It's a pandemic of fabulosity!

I'm sick of all these states I can't go to because they'll dissolve my straight marriage and force me into a gay marriage.

Huh. I was just in Augusta, Maine.

I left Augusta Thursday morning.

The Senate passed the bill on Thursday.

Coincidence?

So, have any extremist religious conservatives started lamenting the possibility that they've already been Left Behind?

/yay for Maine!

You're right to stay away, Hagbardr. I went to Iowa and now I'm married to a wombat.

Pocket Ninja: Huh. I was just in Augusta, Maine.

I left Augusta Thursday morning.

The Senate passed the bill on Thursday.

Coincidence?


Patient Zero! Patient Zero!

Gay marriage is more contagious than swine flu? Whodathunkit?

FTFA: Some economists say carving out an economic niche for gay and lesbian weddings -- and the spending that comes with them -- makes sense

This is my favorite argument for same-sex marriage & sends the WHARGARRBLers' minds spinning. They have no come-back for it. "What, are you opposed to florists, jewelers, and limo companies making a few extra bucks?"

Try it some time. It's fun!

I destroyed the sanctity of my first marriage just fine without one sidewards glance at a person of my gender.

Good, and fark the states that don't.

Pocket Ninja: I was just in Augusta, Maine.

That is easily my least favorite city in Maine. I always get the feeling it was designed and built crappily on purpose.

What is wrong with you Rhode Island???

I always thought it would be Connecticut that we kicked out of New England first, but if you don't start moving toward our rainbow flag of awesome, we're sending you to play with the Mid Atlantic states, and Delaware never follows the rules.

Stays Crunchy in Milk: Good, and fark the states that don't.

Pocket Ninja: I was just in Augusta, Maine.

That is easily my least favorite city in Maine. I always get the feeling it was designed and built crappily on purpose.

It IS the capital after all...

And good on my former state. 'Bout damn time.

NJ better get off its ass and pass this legislation soon. You do not want to be the last state listed when the history books are written.

JerseyTim: NJ better get off its ass and pass this legislation soon. You do not want to be the last state listed when the history books are written.

Pff... That'll be Mississippi. Last in desegregation, last in equality in marriage.

JerseyTim: NJ better get off its ass and pass this legislation soon. You do not want to be the last state listed when the history books are written.

According to 538.com, New Jersey is slated for next year.

Silver thinks the last holdout will be Mississippi.

Oh California
The devil fools with the best laid plan.
Swing low California
You got spare change
You got to feel strange
And now the moment is all that it meant.

California, you got the weight on your shoulders
Thats breaking your back.
Your Cadillac has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track

This Canuck yawns.

what_now: JerseyTim: NJ better get off its ass and pass this legislation soon. You do not want to be the last state listed when the history books are written.

According to 538.com, New Jersey is slated for next year.

Silver thinks the last holdout will be Mississippi.

It will likely happen even quicker if the DMA is overturned. It is amusing though to watch the throw back here in Georgia shake in impotent rage as the inevitability bears down on them.

It's only a matter of time before the SCOTUS decides whether or not sexual orientation will constitute a protected class.

Can we all put SkinnyHead on ignore before he enters this thread so that we don't have to do the usual endless argument with the idiot with the "GED in Law"?

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Gay marriage is more contagious than swine flu? Whodathunkit?

I picked up a real bad case of teh ghey from a handshake. It was two weeks before I could get back to mismatched shirts and pants. If we let them marry, we're all gonna die.



Fun way to pass the time: Are images like this one Photoshopped, or did someone just press the retard button?

By sepuku2, shot with DSC-W80 at 2009-05-01

Stay Cool Babylon: TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Gay marriage is more contagious than swine flu? Whodathunkit?

I picked up a real bad case of teh ghey from a handshake. It was two weeks before I could get back to mismatched shirts and pants. If we let them marry, we're all gonna die.



Fun way to pass the time: Are images like this one Photoshopped, or did someone just press the retard button?

You really don't know about the Westboro Baptist Church? I'd link you to their website, but the link is NSFW.

KaponoFor3: It's only a matter of time before the SCOTUS decides whether or not sexual orientation will constitute a protected class.

It's an immutable characteristic. Hell, even gender's more voluntarily mutable than sexual orientation.

brigid_fitch: FTFA: Some economists say carving out an economic niche for gay and lesbian weddings -- and the spending that comes with them -- makes sense

This is my favorite argument for same-sex marriage & sends the WHARGARRBLers' minds spinning. They have no come-back for it. "What, are you opposed to florists, jewelers, and limo companies making a few extra bucks?"

Try it some time. It's fun!

god's law is more important than economic worries!!!

/shooting a gay 'commitment ceremony' next month, and damn glad to be getting the income

Cue the "Why can't teh homos just be happy with civil unions?... it's exactly the same thing, only different" crowd.

Occam's Chainsaw: KaponoFor3: It's only a matter of time before the SCOTUS decides whether or not sexual orientation will constitute a protected class.

It's an immutable characteristic. Hell, even gender's more voluntarily mutable than sexual orientation.

Plus, they have a lack of political power, have experienced a history of invidious discrimination, and being gay has no relationship to your ability to contribute to society. Heightened scrutiny at a minimum.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Cue the "Why can't teh homos just be happy with civil unions?... it's exactly the same thing, only different" crowd.

And don't forget the "government should just get out of marriage altogether" crowd.

Occam's Chainsaw: It's an immutable characteristic. Hell, even gender's more voluntarily mutable than sexual orientation

Let me preface this by saying that I am pro-gay marriage.

That being said, trying to prove it is an immutable characteristic would be tough, I think. One problem is that someone can just say they are gay and there is no real way to "test" for it, you know? There seems to be plenty of evidence saying that there is clearly a genetic component, but it doesn't seem like it is a slam-dunk case with the science. Haven't there been some studies of identical twins raised in different environments that result in one twin being gay, and one being straight? That would certainly suggest (if my memory is right and the study exists) that there is also an environmental aspect to it as well, which would fly in the face of any argument that it is an immutable characteristic.

Just thinking out loud.

Theaetetus: And don't forget the "government should just get out of marriage altogether" crowd.

Hey, there's nothing wrong or discriminatory with having that position.

KaponoFor3: That would certainly suggest (if my memory is right and the study exists) that there is also an environmental aspect to it as well, which would fly in the face of any argument that it is an immutable characteristic.

Nope. Immutable need not be read as "impossible to change". From the Iowa decision:
"Importantly, this background reveals courts need not definitively resolve the nature-versus-nurture debate currently raging over the origin of sexual orientation in order to decide plaintiffs' equal protection claims. The constitutional relevance of the immutability factor is not reserved to those instances in which the trait defining the burdened class is absolutely impossible to change... That is, we agree with those courts that have held the immutability "prong of the suspectness inquiry surely is satisfied when . . . the identifying trait is 'so central to a person's identity that it would be abhorrent for government to penalize a person for refusing to change [it].' " Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at 438 (quoting Watkins v. U.S. Army, 875 F.2d 699, 726 (9th Cir. 1989) (Norris, J., concurring in the judgment)); see also In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 442 ("Because a person's sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one's identity, it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment.")"

Hence, sexual orientation is surely immutable enough for equal protection analysis.

KaponoFor3: One problem is that someone can just say they are gay and there is no real way to "test" for it, you know?

Yeah, for some reason the GOP keeps blocking funding to develop one. I wonder why?

KaponoFor3: Theaetetus: And don't forget the "government should just get out of marriage altogether" crowd.

Hey, there's nothing wrong or discriminatory with having that position.

Nothing discriminatory, but definitely something wrong. It'd be a violation of substantive due process to strip away the right to marriage from all people.

KaponoFor3: Haven't there been some studies of identical twins raised in different environments that result in one twin being gay, and one being straight? That would certainly suggest (if my memory is right and the study exists) that there is also an environmental aspect to it as well, which would fly in the face of any argument that it is an immutable characteristic.

There are also studies where both twins are raised in the same environment and one winds up gay, the other straight. There are clear indicators that there is some sort of innate component. There's already legislation on the books that prevents employers and insurers from discriminating against you based upon your genetic information. See where I'm going with this?

They're already a protected class in a lot of jurisdictions. It can't be very far off at a federal level.

what_now: You really don't know about the Westboro Baptist Church? I'd link you to their website, but the link is NSFW.

Yeah, I'm aware of those idiots. I just entered "stupid gay marriage protest sign" and got a whole slew. Some are clearly fake, for humor, and others are just disturbingly real.

EvilEgg: Yeah, for some reason the GOP keeps blocking funding to develop one. I wonder why?

Shiat you got me, you think they'd be in favor of it because it would allow them to identify people with the gay gene and get them into "therapy" earlier.

Theaetetus: Nope. Immutable need not be read as "impossible to change". From the Iowa decision... Hence, sexual orientation is surely immutable enough for equal protection analysis.

I appreciate the cite, but the Iowa Supreme Court's decision won't necessarily be binding on the SCOTUS. You are making me break out my ConLaw textbook, one sec... OK quick review of that is not finding any cites that define "immutable characteristic" for purposes of SCOTUS analysis. I think whether or not sexual orientation is raised to a protected class status and subject to strict scrutiny review -- or even intermediate scrutiny like gender -- will turn on whether or not it is considered an immutable characteristic.

Nothing discriminatory, but definitely something wrong. It'd be a violation of substantive due process to strip away the right to marriage from all people.

This one is new, haven't heard that one before. How do you figure?

KaponoFor3: That would certainly suggest (if my memory is right and the study exists) that there is also an environmental aspect to it as well, which would fly in the face of any argument that it is an immutable characteristic.

If you ever meet one of those it's a choice people, ask them if there is anyway they could be talked into being gay. It's a fun way to pass the time.

Occam's Chainsaw: They're already a protected class in a lot of jurisdictions. It can't be very far off at a federal level.

I'm not disagreeing with that -- did you get the impression that I was?

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Cue the "Why can't teh homos just be happy with civil unions?... it's exactly the same thing, only different" crowd.

Who would be taken substantially more seriously if they hadn't been vocally in favor of denying any recognition whatsoever for those evil gheys until it became clear that full-blown same sex marriage is likely to be reality in a rapidly increasing number of states. Even better if, even further in the past, they hadn't been vocally in favor of keeping sodomy illegal.

You farks had your chance of compromise at the civil union level, round about 2002, and rejected it. So up yours.

KaponoFor3: One problem is that someone can just say they are gay and there is no real way to "test" for it, you know?

It's not like you get a bunch of cool shiat when you sign up for being gay.

KaponoFor3: I appreciate the cite, but the Iowa Supreme Court's decision won't necessarily be binding on the SCOTUS.

Hell, even SCOTUS precedent isn't binding on SCOTUS.

I think whether or not sexual orientation is raised to a protected class status and subject to strict scrutiny review -- or even intermediate scrutiny like gender -- will turn on whether or not it is considered an immutable characteristic.

Gender is not impossible to change. Sexual orientation satisfies all of the other factors for strict scrutiny, so going to intermediate scrutiny at the minimum is a no-brainer.

Nothing discriminatory, but definitely something wrong. It'd be a violation of substantive due process to strip away the right to marriage from all people.

This one is new, haven't heard that one before. How do you figure?

The government has given substantial benefits to married couples through hundreds of different statutes. As a general benefit program, married couples have a property interest in those benefits. Stripping the benefits away without due process of law would be a violation of the 5th Amendment.

All the work, campaigning & lobbying & the only 3 states they can get to accept same sex marriage are VT, IA & ME. Keep pushing. Eventually you'll be allowed to marry someplace worth living

KaponoFor3: I'm not disagreeing with that -- did you get the impression that I was?

Nooooo...

/You gettin' ready for the next knock-down argument or somethin?
//Only read about half of the "Christians Love Dem Some Torture" thread before I was compelled to go slam my head in a door.

Theaetetus: The government has given substantial benefits to married couples through hundreds of different statutes. As a general benefit program, married couples have a property interest in those benefits. Stripping the benefits away without due process of law would be a violation of the 5th Amendment.

Under how I imagine it would be done, none of those benefits would be stripped away -- they would be given to all individuals who chose to enter into a "civil union" with any other individual. If the benefits are just renamed but not taken away, there's really no due process implications.

Occam's Chainsaw: /You gettin' ready for the next knock-down argument or somethin?

No, not at all. I just get tired of people building strawmen of my position and then arguing with that rather than my actual position.

BobtheFascist: All the work, campaigning & lobbying & the only 3 states they can get to accept same sex marriage are VT, IA & ME. Keep pushing. Eventually you'll be allowed to marry someplace worth living

And Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Washington, Washington D.C., California...

The 14th Amendment will, eventually, cover everybody.

Theaetetus: California

A bit presumptuous on that one, no?

I'm going to get rich by starting up a chain of quick wedding chapels in public park and rest stop men's room stalls.
They can have their honeymoon in the next stall.

KaponoFor3: A bit presumptuous on that one, no?

In 2000, gay marriage lost 61-39. In 2008, it lost 52-48, and there's every sign the momentum is continuing. At this rate, it should be supported by the majority by 2011.