In response to:

Nine Justices or Fifty States? Who Should Decide Gay Marriage?

Hugh Oxford Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 12:05 PM
Why does legal marriage between two men make any more sense than marriage between ten? If legal marriage is to be "gender blind", why shouldn't it be "number blind"? When legal marriage is divorced from physical, biological, anthropological marriage, what are its rational and binding principles?
du2 Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 1:18 PM
Because, there is a difference between marrying a single spouse who shares your same sexual orientation, as opposed to marrying redundantly. There is already proven negative precedents known about multiple spouses and their impact. There is no proven negative impact with marriage between gay couples any different than op sex couples. Basing your question in hypothetical and conjecture, as if the result is an unknown, makes your question rhetorical with no basis in facts or evidence. The courts don't work that way.
No polygamist EVER had to wait for gay people marrying to make their stand and haven't. Polygamists lose because that is a lifestyle choice, not an immutable attribute.
wiseone Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 2:03 PM
"There is no proven negative impact with marriage between gay couples any different than op sex couples."

This is a total copout, and a lie.

(1) There can't be any such evidence since gay marriage has hardly existed.

(2) We're talking about a gov't sanction that requires the rest of the citizenry to respect the relationship as a marriage. There has to be demonstrable benefit to society for this or there's no justification in the sanction. For example, if to gay yuppies with six-figure incomes get married and one of them dies after becoming a multi-millionaire, what is the benefit to the rest of us for letting his widower inherit his money tax-free, which is a legal benefit of marriage?
wiseone Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 12:15 PM
It doesn't make any sense at all.

Marriage was never instituted for two men. It was instituted for one man to marry one woman, beget children, and raise them to adulthood.

That is the only legitimate purpose for society to be involving itself in the relationship at all.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 12:33 PM
Of course by predicating the value of marriage on children and saying that otherwise there is no point of gov getting involved otherwise , you just made the case that male female couples that can't have kids should not get married but plural marriage families that have LOTS of kids should be fine
wiseone Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 1:20 PM
I see the closet liberal of Townhall is back.

And like most liberals you are so arrogant you think you can presume to speak for me instead of react/respond to me.

I made the case that gays don't really even want to be married for the purpose of marriage. Period.

And like all libs you build straw dogs because you can't win any debate on the merits of your position.

You don't want to stop infertile heteros from getting married. You want to equate gay marriage with hetero marriage.

Gay marriage makes no sense except under the umbrella of gay selfishness.Deal with it.
du2 Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 1:20 PM
Well, some people used to argue that marriage wasn't instituted for soldiers, for people of different colors, ethnicity, religions and health status. And perhaps even for those who were barren.
So trying to argue that gay people are in any of these categories is to argue for archaic, barbaric and illegal standards that don't exist anymore. Meaning, you don't have any good reason either. So therefore, since you can't think of any good reason. And neither could 8 and DOMA's defender. Than neither can SCOTUS.
Bill1895 Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 1:42 PM
Foolish statement: legally none of those things were legal barriers.

I would like to think that Supreme Court justices are smarter than I am.

At one level, they surely are. Their years of devotion to the practice and analysis of law involves countless pages of book-learning I will never undertake. Their brains must fairly bulge with minutiae I cannot grasp.

But there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom. There are high school dropouts who have deep wells of astuteness about how to think, act and live in an enlightened way. And there are Ph.D.’s I would not let into my house.

In one stunning moment Tuesday from the Supreme Court...