But Justice Kennedy...blandly declared instead that unnatural same-sex relationships...Way to be overtly homophobic, NOM and Whitehead.
... which are necessarily sterile were nevertheless indeed marriages, offering no sort of reason or argument for this novel, indeed revolutionary, conclusion.First of all, NOM, this is in direct contradiction to a point you (accurately) made recently while responding to a piece in Time Magazine (emphasis original):
First of all, it's incredibly lazy journalism at best and partisan ideology at worst to say that the fight is over "almost one year after the Supreme Court ruled that Americans were free to marry the person they loved, no matter their sex..."Secondly, have either of you ever heard of ratio decidendi, meaning "the reason for the decision"? There's one in every decision. That's what forms precedent. In Windsor, this was it:
The Supreme Court never ‘ruled that Americans were free to marry the person they loved, no matter their sex...' In fact, when asked to do so by celebrity-lawyers Ted Olsen and David Bois [sic], the Justices refused.
DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of the persons that it protected by the Fifth Amendment.In obiter dictum (things said by the way), this reasoning was strongly supported:
[T]he principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage.To both of you: just because you don't want to believe it, or disagree with it, or are too lazy to find it, doesn't mean that a reason for the decision isn't there.
The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and thus a stigma, upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the states.
DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government. The Constitution's guarantee of equality "must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot" justify disparate treatment of that group.
[DOMA] humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.
DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others.
Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many elements of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. It prevents same-sex married couples form obtaining government healthcare benefits they would otherwise receive.
Even while ignoring and leaving aside essential elements of marriage (sexual complementarity, ability to conceive new life), he nevertheless effectively did redefine marriage as far as the law is concerned.To both of you: the Supreme Court listens to constitutional arguments, not your own homophobic arguments about same-sex relationships being "unnatural" and inferior because they can't produce children, when deciding these issues. Interestingly, your procreation argument has been rejected by... Justice Scalia. In his Lawrence dissent, he wrote:
If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct... what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protect by the Constitution"? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.So that's one post. Here's another:
You know, it's one thing when gay-marriage activists like the so-called Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAAD) do everything in their power to bully and intimidate the American people into 'supporting' same-sex marriage, but it's quite another when the government begins to lead the charge.So NOM: you've broadened the definition of the word "bullying" to include making your case and trying to persuade people to your side. Well then, what the hell do we call your March for Marriage? Here's what you have to say about it:
[T]he bigger the crowd, the bigger the message to the Courts, the Congress, and the nation that Americans still stand for marriage as the union of one man and one woman.Going by your standards, NOM, that is some of the worst bullying I've ever seen.
While I would make an exception for their offensive statement about same-sex relationships, I would encourage NOM to keep playing these games. It always provides me with a laugh.