Love how this thread go derailed by trolls. This thread used to be about gay marriage and now it's about gay people having children.

You can marry without having children and you can have children without getting married.

The legal arguments are interesting but require a level of sophistication that is rare. If the chief clerks for Kennedy and Roberts battled it out ITT I would gladly read it. Average laymen constitutional scholars is mostly bull****.

Well this is the next stage of gay rights.

It mirrors exactly by bigot groups in Ireland, before that in Britain and I'd be surprised if it didn't happen the same in France etc.

America is still partially in the denial stage thinking it can wish marriage equality away. When it's don't it's clear where the debate shifts.

The bigots that use "but think of the children" arguments, are not thinking of the children but are simply looking to cover their own prejudice.

bundy's argument is also a wee bit circular. We can't let gays raise children(uh, skipping the step about what the **** this has to do with marriage) because we don't have enough data on letting gays raise children.

So we need more data, but also should prohibit the source of potential data, so we'll always need more data.

It is a pretty commonly held misconception in society that women are the special elite child rearers good for having breasts and stopping them from crying and loving them while men ignore them to work hard before jumping in at 16 to give that all important manly life lesson that sets their sons on the right path. And way more people than just the homophobes go in on these stereotypes. So it isn't completely insane that people are going to judge gay people (where is the straight talking path setting father! who is going to cuddle them and make sure they are loved without a mother!).

Of course, back in non 60s reality, men and women are ****ing obviously capable of both of these stereotypes, and all the variety thereof, and this is conclusively proven by all the excellent single parents out there.

The sports argument was prososed to make you feel terrible about yourself. No other purpose. Keep that **** out of out of your head. Thats all he has left at this point.

How much won't I be enjoying arguments from the right about "religious liberty" moving forward.

This, obviously.

I'm genuinely interested in why Roberts, etc. think Loving v. Virginia is right, but gay marriage is wrong.

My takeaway from (skimming, admittedly) the Roberts dissent was simply that gay marriage was sufficiently distinct from straight marriage that equal protection doesn't apply. That's why the legal arguments were pretty brief and straightforward, and most of the dissent was devoted to staking out a definition of marriage.

"But every gay can marry someone of the opposite sex, non-discriminatory ldo!"

These people, four of them at least, head the courts of the country. If this isn't a reason to vote Hillary, I dunno what is.

Its amazing how fast the haters conveniently show compassion for the kids when it somehow coincidently demoralizes gays at the same time.

I just read most of it and it's as disappointing as I imagined.

Roberts relies on the "definition of marriage" argument, which is basically a naked appeal to tradition. But the reason that the definition of marriage has generally been "a man and a woman" is because of animus. He doesn't seem to recognize that.

But marriage is more than a dictionary definition. Marriage implies a partnership, romantic love, child-rearing, shared responsibility and etc. Roberts ignores those aspects of our traditions. Reducing the institution of marriage to nothing but a simple gender check isn't exactly respectful.

His arguments are better wrt due process.

Did bundy get banned or did he just slink off after realising what a fool he was making of himself?

Does it bother anybody that many people think beliefs that are grounded in philosophy and arguments that attempt to be logical, are not acceptable excuses to ignore the law, but those that are based on irrational superstitions are?

Under the 1st Amendment, people have a fundamental right to be irrationally superstitious, however when that right clashes with another fundamental right, equal protection, the courts must engage in an analysis of which right prevails in the balance.

Because, like, the Bible says gays are icky, or something.

I guarantee you there are plenty of people on the extreme right who are also way against interracial marriage, but have to accept it because it's been almost 50 years.

Here's an interesting article suggesting that Roberts' arguments on due process are actually good for liberals:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...conservatives/

Basically, interpreting "liberty" in the 14th Amendment too broadly allowed things like labor laws to be struck down.

I found bundy5's youtube channel.

1 in 5 white people still don't approve of interracial marriage. Tells be the extreme right probably are close to an even split.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/ap...ks-whites.aspx

Crazy that interracial marriage still only account for less than 1% of all marriages.

2012, but confirms your point.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1339827.html

Bigots don't acknowledge they are bigots.

People that preach hate aren't Christian, their self proclamations aside.

Persecution in America has been almost entirely been practiced by religious folks.

The definition of traditional marriage has been passed down by indoctrination. Less indoctrination in the last generation. Thats the change.

JFC, 1/3 believe it should be illegal and a fifth aren't sure, leaving only half...HALF...who think it should remain legal.

I'm in an interracial marriage living in Richmond, VA. Had no idea how many passerbys likely disapprove. Scary.

If she's not black they're probably ok with it.

I doubt that.

NM. This post was linked in PU. Didn't mean to post response in Alpha.