Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people'

[Aldebaran]

That has been my assessment as well. Unfortunately some keep trying to come up with one. The "But they can't have kids" and "they spread disease" ones seem popular right now.

Is that a bad argument? Do you like spreading disease? Those in government are always trying to justify their positions using health and safety. Why should that justification not apply here, especially when they involve adopted children or children from a previous marriage?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Is that a bad argument? Do you like spreading disease? Those in government are always trying to justify their positions using health and safety. Why should that justification not apply here, especially when they involve adopted children or children from a previous marriage?

The problem with those arguments, as well as the whole "anal sex is wrong" argument is that heterosexual couples fit the category as well.

So they're not valid arguments against SSM, because if you're going to say that those arguments make SSM unrealistic or wrong, then the marriages where those things happen are also unrealistic and wrong, and the government shouldn't be recognizing those, either, and like Keith mentioned, if someone says my parents' marriage isn't valid because they can't have kids, them's fightin words.

 

[South Bound]

Thoughts?

It sounds like the typical liberal response of just sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" anytime someone suggests there might be another point of view.

 

[Queller]

It sounds like the typical liberal response of just sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" anytime someone suggests there might be another point of view.

Oh liberals hear arguments against SSM all the time. The problem (for those who oppose SSM) is that those arguments are neither constitutionally sound nor legally sufficient to bar same-sex couples from getting married.

 

[Freodin]

It sounds like the typical liberal response of just sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" anytime someone suggests there might be another point of view.

Yep, definitly. Because directly responding to an argument and pointing out that it doesn't make sense is so not recognizing different viewpoints.

Sheesh.

 

[theophilus777]

Something we already knew. There is not a single rational or legal argument against same-sex marriage. Those who oppose it are always ignorant and base their opposition solely on religious conservatism or "it's icky".

Please define this "ickiness." Is it synonymous with the Bible saying "abomination?" I ask because I have seen that alleged; it doesn't seem to be the case to me.

How many federal judges have opposed it? He'd have to be pretty weak in his legal analysis to do so, seeing as it's a nearly unanimous legal opinion that it can't be banned. Even conservative, Republican appointed judges have sided with the Pro-SSM crowd.

That's an obvious sign you're wrong.

That's an obvious sign of groupthink, nothing more. Personally, I do not consider that a virtue.

 

[AirPo]

It sounds like the typical liberal response of just sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" anytime someone suggests there might be another point of view.

It sounds like the typical conservative response of just sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" anytime someone suggests there might be another point of view.

 

[South Bound]

Yep, definitly. Because directly responding to an argument...

Stop right there. He didn't respond to the argument. He didn't address any of the points of the argument. He just dismissed it like a good little intellectually lazy liberal.

Oh liberals hear arguments against SSM all the time. The problem (for those who oppose SSM) is that those arguments are neither constitutionally sound nor legally sufficient to bar same-sex couples from getting married.

The problem is that he didn't say, "I will not hear the argument because it does not have legal merit". He just dismissed the argument as "disingenuous" and then made an ad hom attack against the plaintiffs.

 

[AirPo]

Stop right there. He didn't respond to the argument. He didn't address any of the points of the argument. He just dismissed it like a good little intellectually lazy liberal.



The problem is that he didn't say, "I will not hear the argument because it does not have legal merit". He just dismissed the argument as "disingenuous" and then made an ad hom attack against the plaintiffs.

I guess you missed the part where the judge said

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have.

or maybe you had your finger in your ears.

 

[Freodin]

Stop right there. He didn't respond to the argument. He didn't address any of the points of the argument. He just dismissed it like a good little intellectually lazy liberal.



The problem is that he didn't say, "I will not hear the argument because it does not have legal merit". He just dismissed the argument as "disingenuous" and then made an ad hom attack against the plaintiffs.

"...the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses."

 

[Queller]

Please define this "ickiness." Is it synonymous with the Bible saying "abomination?" I ask because I have seen that alleged; it doesn't seem to be the case to me.

You do realize that Marius27 stated TWO reason for opposition to SSM marriage right? The "the Bible says it's an abomination" argument falls under the "religious conservatism" argument not the "it's icky" argument.

That's an obvious sign of groupthink, nothing more. Personally, I do not consider that a virtue.

It could also be an obvious sign of a clear constitutional problem with the arguments against SSM.

Or do you think that the recent abortion clinic buffer zone decision by the Supreme Court was also a case of groupthink?

 

[Queller]

The problem is that he didn't say, "I will not hear the argument because it does not have legal merit". He just dismissed the argument as "disingenuous" and then made an ad hom attack against the plaintiffs.

What? Even the decision acknowledges that he heard the defendants' arguments. He also discuss the legal reasoning WHY the arguments are disingenuous.

"Before reaching the constitutional issues , the Court must address Defendant’s preliminary argument that Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), bars Plaintiffs’ challenge to the Commonwealth’s ban on same-sex marriage."

The judge spent a couple of pages discussing the argument and why it failed. Hard to do if he hadn't heard the argument.

Also, he acknowledges another argument

"The Court will begin with Defendant’s only asserted justification for Kentucky’s laws prohibiting same - sex marriage: “encouraging, promoting, and supporting the formation of relationships that have the natural ability to procreate .” Perhaps recognizing that procreation - based argument s have not succeed ed in this Court, see Bourke , 2014 WL 556729, at *8 , nor any other court post - Windsor , Defendant adds a disingenuous twist to the argument: traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate which, in turn, ensures the state’s long - term economic stability."

Again, it's hard to discuss the argument and rule on it if he hasn't heard the argument.

 

[Belk]

Is that a bad argument? Do you like spreading disease?Those in government are always trying to justify their positions using health and safety. Why should that justification not apply here, especially when they involve adopted children or children from a previous marriage?

Can you explain to me how stopping someone from getting married keeps disease from spreading?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Can you explain to me how stopping someone from getting married keeps disease from spreading?

Its worked so well in the past.

 

[DaisyDay]

Is that a bad argument? Do you like spreading disease? Those in government are always trying to justify their positions using health and safety. Why should that justification not apply here, especially when they involve adopted children or children from a previous marriage?

Yes, it's a very bad argument because marriage, even same sex marriage, presumes monogamy which doesn't spread disease. Using health and safety as justifications, the government should support ssm. Same sex marriages also provide a more stable environment for children compared to unmarried parents.

 

[theophilus777]

Yes, it's a very bad argument because marriage, even same sex marriage, presumes monogamy which doesn't spread disease. Using health and safety as justifications, the government should support ssm. Same sex marriages also provide a more stable environment for children compared to unmarried parents.

Do you really think you can support any of your claims? Marriage does not make a relationship more stable, nor more monogamous. And kids will be kids, regardless of who is raising them. They really aren't too concerned with if those folks happen to be married or not. By the time they even think to ask such questions, their formative years are past.

In the end, a couple will either remain together, or they won't. A piece of paper will not change that, either way. Having kids together sure changes things though! Something a same sex couple can never experience. Couples that go through the whole process of natural childbirth together have a new reason to stay together. No, it doesn't always work long-term, but there is a decided effect.

 

[elephunky]

Any arguement against gay marriage really needs to based on fact, research and evidence.

 

[Water Cross]

Maybe someone who is an attorney can explain the last part of this PDF document in the OP. Found on page 19 at the bottom:


IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT to the extent Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 402.005 and .020(1)(d) and Section 233A of the Kentucky Constitution deny same-sex couples the right to marry in Kentucky, they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and they are void and unenforceable.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for all the reasons set forth in this Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Orders in this case dated February 28, 2014 and March 19, 2014, the order here is STAYED until further order of the Sixth Circuit.

This is a final and appealable order.

Date: July 1, 2014





When it says the order here is STAYED until further order of the Sixth Circuit. And that this is a final and appealable order, does that mean that nothing actually changes in the Kentucky Constitution regarding gay marriage? When this order, that which this PDF document pertains to, is Stayed?

 

[theophilus777]

When it says the order here is STAYED until further order of the Sixth Circuit. And that this is a final and appealable order, does that mean that nothing actually changes in the Kentucky Constitution regarding gay marriage? When this order, that which this PDF document pertains to, is Stayed?

I'm not a lawyer and I don't even pretend to be one on the internet but if I have a go at this one what I come up with is - almost.

The legal change is made. It does not take effect yet.

This seems to be the precedent everywhere, with everyone waiting for SCOTUS to rule. (With the exception of a few clerks wanting to grant SSM licenses while they can, which will be interesting to see how that develops)

 

[Marius27]

It sounds like the typical liberal response of just sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" anytime someone suggests there might be another point of view.

Legally and rationally, there is no other view. Would you view someone as sane who suggests the Earth is flat should be an acceptable viewpoint?