't want to get married anymore if those same sex people can get married. That's not going to happen." There is no evidence to support a basis for this prohibition.
35
When a "gay" gene is scientifically proven to exist, then the comparisons to physical traits can be properly made. Otherwise equating behavior with traits such as color of eyes, hair, skin or ethnicity is just plain dumb and dangerous for our society and those who have truly faced discrimination a distinct class of people.

But we all know what this is about, "Judge John W. Sedwick today granted Lambda Legal's", that should sum-up the way judges act in this cases. Judges have an automatic reaction to please groups like Lambda, they just need to know it's a gay group and on their knees they go, literally.
36
@35 Loveschild: A question was directed to you, and you haven't answered it, as is the case for most people with your beliefs, as Roma @34 just posted. I asked you this question on another thread (no answer) and I'm asking now:
HOW WILL YOUR HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE SUFFER, IN PARTICULAR, IF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE COUPLES CAN MARRY?
It's a very simple, straightforward question. You've said that allowing same-sex marriage will hurt your marriage. I would like to know HOW. Don't bother spouting off about children, or the bible, or any other smokescreen. Please just answer the question, with specific examples.
37
Welcome back, Loveschild! I've missed your ignorant, boorish, uneducated rants!
38
Not one? Not even one teensy weensy example, Loveschild?
39
Otherwise equating behavior with traits such as color of eyes, hair, skin or ethnicity is just plain dumb and dangerous for our society and those who have truly faced discrimination a distinct class of people.

Loveschild, speaking of behavior...I don't see religious conservatives arguing that people who have cheated on their spouses -- something that actually does harm marriage -- shouldn't be allows to marry (or re-marry.) I don't see religious conservatives arguing that people who beat their spouses or molest children or commit rape or murder shouldn't be allowed to marry.

It seems like an extremely perverse kind of morality to support marriage for heterosexuals even if their behavior includes cheating, spouse-beating, child molesting, rape and murder but be opposed to marriage for gays & lesbians just because their behavior is loving someone of the same sex.
40
Hey I know Judge Sedwick. His son was my roommate (and fraternity brother) in college. So score one for me being out in 1992 and score one for Jack and his family being totally cool with the gay!
41
@LC: So, we should strip freedom from religious persecution from the constitution? Cuz, you know, there ain't no Catholic gene.
42
@36 I've got no problem answering your question, which I did not see previously, as long as it's done respectfully. I only have time now in the summer to checkout the blog when the kids are out, so sorry about that.

Concerning your question Canuck, I can honestly tell you that not only my marriage but our very own societal existence will be greatly affected if marriage is redefined to accommodate something for which is not intended. The primary purpose of marriage is to provide a societal vehicle for family structure and life, which in turn allows for the renewed existence of human life, tribes, nations etc. So if marriage is watered down to accommodate behaviors and an anything-goes-mentality, then future generations will see no benefit or show any interest in entering it, and family life will be interrupted. That in turn will greatly affect children by depriving them of either a father or a mother, we are starting to see that currently and the consequences are terrible.

So to answer directly your question, it does affect me personally in my marriage because of the way our children see it. We are rising them to have morals, to have a positive healthy outlook on adult life and to be productive members of society once they reach it. And they cannot achieve that unless they have a clear healthy understanding of marriage both in our house, neighborhood and the rest of our nation. If my husband and I serve as examples to them but our state and our nation tells them otherwise, meaning, that adverse sexual behaviors, anything-goes, promiscuity and so forth is what they need to observe, otherwise they're classified as homophobes or not in with the crowd, or as savage calls us "extremists", then it does hurt my family.

I've got no problem with, nor do I want to know about what people like dan do behind closed doors. But when it's brought out into the public and forced against the will of the people in states, the military (which will indirectly affect me), schools (which will most definitely directly affect my family) and our neighborhoods ("pride" parades, Folsom and leather fairs) and in marriage then I have to stand up with others, to say that's not what we want to see, because it does hurt us.
43
We need more judges that see discrimination for what it is, uphold the law and do not twist it to fit their own religious beliefs.

Thank you, Judge Sedwick for seeing inequality for what it is, using such spot-on rhetoric that should be used again and again and upholding liberty and justice for all.

How are we not all immune to Loveschild by now? I mean, seriously. Ignore her.

2. Fuck you, Jan Brewer
44
So, in turn, you hurt my family, loveschild. Do my children not deserve the protection of having married parents?

Weather or not you "approve" of my spouse being the same sex does not matter. I don't care if you refuse to acknowledge my family. Your attitude does doesn't matter.

We're talking about what is right UNDER THE LAW. And a law that favors certain families over other families is just plain wrong.
45
@39 I've got cero tolerance for child abusers. I've made that very clear in all my comments. But just in case you've not seen them, I believe that someone who abuses a child is completely against Christian doctrine, it's actually one of the few points that I agree with dan and I have no problem with, in fact I believe it should be demanded of the states instituting a cero tolerance and death penalty for a child rapist. A man who puts his hand in a violent manner and hurts a woman, is as much of a man as a male who lays who another male, and to me he should be dealt with accordingly in jail by the other inmates, do the math there. As for cheaters, you make my point, precisely, you'll never hear those of us who support the defense of marriage argue that marriage should be taken lightly, that's the opposite of what we're arguing. So you may not be hearing it because you're more focused on the Heterophobia that people like dan dish-up frequently to silence us but we're as opposed to and vocal against those things as we're to redefining marriage because in the end all of them are connected in one way or another.
46
@42

So if marriage is watered down to accommodate behaviors and an anything-goes-mentality, then future generations will see no benefit or show any interest in entering it, and family life will be interrupted.


So the fact that people want to enter the institution is proof that people will not want to enter the institution.

Got it, thanks.
47
@35: There's no "heterosexual gene" either, as far as we know. It's all about hormone levels. Differentiate between "innate" and "genetically-encoded", and maybe you'll be able to integrate some understanding of sexuality into your views.
Also, what fannerz at #41 said.

@42: Now you're just being a cuntwhorebitch. Allowing gays to get married will harm your children by going against what you're teaching them? I suppose that we Jews shouldn't be allowed to hold property, vote, or get married, since it will hurt the children of neo-Nazis who are being taught that Judaism is a disease.
Deal with it. You don't get to take rights away from others just so that your children can live in an uncomplicated world that validates your bizarre agenda.
48
@42 Loveschild: Thank you for answering the question. Unfortunately, you did just what I asked you not to do; you made it about the kids. So, from reading your comments, I gather that the only way that same-sex marriage affects your marriage is by indirectly affecting your kids? So, I guess by process of elimination, it doesn't actually affect you or your husband, or your marriage, but rather your children's perception of the world around them, which...what...stresses your marriage?

Your quote:
"The primary purpose of marriage is to provide a societal vehicle for family structure and life"

So, if I understand, *Christian* marriage is all about the kids, not about spending the rest of your life with the person you love? When I married my husband, it was because we loved each other, not because we were entering into some sort of contract that would benefit the kids we might someday have. To use your logic, people who are infertile shouldn't have kids? (Sure, they can adopt, but then so can gay guys, and I assume you differentiate between the superior "life" created in a marriage, versus the inferior "life" created elsewhere, possibly by a single mother?) What about heterosexual people who don't want kids? Are they also a threat to your children, because they might possibly then see marriage as something that is just a very cool thing between two people who love each other?

Your quote:
"We are rising them to have morals, to have a positive healthy outlook on adult life and to be productive members of society once they reach it. And they cannot achieve that unless they have a clear healthy understanding of marriage both in our house, neighborhood and the rest of our nation."

Thank you so much for writing this, as it gives me a very clear look at how a conservative person's mind works. You honestly believe that there is one right way to do things, and that you have that figured out? So, the only way for your children to become productive, well-adjusted members of society is for them to only ever be exposed to people who are exactly like you? (I hate to tell you, but the Nazis tried this a while back, and it didn't work out so well for them...)
It must be quite challenging for you to "rise" children in the US, then, with all that pesky "freedom of religion" stuff, I mean, you're probably forced on a regular basis to have to observe Jews, and Muslims, and even atheists. That must be hard on your kids, because you're trying to hard to "rise" them to believe that everyone should be Christian like you, and yet all those people seem to be happy, it must be hard to explain that to the little ones, I can see now why you experience so much stress.
To use your example, let's say I wanted to only expose my kids to people who were just like me (FABULOUS dresser and sex-positive volunteer condom distributor) and my husband (cowboy boot wearing scientist), it would be incredibly challenging, as there are just so many different types of people in our area, not to mention the country, and even just in our little neighbourhood. So, if this is your issue, that your marriage is stressed by anything that does not replicate the model that you and your husband have created, then I can certainly see why you are experiencing a problem, since it is such a big, beautiful *different* world. But, I just wish you would see that this is really YOUR problem, and your issue, and shouldn't be foisted upon others. You can't change the world, Loveschild, it is too big for that. It didn't work for the Nazis, it didn't work for the Fascists, it didn't even work on the Crusades. If you really wanted to prepare your children for society, Loveschild, you would help them to understand that just as Jesus dismissed the Old Testament in favour of a gospel of love and acceptance, your children really should do no less.
49
You are a greedy and selfish person, Loveschild. You are the empire Rome, you are Nero. Me, me, me is behind yout every argument. Your own convoluted logic betrays you. Your advocacy of prison rape as a tool of justice, shows us all how sick and black your heart is. Nice "morals" to pass on; greed, selfishness, self-absorption, violence, intollerance, bigotry, judgementalism, hypocrisy... Nice job "Christian". ^I'm sure you have inspired us all today.^

And, I know you don't care what I think. I didn't address you for your benefit. Of course, you remember that I don't give a lick about your opinion of me, either.
50
Sorry, Venomlash, I was thinking "Leviticus/cranky old testament prophets", not the religion in general...
51
@50: Well understood. But Christianity did move away from pretty much the entire Old Testament.
52


@48 Cannuck, in the way that our children are affected so are we. There have been many sad cases where conjugal life has been irreversibly damaged due to distortions promoted by the state. Unlike those that promote and want to force a redefinition of marriage against the will of the people, those of us defending it ( who are saying: you know, at least let the people decide if this is what they want to see happen), believe that marriage as it has been understood throughout Milena encompasses both the heads of the family - man and woman and their progeny. So it's not just about me and my husband but also about our kids. And in their resides the difference and the reason of why marriage is precisely tailored for a man and a woman who want to enter in such a union. People of the same gender, no matter how erroneously well intentioned are not only not equipped for progeny between eachother but their mindset when it comes to relationship is quite the opposite of those relationships that allow the existence of the family in the first place, one man and one woman.

Now, you said :

"It must be quite challenging for you to "rise" children in the US, then, with all that pesky "freedom of religion" stuff, I mean, you're probably forced on a regular basis to have to observe Jews, and Muslims, and even atheists."

I don't see how you can lump religions with a sexual behavior much less play the Nazi card. It diminishes what actual Holocaust survivors went thru, but if the same is done with the american Holocaust of Slavery then I guess some have no problem of doing the same with the Jewish. But read the last paragraph @42. I don't care what homosexuals do behind closed doors. The problem arises to use your own words, when their ideology is foisted upon my kids schools: my kids should have the certainty that they are going to their school to learn academic subjects not sexual positions about gay "love", my neighborhood, my streets: my family should have the peace of mind that we can walk our streets without having to worry about seeing to adult "men" in strap-ons or engage in sodomy in plain daylight in the middle of the street as in Folsom or some "pride" parades, the military, my loved one should have the peace of mind of not having to worry about someone from the same sex making unwanted sexual advances.

In life you only get what you do, and many of us wont stand idly while we see our family life dismantled just because others want to redefine what has been established since time immemorial. Those promoting this redefintion might not like the fact that this is a nation founded under Jewish and Christian principles, Judeo-Christian, but that's the nature of our nation, one that has allowed to correct past injustices like Slavery and Black Codes/Jim Crow and one that has served to preserve the family that has been the core of our greatness.
53
@49 I'm not the one solely thinking about pleasuring the flesh and condoning unhealthy behavior and misleading those who have yet not know our Saviour. The mirror Kim, the mirror.

54
For someone who supposedly knows Him so well, LC, you're being mighty judgmental. That's not what it's all about.

Maybe you should listen more and talk less.
55
"Anyone who would still insist that the intention of the founding fathers was to establish a Christian nation should review a document written during the administration of George Washington. Article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli declared in part that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." (Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States, ed. Hunter Miller, Vol. 2, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1931, p. 365). This document and the approval that it received from our nation's first and second presidents and the U. S. Senate as constituted in 1797 do very little to support the popular notion that the founding fathers established our country as a "Christian nation."

"Early in his first presidential term, Jefferson declared his firm belief in the separation of church and state in a letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Sorry, Loveschild, but this nation was founded to FREE people from the tyranny of religion, not to promote it. Try reading a book about the founding fathers, not just repeating what someone at your church says.

It's a free country, Loveschild, I can talk about Nazis without diminishing holocaust survivors. I was making a point that YOU trying to manufacture a world in which everyone is just as perfect and superior as yourself is exactly what the Nazis tried to do.

Once again, you equate marriage with the production of children. Perhaps in your archaic, biblically inspired life that is the only reason to marry, to carry on the "tradition of millenia" and pop out a few sprogs to maintain this direly under-populated planet, but THAT'S NOT WHY EVERYONE MARRIES. It is appalling that you think everyone should have exactly the same motivations that you do! YOU may believe marriage is only between a man and a woman for the sole purpose of producing young, but you commit a grave offense when you try to foist that mindset on others. If only men and women have married throughout history, that's partly because there aren't as many gay people as straight people, and partly because gay people have been persecuted, just as you mentioned, Jews and blacks have been. (Lucky you and your brethren realized the error of your ways there, huh?)
How can you possibly assert that a same-sex couple is not capable of raising a child? That their "mindset" prevents them from being able to have a child? (Actually, Loveschild, in the case of gay men, I'm pretty sure it's their lack of a uterus, but whatever.) As with straight people who are unable to have kids, two men or women can adopt a child and give it as much love and affection as you give your kids, Loveschild. You would know this if you had ever met any of them.

PS I'm pretty sure the "core of our greatness" as a country was our individuality and upholding of personal freedoms, which is something the founding fathers thought was pretty important. Too bad that line of reasoning kind of shoots your argument to hell.

56
Dearest Loveschild @ 53

Please consider educating yourself for your own benefit and for the benefit of the children you claim to be raising.

a) Your premise that the US was founded by a cohesive group wishing to create a "Christian nation" is incorrect. Try researching Article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli.

b) I suggest you educate yourself on the "Q". The "Q" predates the gospels and reveals them to have been written as part of a "school of thought" with the primary purpose of the its "members" agenda; to reaffirm the group's own perspective, and to rationalize reasons for their marginality. The premium reason for the gospels was the group's own existence.

c) Educate yourself on the evidence of interpolations in the the letters of Paul. Understand the letters of Paul are all copies, no originals, and none of them date earlier than 200 CE, nearly a century and a half after Paul's actual lived to write them. Become aware of the period of intense controversy within the church in which the Bible was canonized and that NUMEROUS variations exist among the surviving manuscripts: NO TWO of them read exactly the same. Educate yourself that evidence shows that: Hebrews, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus were NOT written by Paul and that it is very likely that Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians were not authored by Paul.

d) Educate yourself on church history. Learn that early church fathers, including Augustine, DID NOT teach that Jesus died for your sins and the sins of the world. You can thank Anslem Archbishop of Cantebury for the Theory of Substitution back in 1000s and the protestant reformers during the Reformation (1600s) for the Doctrine of Penal Substitution.

e) Educate yourself on the history of the church in premodern Christianized Europe and the undeniable proof, actual documents, of Catholic and Orthodox liturgies for same-sex unions.

f) Please educate yourself on differences amongst Bibles of different religious traditions within Christianity. Major differences exist between the Bibles of the following: Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox Christian, Oriental Orthodox Christian. Let us not forget that the Tanak cannot be confused with the Old Testaments of any of the above listed Christian traditions. It wouldn't hurt to remember that other religious groups i.e. Church of Latter Day Saints, etc. often have differing opinions.

I respectfully suggest that you educate yourself on all of the above, Google will be a life saver, before you start claiming you have the "truth" and proclaiming your tradition and it's interpretations are the "correct" ones. No-one has asked for you to evangelize them. In short, don't be a religious bully.

Have a nice weekend.

Kindest regards,
k
57
@42 - Roughly translated: "I hate gay people, and I don't want my kids to know they exist, because then my kids will definitely want to be gay."
58
Well done Canuck, Kim and SW. I like it that lc's argument is predicated on the belief that her own offspring are manipulable tools, stupid and suggestible enough to be affected by the private actions of other individuals.

Imagine the conversations 20 years hence!

lc offspring 1 (to potential heterosexual suitor):
"Oh, I'd love to marry you, spend the rest of my life with you, have children with you. You're a great person and would make a wonderful parent. But there's this problem - gay people in my state can get married too. I once saw some lesbians take their kids to a mall! So there's really no point in our getting married, is there? Or having children! It's a shame - I guess we'll both have to spend the rest of our lives single and childless."

lc offspring 2:
" I used to be straight. Then I saw a gay pride parade. So I immediately dumped my girlfriend and moved in with a man. I don't like him very much but it had to be done - my mom told me so. Then my partner showed me a picture of a strap-on. He says that means we'll have to get married now."
59
@19 Agreed. Napolitano was a like cork in the bottle, keeping the crazies from getting loose and destroying Arizona. Now with Jan Brewer, the spineless/brainless bitch with a pea-sized heart of coal, the crazies like moronic Mesa Mormon Russell Pearce are free to spread hate and lies as fast and as far as their fat bodies will allow. While I dearly miss Flagstaff and Tucson, I am ever so grateful to be far, far away from the nutcases who run Maricopa County as well as the state legislators who are housed there.
60
"the mirror Kim, the mirror"-that was awesome! I spilled my drink laughing so hard.
61
@52: "this is a nation founded under Jewish and Christian principles, Judeo-Christian, but that's the nature of our nation, one that has allowed to correct past injustices like Slavery and Black Codes/Jim Crow"
O RLY? As I recall from AP US History, Christianity was used to justify slavery, Southerners claiming that God wanted it to be that way, and that Christianizing the black Africans far outweighed the total destruction of their culture and the rending apart of their families.

@53: Actually, it seems like you are the one who focuses on that. You appear to have homosexuality on your mind way more than any straight person should. Might I suggest that you eat some pussy?
62
The sad thing is, Loveschild is probably pretty typical for her demographic: Basically ignorant, "rising" her kids to be ignorant, parrotting inaccuracies about Christianity and the "Founding Fathers" that she's had preached to her by other ignorant people....it would be funny if t weren't so sad. How sad that the basic rights of really great people are being denied by voters like Loveschild who clearly knows so very little about so much. Too bad she wasn't born in the dark ages, she would have been a lot less "stressed."
63
@61 Is that the cure? Maybe I should try it, might cut down on my obsession with Guys With iPhones... ;)
64
@53, 56 I would like to add, in addition to Kim's list of things that LC needs to be educated about: the history of marriage.

Marriage has not, for time immemorial, been defined as the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of creating progeny. The institution of marriage is and always has been fluid, or it would never have survived the millenia.

Marriage has historically often defined as the union between one man and several women. In Southern India, marriage has been defined as a union between one women and several men (a bride shared by brothers.) In ancient Rome, marriage between aristocratic men was recognized by law. In medieval Europe, when valuable property was at stake, marriage could be recognized as a union between two siblings. It has also been recognized as a union between two children (the property thing again), a union between the unborn (ditto), or limited to two people of the same social class. In modern revolutionary Iran, two young people can ask for a temporary marriage (and yes, it is religiously sanctioned as a marriage) so that they can be in each other's company or have sex. In China, women used to be married off to deceased men in order to seal a bond between two families.

Even when marriage has been defined as a union between a living, adult, unrelated man and woman, it wasn't always for the purpose that you assume, LC. In the early years of Western civilization, men and women married mostly for the purpose of physical safety. Family didn't just provide companionship and procreation, it provided food, housing, education, religious guidance, medical care and a means of defense. From families grew tribes, from tribes grew empires.

But let's examine marriage under Christianity, since you're a good Christian, LC. The New Testament destroyed the idea of tribalism, because if we're all brothers and sisters under Christ, then actual blood relations became invalidated. And if you deconstruct the entire social structure of human families what do you replace it with? Why, the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, of course. And to do so you must "renounce marriage and imitate the angels," according to John of Damascus. And you imitate the angels by renouncing all flesh and blood ties, including those to spouses and children. Early Christians weren't interested in making Christians in the biological sense, they were interested in converting Christians. Marriage = sex = sin = impurity. For the first thousand or so years, the Church regarded monogamous marriage as only very marginally less wicked than flat-out whoring.

Marriage became a civil convention in early European history because at that point it had evolved into a highly effective form of wealth management and social order. Marriages during the Middle Ages were more often than not openly opportunistic - when the Black Death swept across Europe, huge avenues opened for social advancement with the vast amount of widows and widowers newly available. The lack of sentimentality regarding marriage still exists today in Western society - the State is mostly concerned about marriage where it regards your money, property, and offspring. Yes, your priest may have different ideas, but the only one of us that have tried to argue that what your priest thinks should affect what the State decides has been you, LC.

There's more. There's a lot more about the history of marriage that I doubt you've ever considered, or ever will, Loveschild. But your very narrow definition of what marriage is and what purpose it serves isn't supported by the argument that marriage has been defined one way for time immemorial. Read "Committed" by Elizabeth Gilbert, if you want to get a better idea of what marriage actually represents in society today. And just so you know, gay marriage is inevitable. 1 of every 2 couples in America gets divorced - which I would venture to say causes a considerable amount of damage to the institution of marriage. Gay marriage is the only thing that's going to save the institution of marriage. More committed couples entering into stable relationships, paying taxes together, building homes together, and raising children together, is the only thing that's going to add to the tally of familial and social stability versus the massive instability that divorce creates.

So object to it all you want, but you better get used to it. Just because you don't like it and "the people" don't want it doesn't mean that the State has any right to make it illegal. "The people" didn't want inter-racial marriage either. When Loving v. Virginia was passed unanimously by the Supreme Court, 70% of the American public was opposed to the ruling. I don't think "the people" even have numbers that good opposing gay marriage now. Too bad, so sad. Suck it up.
65
Wow. I guess people had a lot more troll food stored up than I realized.

Still, as somebody pointed out awhile back, it's good to have a sparring partner on whom to practice & hone our arguments, so that we'll be better prepared when we have to talk to real people.
66
@65,
No kidding! I think it's because Lovechild hasn't been around for awhile and everyone was "missing her" (so to speak). I haven't seen such detailed comebacks against her ignorance in a long time. Funny!
67
I think religous conservatives are harming the institution of marriage.
68
Adding to Delishus...marriage is about property. It always has been, and always will be, a mechanism for the orderly transfer of property or influence between individuals and/or existing families. Full stop.

All of those stories about the daughter being promised at a young age to marry the son of somebody influential? Property. Every young man in possession of a good fortune must be wanting a wife? Property, and specifically finding a man with real and liquid property to secure a safe financial future for a daughter--most of Jane Austen's books reflect this in some form or another. Protecting one's own wealth, power, influence, and safety by marrying one's daughter to the leader of an invading force? Property again, and that's the very famous legend of Johdaa of Rajastan, married to the mughal emperor Akbar at the behest of her father, as the guarantee of a peace treaty between the Mughals and the Rajastanis. On a modern scale, getting married so one partner will have health insurance benefits--property, both in insurance against potential loss if one partner has a catastrophic illness, and in likely lower up-front costs to a couple.

State-sanctioned orderly transfer of property. THAT is marriage. Not some fluffybunny vision of eternal love.

So what same-sex couples are arguing for is the SAME state-sanctioned protections as opposite couples enjoy...survivorship benefits, power of attorney (a tool for discharging the right to property), financial benefits e.g. healthcare and tax credits...and yes, to set up a financial structure that spreads the costs of childrearing.
69
@65, 66 You're right, we were missing LC's incoherencies. And since she was so kind as to grace us with her long, drawn out replies, we could only do the same.

Nothing pisses me off more when a Christian fundie claims "This is how marriage is and how it always has been," since Christianity condemned marriage for its first thousand years, then acted as if it were their idea in the first place in order to control the institution after people kept on getting married without their permission. I think the factual fallacies of LC's arguments that Kim, Canuck, Slinky, and I have elaborated on are useful for all of us to know. To hone our arguments, like Spokane said. We'll be having a lot of them, given all of the court cases that have been or will be coming up ruling on gay marriage.
70
We'd have a much easier job of it, Delishuss, if the fundies responded to and were influenced by logic.
71
About the "decline" of marriage, pertaining specifically to divorces, connect the dots. When women are allowed the right to keep their own property, the divorce rate skyrockets.

Case in point: this article from the Mail and Guardian (South Africa).

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-05-29-r…

In other words, once women are economically independent, they don't stay in partnerships which aren't suitable. Possibly her partner is "bad" as in drunk, abusive, womanizing, in jail, spendthrift, etc, or it could just be that the two people aren't compatible when it comes to living together and are better off apart. (I've met a few of those.) Since she is allowed to own her own property, divorce isn't the devastating financial blow it would otherwise be. Social stigma aside, divorce can be the means to a happier, more stable life. Hopefully it will keep women my age and younger from ever being like some of the elderly ladies I've met who to a woman agree that the best day of their lives was the day their husbands died!!!

In terms of getting married in the first place, since women aren't relying on marriage for a stable financial future, the average age of first marriage in the US is increasing (especially among women with college degrees) AND the number of women who are getting married is falling (especially in lower income women). If there is no economic benefit to joining in marriage, no reason to be together, and serious detriment, it's only to be expected that people won't get married. If you'd like a more thorough exploration of that topic, read this:

www.iwpr.org/pdf/d450.pdf

It's only logical that a large change in who in society can control property (women) will have a large change in a social institution that is all about property (marriage).

Changing the rules so that women are no longer able to own and care for their own property isn't going to work...not only would that be closing the barn door after the horse is in the next county and politically impossible, it's not actually solving the actual problems, which are that marriages don't always work AND that marriage isn't a panacea for all social problems.
72
And because I forgot to add it to the above comment, there is no logical or evidential connection between the sexual partner preferences of a group of people who have determined marriage to be to their social and economic benefit (same-sex couples) and the determination by another group of people of whether or not the social and economic benefits of marriage are either (a) worth getting married in the first place or (b) staying in an existing marriage, other than an assumption of sexual compatibility between partners that doesn't generally affect the groups as a whole.
73
Canuck - some of them do. Probably not on Slog, but you know, in real life.

Slinky - another reason the divorce rate sky rocketed is when we switched from the societal purpose of marriage for economic reasons to marriage for love. It's just as easy to fall out of love with someone as it is to fall in.
74
Er, our 'hateful, ugly state' did not vote for Jan Brewer. Jan Brewer was foisted off onto us by President Obama. We voted for Janet Napolitano (D, possible lesbian). Oh, and most of our hateful, bigoted voters aren't from here, either. They're elderly, white people who immigrated from the Midwest and Northeast. Those who can't afford Florida move to Arizona. I know, I know the low voter turnout (for everyone non-elderly white) during the last couple of elections have allowed the right-wing nutbags far too much power....but I assure you we've learned our lesson. Next time around the state will not be red. It probably won't be blue, more likely purple, but it won't be solid red anymore.
75
70/Canuck: We'd have a much easier job of it, Delishuss, if the fundies responded to and were influenced by logic.

73/Delishuss: Canuck - some of them do. Probably not on Slog, but you know, in real life.

I'm sure fundamentalists are quite capable of, and use, logic and reason in aspects of their lives, but when it comes to things like morality, they inevitably rely on belief and words in their "holy" books. Or prejudice and fear.

Delishuss, excellent post @ 64.
76
P.S. For those of you boycotting the state of Arizona: remember that the city councils of Flagstaff and Tucson are suing the state over SB 1070. Please feel free to visit them and give them your tourist money.

Loveschild: Show me how the number of unwanted children in gay relationships exceeds per capita the number in hetero relationships, and maybe I'll concede the point about gay relationships being bad for children.

Kim: Loveschild made me so mad I was sputtering. You made my point for me. Marry me. :)
77
56
It's "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints".
78
55

"this nation was founded to FREE people from the tyranny of religion"?

Not really.
Not at all, actually.

Freedom of Religion as established by the founders is designed to free people from the government meddling in their religion.
To free people to practice their religion as they see fit.

When Secular Humanist seek to force their religious definition of marriage on everyone else and change the laws of the country to enshrine their definition of marriage everyone else's freedom of religion is infringed upon.
When Dan insists that religions must abandon the belief that homosexual behavior is a sin freedom of religion is in great jeapordy.

The founders recognized that government had no role to play in the endless squabbles over whose imaginary god was the true god or if there is a god.
Government shouldn't care or interfere if you want to worship a man in the clouds or your own conceits.

The secular humanists who want to prove that they are right and everyone else is wrong are no different than the papist burning heretics in the inquistions. Both are sure they are right. Both want to force society to embrace their beliefs. Both use government to accomplish their objectives.

If "this nation was founded to FREE people from the tyranny of religion" then the founders would have outlawed religion. That would have been simple enough..... They didn't.

Instead, as Jefferson noted in the quotation you listed, government should `make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof'.
The "wall" protects religion and religious believers from the government.

Secular HomoHumanists want to tear down the wall and then tear down religion. Other people's religion.

Don't believe in religion?
Don't belong to one.
But don't dictate, as Dan and Slog attempt to, what other people can believe.

Attempting to use government to dictate what people may believe is a step back to the Dark Ages.
79
HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS!!!
80
@78: What kind of idiot are you? We're not trying to change how religions define marriage, and we're certainly not trying to tell religions what they are or are not free to believe.
We're just saying that they are not permitted to foist their RELIGIOUS ideals onto the POLITICAL workings of the USA. Separation of church and state, Alleged.
But I am rather inclined to listen to your comment at #79.
81
80

You haven't been keeping up, Jr.
Dan insists that Christians quit believing homosexual behavior is immoral.
Even if they keep those thoughts and beliefs to themselves.
Even if those beliefs never influence their action or affect any homosexual.
Dan wants to reach into their hearts and brains and scrub away any beliefs he doesn't agree with.
In the Qunited States of Gaymerica Freedom of Religion means freedom to believe what Dan will allow you to believe.

For the entire history of this country marriage has been between man and woman.
That was the law for a nation of Catholics and Hindus and Baptists and Atheists and Muslims.
Now the Secular HomoLiberal Humanists come along and tell everyone that their religions are wrong and they have been misreading the Bible and the Law must be changed to reflect their Secular HomoLiberal Humanist beliefs about marriage.

Luckily, Jefferson's Wall protects the rest of America from the Secular HomoLiberal Humanist Tyrants.
And the people see through the lies and sophistry as well.
In 31 states, EVERY STATE THAT GOT A CHANCE TO VOTE, homosexual marriage has been outlawed.

It is you that wants to change law that has existed for over two centuries, change it to conform to your religious beliefs about marriage.
Keep your beliefs on your side of the wall and out of our laws.
82
HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS!!!
83
@81:
How exactly is marriage, which is administered and regulated by the states, supposed to be in any way subject to the religious beliefs of people? Like it or not, Alleged, we have separation of church and state here.
And the government does not exist to impose the whims of the majority on the minority. Civil rights are not put to a vote, you dumb cockmongler. If we had left it up to a plebiscite, interracial marriage would still be illegal in the South. Any argument against gay marriage that you have made so far is just another variation on the arguments against interracial marriage.
Keep your festering Church out of our State.
84
"For the entire history of this country marriage has been between man and woman."

...and for much of the history of the United States, people could own slaves, blacks weren't "people," and women couldn't vote. They justified these things by believing that God was directing them to do so. At some point, people will realize that no one is harmed or threatened by another person's marriage, and like slavery, marriage inequality will be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Actually, I couldn't care less what people who go to church, or bend down to the east every day believe, what I care about is having that person tell me that their personal deity forbids the guy living next door to me to marry his boyfriend. The tyranny of religion is living in a country where the religious beliefs of a group of people affect what another group of people is able to do. It means having bible-thumpers tell Jane and Molly that they can't get married because the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whoever, "told" them it was a sin 3,000 years ago. It means having someone who sees the wild inaccuracies of the bible as fact, and uses that to claim that Joe and Mike can't adopt a kid (even though that same religious wing-nut has no problem bellying up to the "all you can eat" popcorn shrimp festival at Red Lobster--I guess all abominations aren't created equal?)

You are appalling, unregistered. Suck it.

85
@53: "I'm not the one solely thinking about pleasuring the flesh and condoning unhealthy behavior and misleading those who have yet not know our Saviour."

First, Loveschild, if you'd actually listen to others and not be so selfishly intent on imposing your beliefs on others, you'd realize that the marriage arguments are not about "pleasuring the flesh and condoning unhealthy behavior". They're about people who love each other wanting to share their lives.

Second, thank you for confirming that your argument is religiously-based. Thanks to the Constitution you religion--or anyone else's--has no special right to define my marriage--or anyone else's.

I know I'm late to the party, but just wanted to add that.
86
There's no codification of the definition of marriage in the Constitution, Unregistered. When they wrote the Declaration of Independence, they left the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be deliberately ambiguous, you know, because they were smart enough to realize that the country was bound to evolve, and their situation wasn't static.

As I spent a lot of space pointing out, marriage as an institution is fluid and changeable. If everyone in this country all of a sudden decided marriage was as rigid as you've defined it, the institution would fall apart within a few decades.

But the really great thing about marriage is that your point of view is completely irrelevant. People will always couple, make families, and create stable lives together, regardless of whether the state or religion sanctions it or not. Just about every dictatorial government or religion in history has tried to ban marriage in an effort to control the populace, then realized that they were being ignored and people were still coupling up regardless, so then co-opted the institution in order to try and regulate it.

More and more people in America no longer view homosexual marriage as aberrant or detrimental to anything anywhere. And eventually, the state is going to realize that they stand to gain more by allowing gay couples to create familial stability than they stand to lose by upsetting the fundies. And that will be the end of the ball game for all of you whiners, buddy. But don't worry, once gay marriage is legal, eventually you're going to look back and think, "What is it I was so worked up about, anyway?"
87
Looks like loveschild started another flame war. Damn he's a good troll...
88
The sooner we return Arizona to Mexico in return for Baja California, the better.
89
@52 "...marriage as it has been understood throughout Milena encompasses both the heads of the family - man and woman..."

Bwa-hahaha-haha! Um, yeah. You do realize that married women have, until recently, had about as many legal rights as cattle? Have not been allowed to own property in their own right, make important decisions without their husbands' consent or even object to marital rape?

Yet here you are, as a "head of the family", you brazen redefiner-of-marriage, you.
90
And Loveschild *still* hasn't explained how same-sex marriage directly would affect her marriage - how allowing Adam & Steve to get married would cause her marriage to fall apart. She's only argued that it could impact her children's view of marriage and cause them to devalue the institution of marriage in general, all the while ignoring the out-of-wedlock birthrate in certain (ahem!) communities.
91
Yeah, that's what bothers me about it too, @90. They go on and on about how same-sex marriage denigrates hetero marriages, and yet they can't come up with ONE example, other than, as you say, the indirect relationship to what their children *might* perceive. Ugh.