LA judge upholds state SSM ban

[Brittain33]

Call me a pessimist, but SCOTUS isn't going to rule in our favor here. This is an extremely partisan, activist  court that will rule yet again based on the GOP platform: that there's no constitutional right to marriage and gay marriage becomes illegal again in California, Iowa, Massachusetts, and all the other states who had their bans struck down.

Republicans would be happy to surrender on this issue and stop talking about it ASAP.

Maybe in Massachusetts, but certainly not in most of the states that usually vote Republican.

Yes, I'm sure the electorate isn't there yet, especially not in states where their view is still the majority. But I do think that a lot of elected officials who, to be honest, don't like gays but really don't care that much about this issue, have clammed up about "traditional marriage."

[bedstuy]

Windsor was not decided on 14th Amendment Equal Protection grounds, but with some dubious quasi-Federalist reasoning that the Federal government could not apply a different standard for marriage that the states do to strike down the relevant part of DOMA on 5th Amendment Due Process grounds.

However, at worst (from the standpoint of SSM advocates) I could just barely see Kennedy rule that while States don't have to recognize SSM begun within their borders that they do have to treat a SSM done in another State the same as any other marriage.  Frankly, the only way I could see Kennedy doing that instead of a full requirement of recognizing SSM is if doing so would cause Roberts to join him for a 6-3 decision.

I wasn't talking about Windsor, I was talking about a future Supreme Court case.  I thought that was fairly obvious. 

My guess is that the Supreme Court rules that while a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a state-wide ban is constitutional and ruling that the constitution does not give federal courts the authority to strike down state-level bans on same-sex marriage. I doubt Kennedy would have any problem signing off on such an opinion.  In cases like Bush v. Gore*, D.C. v. Heller*, Shelby County v. Holder, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, etc  the five conservative justices have proven that they will pay the Constitution no more mind than toilet paper when it conflicts with their personal political agendas.  The question isn't whether the Supreme Court's conservative majority will once again violate their oaths of office, but merely how far they will go.  Even if they rule that statewide bans are unconstitutional, it will only be because the Republican Party believes it is in its political interest to put this issue to bed (I suppose that would be another "who cares why people do good things" situation as Al put it in another thread).

*Alito and Roberts weren't on the Court at the time of the two * rulings.

That's insane.  Maybe you're right on the ruling, but that reasoning is insane.

Essentially, you're saying that the Supreme Court would rule that the 14th Amendment applies to the Federal government, but not the states.  I see where you're going with that because it's a Solomon-like splitting of the baby.  But, you need to think about the legal question and factual circumstances reaching the Supreme Court.  There is no Federal ban on same-sex marriage, so that's not going to be a ruling under any circumstances.  The power of the 14th Amendment to reach state action is not remotely questionable.  Not going to happen.

Then they will likely just rule that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional and that the federal courts which have struck down state-level bans acted unconstitutionally.  I agree it's an insane position, legally speaking.  I'm sure they know that too, but I doubt they care tbh.

Well, that's a different ruling.  That seems at least possible.  But, honestly, I think you're reading too much into the Justices political whims and not thinking about the legal strategy here.  The Supreme Court is an appellate court and they're going to making a ruling based on factual determinations and lawyering done at the trial court level.  The pro-SSM marriage lawyers have destroyed the anti-SSM side at the trial court level.  The Supreme Court might be forced into striking down state level gay marriage bans or issuing a ridiculous opinion that tarnishes their standing. 

[they don't love you like i love you]

While it is bad decision, I'm sort of glad one federal judge finally ruled in favor of a ban. The 5th circuit will likely back this up (or the TX ban) and then finally SCOTUS will take it up.

And the whole notion that the "democratic process" trumps constitutional rights is ludicrous and will go nowhere with SCOTUS. That argument would lead to a whole host of potential quagmires and the court has made it clear that the Constitution trumps local legislation.

Call me a pessimist, but SCOTUS isn't going to rule in our favor here. This is an extremely partisan, activist  court that will rule yet again based on the GOP platform: that there's no constitutional right to marriage and gay marriage becomes illegal again in California, Iowa, Massachusetts, and all the other states who had their bans struck down.

Huh? Even if they ruled thay way, the three states you mentioned have the decisions based on state constitutions and wouldn't be affected.

[Bacon King]

I'm gonna be blunt here for a second- the people arguing that Kennedy would vote to maintain a state's SSM ban have no idea what they're talking about.

This sudden avalanche of gay marriage bans being overturned didn't come out of nowhere; it literally happened because that's exactly how Justice Kennedy engineered it in his majority opinion for Windsor.

As Ernest mentioned previously, Kennedy didn't use one of the more obvious or expected avenues of legal logic to reach that decision, but instead he went out of his way and circuitously based it on 5th Amendment Due Process grounds. I believe this was quite clearly intentional because it telegraphed to the Federal judiciary exactly how to overturn state bans on same sex marriage.

The 5th Amendment Due Process Clause is a restriction on the Federal government and it goes like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The cool thing here is that there's another Due Process Clause, in the 14th Amendment, that applies to the states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The interpretations of these two clauses is identical and the only distinction of their jurisprudence is that the former applies to the Federal government while the latter applies to the states.

With Kennedy's precedent, it became extremely simple for a Federal judge to overturn a state-level ban. All that you have to do so is to replace "5th" with "14th" and "Federal" with "state", and you have an opinion that makes state bans unconstitutional, since the Constitution's two Due Process clauses are interpreted identically. Justice Scalia even called the majority out for setting it up this way in his dissent. It's why bans are now being overturned left and right even by conservative Republican appointees.

The majority in Windsor decided, with that opinion, that gay marriage was going to be legal nationwide. They probably felt such a ruling would be too broad or too unrelated to the immediate facts and circumstance of Windsor to do it in that case. They might have also hoped that the Circuit Courts would all take the hint and unanimously concur so that the Supreme Court wouldn't be forced into a controversial lighting-rod case where they directly legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in what would probably be a controversial 5-4 split mirroring Windsor. But regardless, a majority of the court established an obvious and intentional blueprint for nationwide marriage equality via the Windsor decision that we now see coming to fruition.

Kennedy and the four liberals who joined his opinion probably sought to keep the Supreme Court away from direct controversy- if de facto nationwide legalization occurs via Circuit unanimity then they may yet avoid the limelight entirely. Nevertheless, Kennedy's opinion set the groundwork and although the lower courts are now building on that foundation, if they aren't able to finish the job then Supreme Court will certainly step back in to explicitly mandate marriage equality. The Kennedy-led majority in Windsor knew what they were doing, and there's no chance any of them would back down rather than finish what they started.



tl;dr: No Kennedy won't vote to uphold state bans because literally the only reason they're all getting overturned now is due to an intentionally-crafted opinion he wrote that is literally making it all happen. Nationwide marriage equality has five guaranteed votes on the court

[Simfan34]

Call me a pessimist, but SCOTUS isn't going to rule in our favor here. This is an extremely partisan, activist  court that will rule yet again based on the GOP platform: that there's no constitutional right to marriage and gay marriage becomes illegal again in California, Iowa, Massachusetts, and all the other states who had their bans struck down.

Republicans would be happy to surrender on this issue and stop talking about it ASAP.

I certainly would. Here's hoping the circuit court upholds the ban and makes the SCOTUS take up the case. I'd be much happier if its becoming a non-issue meant that good candidates wouldn't be disqualified because of their position on this issue and people ceased to blindly vote for a candidate based on their views on this issue.

[bedstuy]

Call me a pessimist, but SCOTUS isn't going to rule in our favor here. This is an extremely partisan, activist  court that will rule yet again based on the GOP platform: that there's no constitutional right to marriage and gay marriage becomes illegal again in California, Iowa, Massachusetts, and all the other states who had their bans struck down.

Republicans would be happy to surrender on this issue and stop talking about it ASAP.

I certainly would. Here's hoping the circuit court upholds the ban and makes the SCOTUS take up the case. I'd be much happier if its becoming a non-issue meant that good candidates wouldn't be disqualified because of their position on this issue and people ceased to blindly vote for a candidate based on their views on this issue.

Isn't someone's position on this issue relevant to evaluating their worldview and their beliefs?  Or, are you simply saying that this issue hurts Republicans and it's better to take it off the table?

Think about it this way, would you prefer not to know that a candidate was racist?  Being homophobic or being a Christian fundamentalist is fairly relevant, is it not?

[Simfan34]

Call me a pessimist, but SCOTUS isn't going to rule in our favor here. This is an extremely partisan, activist  court that will rule yet again based on the GOP platform: that there's no constitutional right to marriage and gay marriage becomes illegal again in California, Iowa, Massachusetts, and all the other states who had their bans struck down.

Republicans would be happy to surrender on this issue and stop talking about it ASAP.

I certainly would. Here's hoping the circuit court upholds the ban and makes the SCOTUS take up the case. I'd be much happier if its becoming a non-issue meant that good candidates wouldn't be disqualified because of their position on this issue and people ceased to blindly vote for a candidate based on their views on this issue.

Isn't someone's position on this issue relevant to evaluating their worldview and their beliefs?  Or, are you simply saying that this issue hurts Republicans and it's better to take it off the table?

Think about it this way, would you prefer not to know that a candidate was racist?  Being homophobic or being a Christian fundamentalist is fairly relevant, is it not?

I don't consider it particularly relevant, personally speaking. I also wouldn't consider it equivalent to the issues you compare it to. I feel as if many people here are making too many assumptions as to underlying characteristics of the sort of person who would oppose same-sex marriage. I am completely ambivalent on the issue, so for me what you are saying is equivalent to holding that someone's position on, say, tort reform, was crucially "relevant to evaluating their worldview and their beliefs".

[bedstuy]

Call me a pessimist, but SCOTUS isn't going to rule in our favor here. This is an extremely partisan, activist  court that will rule yet again based on the GOP platform: that there's no constitutional right to marriage and gay marriage becomes illegal again in California, Iowa, Massachusetts, and all the other states who had their bans struck down.

Republicans would be happy to surrender on this issue and stop talking about it ASAP.

I certainly would. Here's hoping the circuit court upholds the ban and makes the SCOTUS take up the case. I'd be much happier if its becoming a non-issue meant that good candidates wouldn't be disqualified because of their position on this issue and people ceased to blindly vote for a candidate based on their views on this issue.

Isn't someone's position on this issue relevant to evaluating their worldview and their beliefs?  Or, are you simply saying that this issue hurts Republicans and it's better to take it off the table?

Think about it this way, would you prefer not to know that a candidate was racist?  Being homophobic or being a Christian fundamentalist is fairly relevant, is it not?

I don't consider it particularly relevant, personally speaking. I also wouldn't consider it equivalent to the issues you compare it to. I feel as if many people here are making too many assumptions as to underlying characteristics of the sort of person who would oppose same-sex marriage. I am completely ambivalent on the issue, so for me what you are saying is equivalent to holding that someone's position on, say, tort reform, was crucially "relevant to evaluating their worldview and their beliefs".

I understand that, but for me, it's a matter of understanding someone's overall thought process. 

If you're coming up with government policy based on the book of Leviticus or based on your personal animus for a race/gender/orientation, you don't belong in political office.  So, if someone's belief was, "I support tort reform because I hate Jews," wouldn't that be relevant?  If someone said, "we need tort reform because the angel Gabriel told me so," would that give you pause? 

So, the question is whether there are legitimate non-discriminatory or wacko religious arguments against gay marriage?  You must think there are I suppose.  Because it seems like that idea is melting away as evidenced by the fact that the government has failed to win almost every lawsuit on this subject.  Or, is it that hating gay people is benign?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Windsor was not decided on 14th Amendment Equal Protection grounds, but with some dubious quasi-Federalist reasoning that the Federal government could not apply a different standard for marriage that the states do to strike down the relevant part of DOMA on 5th Amendment Due Process grounds.

I wasn't talking about Windsor, I was talking about a future Supreme Court case.  I thought that was fairly obvious. 

But you were worried about the Supreme Court repudiating what it had already done, and that was based on 5th Amendment jurisprudence.  If the court declines to use the 14th Amendment in overturning State SSM non-recognition, it wouldn't be repudiating what it has previously done in Windsor.

I'm gonna be blunt here for a second- the people arguing that Kennedy would vote to maintain a state's SSM ban have no idea what they're talking about.

This sudden avalanche of gay marriage bans being overturned didn't come out of nowhere; it literally happened because that's exactly how Justice Kennedy engineered it in his majority opinion for Windsor.

As Ernest mentioned previously, Kennedy didn't use one of the more obvious or expected avenues of legal logic to reach that decision, but instead he went out of his way and circuitously based it on 5th Amendment Due Process grounds. I believe this was quite clearly intentional because it telegraphed to the Federal judiciary exactly how to overturn state bans on same sex marriage.

The 5th Amendment Due Process Clause is a restriction on the Federal government and it goes like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The cool thing here is that there's another Due Process Clause, in the 14th Amendment, that applies to the states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The interpretations of these two clauses is identical and the only distinction of their jurisprudence is that the former applies to the Federal government while the latter applies to the states.

Except that Kennedy cloaked his ruling in enough faux Federalism to cloud the issue.  Rather than directly asserting that same-sex couples have an innate right to have their marriage be recognized, he went in a round about way and basically asserted that by recognizing a same-sex marriage, it was conferring property upon the happy couple, namely the privileges and benefits conferred upon married couples, and that the Federal government could not deny the use of that property.

That's why I can see the possibility that Kennedy might support a narrower ruling that States don't have to do the initial recognition themselves, but they have to recognize SSMs done in other States. That's essentially the current situation in Mexico, where only a few jurisdictions allow SSMs to be performed there, but all of them have to recognize them if they'd been recognized elsewhere, so there's even international precedent for that approach.  As I said earlier, I don't see Kennedy going for such an approach unless it would allow Roberts to join a 6-3 decision.  Even then more likely is that Supreme Court accepts several cases, some of which involve marriages done elsewhere and some of which involve marriages begun in the State and Roberts joins the majority in the former cases but not the latter.

[bedstuy]

Windsor was not decided on 14th Amendment Equal Protection grounds, but with some dubious quasi-Federalist reasoning that the Federal government could not apply a different standard for marriage that the states do to strike down the relevant part of DOMA on 5th Amendment Due Process grounds.

I wasn't talking about Windsor, I was talking about a future Supreme Court case.  I thought that was fairly obvious. 

But you were worried about the Supreme Court repudiating what it had already done, and that was based on 5th Amendment jurisprudence.  If the court declines to use the 14th Amendment in overturning State SSM non-recognition, it wouldn't be repudiating what it has previously done in Windsor.

Nope.  Didn't mention Windsor or Kennedy repudiating his reasoning.  I was just talking about the case that will eventually reach the Supreme Court.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My guess is that the Supreme Court rules that while a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a state-wide ban is constitutional and ruling that the constitution does not give federal courts the authority to strike down state-level bans on same-sex marriage. I doubt Kennedy would have any problem signing off on such an opinion.

That's insane.  Maybe you're right on the ruling, but that reasoning is insane.

Essentially, you're saying that the Supreme Court would rule that the 14th Amendment applies to the Federal government, but not the states.

Did you not write the words in red above?  Granted, you didn't mention Windsor by name, but there is no other Supreme Court case concerning SSM that the court has ruled on directly. (Perry being an indirect upholding based on lack of standing of the appellant.  As I pointed out, Windsor did not use the 14th but the 5th.

[Simfan34]

Call me a pessimist, but SCOTUS isn't going to rule in our favor here. This is an extremely partisan, activist  court that will rule yet again based on the GOP platform: that there's no constitutional right to marriage and gay marriage becomes illegal again in California, Iowa, Massachusetts, and all the other states who had their bans struck down.

Republicans would be happy to surrender on this issue and stop talking about it ASAP.

I certainly would. Here's hoping the circuit court upholds the ban and makes the SCOTUS take up the case. I'd be much happier if its becoming a non-issue meant that good candidates wouldn't be disqualified because of their position on this issue and people ceased to blindly vote for a candidate based on their views on this issue.

Isn't someone's position on this issue relevant to evaluating their worldview and their beliefs?  Or, are you simply saying that this issue hurts Republicans and it's better to take it off the table?

Think about it this way, would you prefer not to know that a candidate was racist?  Being homophobic or being a Christian fundamentalist is fairly relevant, is it not?

I don't consider it particularly relevant, personally speaking. I also wouldn't consider it equivalent to the issues you compare it to. I feel as if many people here are making too many assumptions as to underlying characteristics of the sort of person who would oppose same-sex marriage. I am completely ambivalent on the issue, so for me what you are saying is equivalent to holding that someone's position on, say, tort reform, was crucially "relevant to evaluating their worldview and their beliefs".

I understand that, but for me, it's a matter of understanding someone's overall thought process. 

If you're coming up with government policy based on the book of Leviticus or based on your personal animus for a race/gender/orientation, you don't belong in political office.  So, if someone's belief was, "I support tort reform because I hate Jews," wouldn't that be relevant?  If someone said, "we need tort reform because the angel Gabriel told me so," would that give you pause? 

So, the question is whether there are legitimate non-discriminatory or wacko religious arguments against gay marriage?  You must think there are I suppose.  Because it seems like that idea is melting away as evidenced by the fact that the government has failed to win almost every lawsuit on this subject.  Or, is it that hating gay people is benign?

Well, I mean, if you're taking every position a person has as indicative of their worldview, then sure, you have a point. But no one's position (as far as I am aware) on tort reform is based on "wacko religious arguments", as you put it.

I think it'd be safe for me to assume that you hold that opposition to same-sex marriage is derived from "wacko religious arguments" or bigotry (I'd say 'discrimination' is too loose a word to be meaningful here), or something along those lines, and that there do not appear to be any "legitimate arguments" against it. I suppose I should ask what you mean by "legitimate" here- is it just a matter of sincerity or is it a matter of objective validity? I can't answer if we're dealing with the latter, but there are certainly people who do not support same-sex marriage due to genuinely-held reasons not founded from religious bigotry or any such thing. They may not necessarily be valid arguments, but they are certainly believed.

The "procreative unit" is a good example of one such argument, and I know quite a few of its leading proponents. Now it has its holes- I remember one person who had written a book on the matter saying that he and the co-author disagreed on whether or not their framework of marriage would permit heterosexual couples who had no chance of having children to be married, which struck me as rather absurd. It might not, then, be a "valid" argument, but it's certainly genuine. So, again, unless you're defining legitimacy as objective validity, there are certainly arguments against same-sex marriage not rooted in homophobia or any such bigotry. And then it becomes a matter of whether people have a right to be wrong.

So I find the broad characterisation that many people seem perfectly comfortable making, that opponents of same-sex marriage are all religiously-motivated bigots who hate gay people, to be a complete non-sequitur. I won't pretend that many of those actively opposing same-sex marriage seem to at least possess some kind of religious motivation and appear to be less-than-entirely accepting of gay people, but it's disingenuous to automatically equate opposition to same-sex marriage to a hatred of gay people.

I say this as someone who could very well support or not support same-sex marriage with little to no change to my worldview or fundamental beliefs. My position on the issue would not affect how I regard gay people or how I would treat them. I would find it hard to believe I am the only person who would act in such a manner- that I am the only person who could imagine not supporting same sex-marriage without having to be a homophobic bigot.

[bedstuy]

My guess is that the Supreme Court rules that while a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a state-wide ban is constitutional and ruling that the constitution does not give federal courts the authority to strike down state-level bans on same-sex marriage. I doubt Kennedy would have any problem signing off on such an opinion.

That's insane.  Maybe you're right on the ruling, but that reasoning is insane.

Essentially, you're saying that the Supreme Court would rule that the 14th Amendment applies to the Federal government, but not the states.

Did you not write the words in red above?  Granted, you didn't mention Windsor by name, but there is no other Supreme Court case concerning SSM that the court has ruled on directly. (Perry being an indirect upholding based on lack of standing of the appellant.  As I pointed out, Windsor did not use the 14th but the 5th.

That was in reference to something someone else posted to the effect that the Court would rule that they didn't have the subject matter jurisdiction or relevant power to overturn a state level SSM ban, which would be ridiculous. 

Well, I mean, if you're taking every position a person has as indicative of their worldview, then sure, you have a point. But no one's position (as far as I am aware) on tort reform is based on "wacko religious arguments", as you put it.

I think it'd be safe for me to assume that you hold that opposition to same-sex marriage is derived from "wacko religious arguments" or bigotry (I'd say 'discrimination' is too loose a word to be meaningful here), or something along those lines, and that there do not appear to be any "legitimate arguments" against it. I suppose I should ask what you mean by "legitimate" here- is it just a matter of sincerity or is it a matter of objective validity? I can't answer if we're dealing with the latter, but there are certainly people who do not support same-sex marriage due to genuinely-held reasons not founded from religious bigotry or any such thing. They may not necessarily be valid arguments, but they are certainly believed.

The "procreative unit" is a good example of one such argument, and I know quite a few of its leading proponents. Now it has its holes- I remember one person who had written a book on the matter saying that he and the co-author disagreed on whether or not their framework of marriage would permit heterosexual couples who had no chance of having children to be married, which struck me as rather absurd. It might not, then, be a "valid" argument, but it's certainly genuine. So, again, unless you're defining legitimacy as objective validity, there are certainly arguments against same-sex marriage not rooted in homophobia or any such bigotry. And then it becomes a matter of whether people have a right to be wrong.

If you put out an argument that gay people shouldn't be able to get married, and your argument makes no sense, it raises a legitimate question as to your actual reasoning.  Those types of definitional arguments you mention about marriage which assume that giving gay people equal rights devalues straight marriage just don't pass the basic test of logic.  Maybe you disagree with me on that, but I then would seriously question your reasoning skills or your compassion for gay people.  If the fact that gay marriage bans deprive actual gay people of civil rights doesn't register with you as much as fairly arbitrary principles about "man-woman units" that were all made-up a few years ago, I have to question your compassion for other people.  Honestly, I would prefer people just came out and said being gay is wrong or aberrant instead of coming up with this convoluted nonsense.

So I find the broad characterisation that many people seem perfectly comfortable making, that opponents of same-sex marriage are all religiously-motivated bigots who hate gay people, to be a complete non-sequitur. I won't pretend that many of those actively opposing same-sex marriage seem to at least possess some kind of religious motivation and appear to be less-than-entirely accepting of gay people, but it's disingenuous to automatically equate opposition to same-sex marriage to a hatred of gay people.

I say this as someone who could very well support or not support same-sex marriage with little to no change to my worldview or fundamental beliefs. My position on the issue would not affect how I regard gay people or how I would treat them. I would find it hard to believe I am the only person who would act in such a manner- that I am the only person who could imagine not supporting same sex-marriage without having to be a homophobic bigot.

That's definitely not true.  This is a law that actually affects people.  You can't tell me, "I don't think you should be given the same civil rights as me," but then say that position is not a judgement of me.  What if I said I was against legal recognition of black people marrying white people?  I suppose you would take that as a judgement of your race, no?  That's the fundamental point here.  Saying you're against gay marriage absolutely requires a judgment between two groups, heteros and homos.  Your arguments are just saying, "well, it's not that gay people are gay, it's that they don't make babies."  It's akin to saying, well, it's not that black people are black, it's that their skin color is darker.  It's a distinction without a difference, it's just recharacterizing a trait using different words.  The question is materially, why are gay people different in a relevant way that makes recognition of their relationships a bad policy?  You, or any other gay marriage opponent, have never succeeded in finding that reason, here, in Federal court, in the court of public opinion, or anywhere. 

[Simfan34]

If you put out an argument that gay people shouldn't be able to get married, and your argument makes no sense, it raises a legitimate question as to your actual reasoning.  Those types of definitional arguments you mention about marriage which assume that giving gay people equal rights devalues straight marriage just don't pass the basic test of logic.  Maybe you disagree with me on that, but I then would seriously question your reasoning skills or your compassion for gay people.  If the fact that gay marriage bans deprive actual gay people of civil rights doesn't register with you as much as fairly arbitrary principles about "man-woman units" that were all made-up a few years ago, I have to question your compassion for other people.  Honestly, I would prefer people just came out and said being gay is wrong or aberrant instead of coming up with this convoluted nonsense.

I mean, like I said, people have the right to be wrong. It's presumptuous to place all this moral judgement on them for this. Your point about the novelty of the arguments used by same-sex marriage is interesting though, because it misses a rather big point...  that the idea that two men or two women could be "married" is an extraordinarily novel one that you could say was "all made-up a few years ago". I mean look through all of history. At least in a Western society, the idea two persons of the same sex could be married, the same way a man and wife were married, would have been regarded as absurd until at most two decades ago.

It was an unquestioned custom- so obviously no one would have bothered to construct a defense for what was unchallenged. It is akin to asking me why I haven't painted the walls of my bedroom red and then criticising my defense as "all made-up" or "convoluted", when the thought of painting my walls red had never crossed my mind before you brought it up. Same-sex marriage is a societal innovation, you must acknowledge that much. Obviously arguments against it are going to be "all made-up a few years ago"... just as the arguments for it would be.

My position on the issue would not affect how I regard gay people or how I would treat them.

That's definitely not true.  This is a law that actually affects people.  You can't tell me, "I don't think you should be given the same civil rights as me," but then say that position is not a judgement of me.  What if I said I was against legal recognition of black people marrying white people?  I suppose you would take that as a judgement of your race, no?  That's the fundamental point here.  Saying you're against gay marriage absolutely requires a judgment between two groups, heteros and homos.  Your arguments are just saying, "well, it's not that gay people are gay, it's that they don't make babies."  It's akin to saying, well, it's not that black people are black, it's that their skin color is darker.  It's a distinction without a difference, it's just recharacterizing a trait using different words.  The question is materially, why are gay people different in a relevant way that makes recognition of their relationships a bad policy?  You, or any other gay marriage opponent, have never succeeded in finding that reason, here, in Federal court, in the court of public opinion, or anywhere. 

Where did civil rights come into the matter? When did you ask about my views on what rights or recognitions same sex couples should have? You are making more assumptions here. My primary "issue" with same-sex marriage, and remember I do not consider myself "opposed" to it per se, is that we have (had) a rather fixed definition of marriage- the union of a man and a woman. Throughout the history of Western civilisation, this is has overwhelmingly been the understanding of what a marriage is. It is almost strictly a semantic matter, for me at least, although I will admit the "slippery slope" argument, that making marriage about emotional bonds shared between people makes a far wider group of interpersonal relationships able to be considered "marriages" under such a standard, holds some appeal for me as well. I'm all for same-sex couples receiving equal benefits, legal unions, personal rights, and so forth, as heterosexual ones. I just simply cannot fully get myself to understand such a union as a "marriage" as I understand it, and as the idea has been understood throughout history.

I'm struggling to understand what you are saying after the first two sentences, but I will say that the ubiquitous (and almost always heavy-handed) equivocation of same-sex marriage with interracial marriage does not do anything to make me any more amenable towards the latter. I'm sure we can agree race is completely arbitrary and utterly useless as a substantive distinction between people. And even if it was not, where does race come into the long-held understanding of marriage as "the union of a man and a woman"? The introduction of "race" constituted an innovation in the definition of marriage. Race does not factor into the traditional understanding. Surely you can see how same-sex marriages would force a re-definition of "the union of a man and a woman" in a way that skin pigmentation would not?

For me the question is not about "recognition of their relationships". I don't see any substantive difference that would make recognition of same-sex unions "bad policy", and I don't oppose their being recognised. But it is another matter entirely for such unions to constitute marriages, as I understand them, and, again, they have been understood by most societies for most of recorded history. So I hope you will forgive me for my... slowness, if you want to call it that, in embracing this change in meaning. But it has nothing to do with bigotry.

[bedstuy]

If you put out an argument that gay people shouldn't be able to get married, and your argument makes no sense, it raises a legitimate question as to your actual reasoning.  Those types of definitional arguments you mention about marriage which assume that giving gay people equal rights devalues straight marriage just don't pass the basic test of logic.  Maybe you disagree with me on that, but I then would seriously question your reasoning skills or your compassion for gay people.  If the fact that gay marriage bans deprive actual gay people of civil rights doesn't register with you as much as fairly arbitrary principles about "man-woman units" that were all made-up a few years ago, I have to question your compassion for other people.  Honestly, I would prefer people just came out and said being gay is wrong or aberrant instead of coming up with this convoluted nonsense.

I mean, like I said, people have the right to be wrong. It's presumptuous to place all this moral judgement on them for this. Your point about the novelty of the arguments used by same-sex marriage is interesting though, because it misses a rather big point...  that the idea that two men or two women could be "married" is an extraordinarily novel one that you could say was "all made-up a few years ago". I mean look through all of history. At least in a Western society, the idea two persons of the same sex could be married, the same way a man and wife were married, would have been regarded as absurd until at most two decades ago.

It was an unquestioned custom- so obviously no one would have bothered to construct a defense for what was unchallenged. It is akin to asking me why I haven't painted the walls of my bedroom red and then criticising my defense as "all made-up" or "convoluted", when the thought of painting my walls red had never crossed my mind before you brought it up. Same-sex marriage is a societal innovation, you must acknowledge that much. Obviously arguments against it are going to be "all made-up a few years ago"... just as the arguments for it would be.

That tradition was based on homophobia and incorrect, hateful beliefs about gay people.  It's akin to our traditions of racism, sexism, slavery, torture, etc.  They're traditional and universally accepted until we realize they're wrong and our society moves past them.  So, unless you accept homophobia, you can't cling to the traditions of homophobia.  Just as you couldn't defend interracial marriage without clinging to the tradition of racism.  Are we supposed to pretend we're not thinking people in 2014? 

My position on the issue would not affect how I regard gay people or how I would treat them.

That's definitely not true.  This is a law that actually affects people.  You can't tell me, "I don't think you should be given the same civil rights as me," but then say that position is not a judgement of me.  What if I said I was against legal recognition of black people marrying white people?  I suppose you would take that as a judgement of your race, no?  That's the fundamental point here.  Saying you're against gay marriage absolutely requires a judgment between two groups, heteros and homos.  Your arguments are just saying, "well, it's not that gay people are gay, it's that they don't make babies."  It's akin to saying, well, it's not that black people are black, it's that their skin color is darker.  It's a distinction without a difference, it's just recharacterizing a trait using different words.  The question is materially, why are gay people different in a relevant way that makes recognition of their relationships a bad policy?  You, or any other gay marriage opponent, have never succeeded in finding that reason, here, in Federal court, in the court of public opinion, or anywhere.

Where did civil rights come into the matter? When did you ask about my views on what rights or recognitions same sex couples should have? You are making more assumptions here. My primary "issue" with same-sex marriage, and remember I do not consider myself "opposed" to it per se, is that we have (had) a rather fixed definition of marriage- the union of a man and a woman. Throughout the history of Western civilisation, this is has overwhelmingly been the understanding of what a marriage is. It is almost strictly a semantic matter, for me at least, although I will admit the "slippery slope" argument, that making marriage about emotional bonds shared between people makes a far wider group of interpersonal relationships able to be considered "marriages" under such a standard, holds some appeal for me as well. I'm all for same-sex couples receiving equal benefits, legal unions, personal rights, and so forth, as heterosexual ones. I just simply cannot fully get myself to understand such a union as a "marriage" as I understand it, and as the idea has been understood throughout history.

I'm struggling to understand what you are saying after the first two sentences, but I will say that the ubiquitous (and almost always heavy-handed) equivocation of same-sex marriage with interracial marriage does not do anything to make me any more amenable towards the latter. I'm sure we can agree race is completely arbitrary and utterly useless as a substantive distinction between people. And even if it was not, where does race come into the long-held understanding of marriage as "the union of a man and a woman"? The introduction of "race" constituted an innovation in the definition of marriage. Race does not factor into the traditional understanding. Surely you can see how same-sex marriages would force a re-definition of "the union of a man and a woman" in a way that skin pigmentation would not?

For me the question is not about "recognition of their relationships". I don't see any substantive difference that would make recognition of same-sex unions "bad policy", and I don't oppose their being recognised. But it is another matter entirely for such unions to constitute marriages, as I understand them, and, again, they have been understood by most societies for most of recorded history. So I hope you will forgive me for my... slowness, if you want to call it that, in embracing this change in meaning. But it has nothing to do with bigotry.

Again, you're not producing any arguments to distinguish heteros from homos.  That leaves me to wonder why you think my relationship with a man could not be a marriage, but your relationship with a woman could be.  You said tradition.  That's a garbage argument as I demonstrated above.  What you're doing is not making actual points, you're just trying a series of dime-a-dozen argumentative tricks.  Appeal to tradition, slippery slope, arbitrarily telling me that certain categories must exist because they simply must. 

The category of people who could get married includes: interracial couples, because... it simply must.  It includes people who can't afford a dowry, because... it simply must.  Those used to be traditions, right?  But, what happened?  The tradition changed because the tradition was wrong, as it is here.  A black and a white getting married, just didn't seem right to people in 1920.  Just, as you think two women getting married, just doesn't seem right. 

Or, you have the great argument, the definition used to be X, to include Y would change the definition so we can't have that.  Why can't we change the definition of anything?  The definition of drywall used to be plaster and lath.  Is it morally wrong to use sheetrock now because it changes the definition of drywall?  The definition of legal terms is always changing because society changes.  This is a change brought on by social change that has thrown out the old understanding of sexual orientation that being gay is immoral or is a disease.  That's why we're having this conversation.  It's not about definitions, it's about whether being gay is detrimental to society, or wrong, or weird, or negative in some way.

Here's what I have to conclude.  You think two people of the same sex getting married is gross or disgusting.  You think my relationship is worth less than a straight relationship.  You have less respect for me because I'm gay.  I get it, it's a change for society not to think like that.  But, it's a good change.  For "most of human history," people have mistreated gay people for no good reason.  If you want to keep mistreating gay people, you need to come up with reasons.  Listen, either you're homophobic or you're intellectual dishonest about this issue.

[Simfan34]

The idea that the conception of marriage as an exclusively male-female union was explicitly derived from "homophobia and incorrect, hateful beliefs about gay people" and was meant to be deliberately exclusionary in the manner of racism is hard to fathom. Again, the idea that marriage could include same-sex unions was simply not considered until very recently. I'm not sure how to put this another way. No one ever thought of it.

It is akin to saying that a 19th century log cabin's lack of electrical outlets was derived from "the owner's hatred of electrical devices"; there were no electrical devices to which the owner could have feelings about. That person would have also had no same-sex unions clamoring to be married to desire to be excluded. One can only be excluded provided they desire to join in the first place.

But for you to say I "think [your] relationship is worth less than a straight relationship" or that I "have less respect for [you] because [you are] gay"... is without foundation and rather shocking to read. You state I condone "mistreating gay people". This, or, indeed, any sort of value judgement about gays or lesbians on my part, is something that certainly cannot be gleaned from the rhetorical issue we were talking about until just now.

You've extended the generalisations you've made to me personally... and they obviously don't apply. You are placing too much weight on semantics. I do not oppose same-sex marriage. I certainly wouldn't do anything to stop it. I am just trying to articulate that it is possible for people to oppose same sex marriage without automatically being some fundamentalist bigot.

[bedstuy]

But for you to say I "think [your] relationship is worth less than a straight relationship" or that I "have less respect for [you] because [you are] gay"... is without foundation and rather shocking to read. You state I condone "mistreating gay people". This, or, indeed, any sort of value judgement about gays or lesbians on my part, is something that certainly cannot be gleaned from the rhetorical issue we were talking about until just now.

You've extended the generalisations you've made to me personally... and they obviously don't apply. You are placing too much weight on semantics. I do not oppose same-sex marriage. I certainly wouldn't do anything to stop it. I am just trying to articulate that it is possible for people to oppose same sex marriage without automatically being some fundamentalist bigot.

OK, I thought you said you were against gay marriage but supported civil unions.   Just apply what I said towards one who believes such things.  You're certainly defending dumb ideas a lot for someone who supports same-sex marriage.

The idea that the conception of marriage as an exclusively male-female union was explicitly derived from "homophobia and incorrect, hateful beliefs about gay people" and was meant to be deliberately exclusionary in the manner of racism is hard to fathom. Again, the idea that marriage could include same-sex unions was simply not considered until very recently. I'm not sure how to put this another way. No one ever thought of it.

Well, we can't very well legalize gay marriage in 1880.  But, we've now thought of same-sex marriage.  And, that's the issue, the law in 2014, not the law in 1880.  Did you think I wanted to retroactively legalize gay marriage historically?

It is akin to saying that a 19th century log cabin's lack of electrical outlets was derived from "the owner's hatred of electrical devices"; there were no electrical devices to which the owner could have feelings about. That person would have also had no same-sex unions clamoring to be married to desire to be excluded. One can only be excluded provided they desire to join in the first place.

Not quite though.  There were gay people throughout history.  They would have wanted to get married if society treated them fairly.  But, that's not the issue, we're legalizing gay marriage today.  So, what's your whole point here?

Are you saying that if there's an arbitrary, capricious, unconstitutional law on the books, the mere fact that it has a traditional basis, is enough grounds to keep the law?  That's just ridiculous.  I don't think marriage laws were written out of malice for gay people.  But, now that we understand sexual orientation and the lives of gay people, it's malicious not to change the law.   

Honestly, I don't really hold a grudge towards people who were homophobic in 1880.  People didn't know better.  You and I know better, so let's stop making excuses for the homophobic people from today (note, I said today, IE current times/present day, NOT ye olden days/medieval times/the 1880s/the 1950s) who oppose same-sex marriage rights.  I know it's nice and eccumenical to accept dumb arguments .  But, here, those dumb arguments you brought up are basically just excuses to cover up homophobia and religious fundamentalism. 

[Simfan34]

I didn't say anything about the effect of these views on their legal bearing. The only thing I have been trying to say is that it is possible to not support same-sex marriage without being a bigot. Perhaps you equate opposition to same-sex marriage with bigotry; but you seemed to readily make all sorts of assumptions about my character earlier that were not true. Surely you can acknowledge there mere possibility that there are some people who do not support same-sex marriage without being homophobes, bigots, fundamentalists, and so forth?

[bedstuy]

I didn't say anything about the effect of these views on their legal bearing. The only thing I have been trying to say is that it is possible to not support same-sex marriage without being a bigot. Perhaps you equate opposition to same-sex marriage with bigotry; but you seemed to readily make all sorts of assumptions about my character earlier that were not true. Surely you can acknowledge there mere possibility that there are some people who do not support same-sex marriage without being homophobes, bigots, fundamentalists, and so forth?

Yes, they could be ignorant or stupid, however so often that's coterminous with fundamentalism or homophobia.

Honestly, I have never heard a single coherent argument that addresses the point I made earlier, why distinguish a man-woman relationship from a man-man woman-woman relationship? (except arguments that relied on fundamentalism or homophobia, which are coherent, but wrong-headed and horrible)  I'm open to hearing a coherent argument that meets my criteria.  But, I don't think it exists.  This has been argued by people smarter than you and I in the Federal Courts.  The anti-SSM marriage side has failed to find one rational basis reason for banning SSM.  Maybe you can help them and think of one, but I seriously doubt it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I didn't say anything about the effect of these views on their legal bearing. The only thing I have been trying to say is that it is possible to not support same-sex marriage without being a bigot. Perhaps you equate opposition to same-sex marriage with bigotry; but you seemed to readily make all sorts of assumptions about my character earlier that were not true. Surely you can acknowledge there mere possibility that there are some people who do not support same-sex marriage without being homophobes, bigots, fundamentalists, and so forth?

Yes, they could be ignorant or stupid, however so often that's coterminous with fundamentalism or homophobia.

Honestly, I have never heard a single coherent argument that addresses the point I made earlier, why distinguish a man-woman relationship from a man-man woman-woman relationship? (except arguments that relied on fundamentalism or homophobia, which are coherent, but wrong-headed and horrible)  I'm open to hearing a coherent argument that meets my criteria.  But, I don't think it exists.  This has been argued by people smarter than you and I in the Federal Courts.  The anti-SSM marriage side has failed to find one rational basis reason for banning SSM.  Maybe you can help them and think of one, but I seriously doubt it.

It might be considered that opposition to gay marriage comes out of a somewhat different intellectual tradition than which modern "rational basis" legal arguments rest upon, and that diverse intellectual traditions can hold coherence or at least not be "stupid."

Your criteria is seems to be that any concept of marriage related to gender qua gender is bigoted by definition, is that right?

[bedstuy]

I didn't say anything about the effect of these views on their legal bearing. The only thing I have been trying to say is that it is possible to not support same-sex marriage without being a bigot. Perhaps you equate opposition to same-sex marriage with bigotry; but you seemed to readily make all sorts of assumptions about my character earlier that were not true. Surely you can acknowledge there mere possibility that there are some people who do not support same-sex marriage without being homophobes, bigots, fundamentalists, and so forth?

Yes, they could be ignorant or stupid, however so often that's coterminous with fundamentalism or homophobia.

Honestly, I have never heard a single coherent argument that addresses the point I made earlier, why distinguish a man-woman relationship from a man-man woman-woman relationship? (except arguments that relied on fundamentalism or homophobia, which are coherent, but wrong-headed and horrible)  I'm open to hearing a coherent argument that meets my criteria.  But, I don't think it exists.  This has been argued by people smarter than you and I in the Federal Courts.  The anti-SSM marriage side has failed to find one rational basis reason for banning SSM.  Maybe you can help them and think of one, but I seriously doubt it.

It might be considered that opposition to gay marriage comes out of a somewhat different intellectual tradition than which modern "rational basis" legal arguments rest upon, and that diverse intellectual traditions can hold coherence or at least not be "stupid."

Your criteria is seems to be that any concept of marriage related to gender qua gender is bigoted by definition, is that right?

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean.  If the argument is that marriage means one man and one woman, because that's what it means, that's circular and therefore fundamentally flawed.  To say, gay people can't get married because marriage is between one man and one woman, that's no type of argument.  The premise for the conclusion can't just be the restatement of the conclusion in different words.

And, my point isn't even really about what is and is not bigoted.  It would help if we allowed ourselves to be fairly politically incorrect and frank about our opinions.  But, my point is that there is a lack of an actual honest to goodness, principled argument on the anti-SSM side.  An argument that lays out a coherent principle that differentiates between homosexual and heterosexual couples AND ALSO explains why that distinction matters in a relevant way.  So, just saying gay people like showtunes too much or gay people are gay, that's not going to cut it. 

[SteveRogers]

I didn't say anything about the effect of these views on their legal bearing. The only thing I have been trying to say is that it is possible to not support same-sex marriage without being a bigot. Perhaps you equate opposition to same-sex marriage with bigotry; but you seemed to readily make all sorts of assumptions about my character earlier that were not true. Surely you can acknowledge there mere possibility that there are some people who do not support same-sex marriage without being homophobes, bigots, fundamentalists, and so forth?

Yes, they could be ignorant or stupid, however so often that's coterminous with fundamentalism or homophobia.

Honestly, I have never heard a single coherent argument that addresses the point I made earlier, why distinguish a man-woman relationship from a man-man woman-woman relationship? (except arguments that relied on fundamentalism or homophobia, which are coherent, but wrong-headed and horrible)  I'm open to hearing a coherent argument that meets my criteria.  But, I don't think it exists.  This has been argued by people smarter than you and I in the Federal Courts.  The anti-SSM marriage side has failed to find one rational basis reason for banning SSM.  Maybe you can help them and think of one, but I seriously doubt it.

It might be considered that opposition to gay marriage comes out of a somewhat different intellectual tradition than which modern "rational basis" legal arguments rest upon, and that diverse intellectual traditions can hold coherence or at least not be "stupid."

Your criteria is seems to be that any concept of marriage related to gender qua gender is bigoted by definition, is that right?

I wouldn't say that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot. Many people may be old and set in their ways, they may be working off of a bad set of information about the nature of sexual orientation, and they may have never met a gay person in their life. Their opinion may be reflexive and the result of lifelong conditioning.

But when it comes to evaluating politicians based on the positions they take, we should generally demand a higher standard of critical thinking than we do for the average person on the street. If a politician is going to publicly take a stand on gay marriage they need to have taken the time to think about the implications of denying equal rights to a whole group of people, and they need to have thought long and hard about whether there is a reason for opposing gay marriage that is both intellectually honest and legally defensible. If a person undertakes that whole analysis, and then still comes back with "I oppose gay marriage because it is new and it makes me uncomfortable" then I take that as evidence that that person at the very least lacks the minimum degree of basic human empathy that I'd want to see in an elected official.   

[eric82oslo]

I didn't say anything about the effect of these views on their legal bearing. The only thing I have been trying to say is that it is possible to not support same-sex marriage without being a bigot. Perhaps you equate opposition to same-sex marriage with bigotry; but you seemed to readily make all sorts of assumptions about my character earlier that were not true. Surely you can acknowledge there mere possibility that there are some people who do not support same-sex marriage without being homophobes, bigots, fundamentalists, and so forth?

Yes, they could be ignorant or stupid, however so often that's coterminous with fundamentalism or homophobia.

Honestly, I have never heard a single coherent argument that addresses the point I made earlier, why distinguish a man-woman relationship from a man-man woman-woman relationship? (except arguments that relied on fundamentalism or homophobia, which are coherent, but wrong-headed and horrible)  I'm open to hearing a coherent argument that meets my criteria.  But, I don't think it exists.  This has been argued by people smarter than you and I in the Federal Courts.  The anti-SSM marriage side has failed to find one rational basis reason for banning SSM.  Maybe you can help them and think of one, but I seriously doubt it.

It might be considered that opposition to gay marriage comes out of a somewhat different intellectual tradition than which modern "rational basis" legal arguments rest upon, and that diverse intellectual traditions can hold coherence or at least not be "stupid."

Your criteria is seems to be that any concept of marriage related to gender qua gender is bigoted by definition, is that right?

I wouldn't say that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot. Many people may be old and set in their ways, they may be working off of a bad set of information about the nature of sexual orientation, and they may have never met a gay person in their life. Their opinion may be reflexive and the result of lifelong conditioning.

I don't think you mean "never have met a gay person in your life". It's as if I told you that you had never met a woman in your life.

[bedstuy]

I didn't say anything about the effect of these views on their legal bearing. The only thing I have been trying to say is that it is possible to not support same-sex marriage without being a bigot. Perhaps you equate opposition to same-sex marriage with bigotry; but you seemed to readily make all sorts of assumptions about my character earlier that were not true. Surely you can acknowledge there mere possibility that there are some people who do not support same-sex marriage without being homophobes, bigots, fundamentalists, and so forth?

Yes, they could be ignorant or stupid, however so often that's coterminous with fundamentalism or homophobia.

Honestly, I have never heard a single coherent argument that addresses the point I made earlier, why distinguish a man-woman relationship from a man-man woman-woman relationship? (except arguments that relied on fundamentalism or homophobia, which are coherent, but wrong-headed and horrible)  I'm open to hearing a coherent argument that meets my criteria.  But, I don't think it exists.  This has been argued by people smarter than you and I in the Federal Courts.  The anti-SSM marriage side has failed to find one rational basis reason for banning SSM.  Maybe you can help them and think of one, but I seriously doubt it.

It might be considered that opposition to gay marriage comes out of a somewhat different intellectual tradition than which modern "rational basis" legal arguments rest upon, and that diverse intellectual traditions can hold coherence or at least not be "stupid."

Your criteria is seems to be that any concept of marriage related to gender qua gender is bigoted by definition, is that right?

I wouldn't say that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot. Many people may be old and set in their ways, they may be working off of a bad set of information about the nature of sexual orientation, and they may have never met a gay person in their life. Their opinion may be reflexive and the result of lifelong conditioning.

I don't think you mean "never have met a gay person in your life". It's as if I told you that you had never met a woman in your life.

Maybe, "think they've never met a gay person in their life" is more accurate.

It actually reminds me of a funny story.  The US Supreme Court upheld a sodomy ban in the 1980s in a case called Bowers v. Hardwick.  During the deliberations, one of the Justices apparently said to one of their clerks, "I don't understand these gay men, why can't they find a woman to date?" 
Their clerk responded, "They aren't attracted to women, they don't get an erection from looking at a woman." 

On top of that, apparently that same Supreme Court Justice told their clerk, "I've never met one of these gay men."  And, wouldn't you know it, that clerk happened to be a gay man.

That's the evolution of our society.  Supreme Court Justices didn't grasp the concept of sexual orientation just 30 years ago.  That's why we've changed our views.  Once you see sexual orientation in the proper light, a woman and a woman getting married is just a beautiful, happy thing.  My whole point here is that there are no more excuses to be ignorant anymore. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I didn't say anything about the effect of these views on their legal bearing. The only thing I have been trying to say is that it is possible to not support same-sex marriage without being a bigot. Perhaps you equate opposition to same-sex marriage with bigotry; but you seemed to readily make all sorts of assumptions about my character earlier that were not true. Surely you can acknowledge there mere possibility that there are some people who do not support same-sex marriage without being homophobes, bigots, fundamentalists, and so forth?

Yes, they could be ignorant or stupid, however so often that's coterminous with fundamentalism or homophobia.

Honestly, I have never heard a single coherent argument that addresses the point I made earlier, why distinguish a man-woman relationship from a man-man woman-woman relationship? (except arguments that relied on fundamentalism or homophobia, which are coherent, but wrong-headed and horrible)  I'm open to hearing a coherent argument that meets my criteria.  But, I don't think it exists.  This has been argued by people smarter than you and I in the Federal Courts.  The anti-SSM marriage side has failed to find one rational basis reason for banning SSM.  Maybe you can help them and think of one, but I seriously doubt it.

It might be considered that opposition to gay marriage comes out of a somewhat different intellectual tradition than which modern "rational basis" legal arguments rest upon, and that diverse intellectual traditions can hold coherence or at least not be "stupid."

Your criteria is seems to be that any concept of marriage related to gender qua gender is bigoted by definition, is that right?

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean.  If the argument is that marriage means one man and one woman, because that's what it means, that's circular and therefore fundamentally flawed.  To say, gay people can't get married because marriage is between one man and one woman, that's no type of argument.  The premise for the conclusion can't just be the restatement of the conclusion in different words.

And, my point isn't even really about what is and is not bigoted.  It would help if we allowed ourselves to be fairly politically incorrect and frank about our opinions.  But, my point is that there is a lack of an actual honest to goodness, principled argument on the anti-SSM side.  An argument that lays out a coherent principle that differentiates between homosexual and heterosexual couples AND ALSO explains why that distinction matters in a relevant way.  So, just saying gay people like showtunes too much or gay people are gay, that's not going to cut it. 

The assumption you are making, as I understand it, is that all social institutions must be organized according to principles of deductive reasoning in order to be valid, and that tradition is no guide to how things should be. That simply isn't something that a conservative is going to agree with. Deductive reasoning only takes you so far.  Consider the fact that we are debating whether something is Constitutional, which itself is a tradition.  There is no analytic proof that says we should follow the Constitution, is there?  We attempt to adhere to it because of what the tradition has brought us. Marriage is like that, except it is a much more ancient and universal tradition, with its origins in the most remote past of human history, and with a much more unfathomable history and depth of social ramifications. As we look across cultures, marriage has a gender specific aspect to it, and I don't find it absurd to consider that gender may be significant to marriage not in a single absolute way, but in a panoply of ways which together might be significant. There is the issue of the relation of marriage to procreation, there is the idea of male and female complementarity as basic social and cosmological concepts in the human cultural experience. I support legal recognition of gay unions, and I even support calling them marriages, but to say that a union between two people of the same gender and those of different genders are fundamentally the same in all important respects is not something I feel can be claimed with any confidence.  This is an issue of Chesterton's fence.  The fundamental question here is - might there wisdom in what we have inherited that may be obscured in the myopia of the ideology and politics of the present moment?  The fact that the reasons for something may not be obvious or can be reduced to a simple legal formula does not mean it arises from ignorance or animous.   I see no reason to assume guilt of bigotry until proven innocence when it comes to those who have created and attempted to preserve an valuable institution, even if we come to the conclusion that a transformation of it may be necessary.