LA judge upholds state SSM ban

[bedstuy]

This means the Supreme Court will soon take up the case.

Why?

[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.  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.

[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. 

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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. 

[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. 

[bedstuy]

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.

That's a monumentally stupid argument.  If you're actually going to maintain that we need not use reason or principle or law or ethics to guide our behavior, what's the point of discussing anything?  If you think that, "well, I don't believe in reasoning" is a good argument, that's sort of the end of the line.  I disagree with you.  What are we supposed to do now?  Throw down in a cage match or something? 

Honestly, that sort of thinking is as bad as bigotry, it's basically nihilism with a twist of conservatism.  But, it's funny that you accept that type of nonsense when it hurts gay people, but what about other issues?  Someone could use your identical logic, "well, maybe logic is BS and maybe tradition something something" to justify Jim Crow or the Taliban's Islamic law or any of the worst barbarism.  That's what your argument is, barbarism.  Give me a break.  If that's the best you conservatives can do, in the immortal words of Big Daddy Kane, "put a quarter in your ass cause you played yourself."

[bedstuy]

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.

That's a monumentally stupid argument.  If you're actually going to maintain that we need not use reason or principle or law or ethics to guide our behavior, what's the point of discussing anything?  If you think that, "well, I don't believe in reasoning" is a good argument, that's sort of the end of the line.  I disagree with you.  What are we supposed to do now?  Throw down in a cage match or something? 

Honestly, that sort of thinking is as bad as bigotry, it's basically nihilism with a twist of conservatism.  But, it's funny that you accept that type of nonsense when it hurts gay people, but what about other issues?  Someone could use your identical logic, "well, maybe logic is BS and maybe tradition something something" to justify Jim Crow or the Taliban's Islamic law or any of the worst barbarism.  That's what your argument is, barbarism.  Give me a break.  If that's the best you conservatives can do, in the immortal words of Big Daddy Kane, "put a quarter in your ass cause you played yourself."

Okay, you've amply demonstrated that you consider any worldview you aren't interested in taking the effort to understand to be stupid. You don't need to resort to profanity.

Apparently, your worldview that tradition is (might be) (maybe) automatically superior to all logic, reason, data, law and consideration by human beings in 2014 (or just on the issues that you choose)? Yes, that's a dumb idea and don't act like I'm the close-minded one here.  That's bonkers.

[bedstuy]

You're just imputing this wisdom and consideration to the past for no particular reason.

In a sense, I agree with your basic point.  People thought marriage was a good institution, because it's healthy for society in many ways.  It is good for children and creating stable social bonds.  But, that's intrinsic to families, couples and people who love each other and share their lives together.  That's not intrinsic to a straight couple in a way those social goods are not intrinsic to a gay couple.  And certainly, the provision of those social goods to gay couples doesn't detract from the intrinsic benefits to straight couples or society at large.  Thus, I think some deeper thinking, not about marriage as a whole, but to the exclusion of gay couples is merited. 

Why did marriage in Anglo-American historical times exclude gay couples?  That's the question you need to answer.  Do you think it's because people knew better about the proper relations between men and women and had a better understanding of sexual orientation?  Did people in 1750 think about same-sex marriage and decide against it?  Hell no.  Being gay was a capital crime in England until the 1860s.  During some of American history, sodomy was a capital offense.  People in America during the 20th Century went to jail for 20 years for being gay.  Gay sex was still criminalized in some of the US until 2003. 

That's the obvious answer, being gay was considered at best criminal and certainly immoral.  It wasn't this wise consideration of sexual orientation and what's best for society.  People were just rampantly homophobic until recently.  There was no wisdom of the ages used to consider this issue, because it was obscured by the incredibly stupidity and hatred of the ages.

[bedstuy]

Why did marriage in Anglo-American historical times exclude gay couples?  That's the question you need to answer. 

Why is that the question?  Wouldn't the larger question be, "Why has marriage been a predominantly opposite-sex institution throughout history until very recently, both in historical contexts where homosexuality has been condemned as well as those where it has been tolerated"?

Which is a more plausible explanation?  Your mystery reason or my common-sense reason that I would venture to say is obvious.  You want to divorce this from some judgment of homosexuality, but that's just impossible, particularly when you want to rely on these vague reasons about what marriage might could possibly somehow something something.  Same sex marriage just wasn't considered until the 20th century.

[bedstuy]

Why did marriage in Anglo-American historical times exclude gay couples?  That's the question you need to answer. 

Why is that the question?  Wouldn't the larger question be, "Why has marriage been a predominantly opposite-sex institution throughout history until very recently, both in historical contexts where homosexuality has been condemned as well as those where it has been tolerated"?

Which is a more plausible explanation?  Your mystery reason or my common-sense reason that I would venture to say is obvious.  You want to divorce this from some judgment of homosexuality, but that's just impossible, particularly when you want to rely on these vague reasons about what marriage might could possibly somehow something something.  Same sex marriage just wasn't considered until the 20th century.

We both agree that it wasn't considered. The question is why it wasn't considered.  I don't find your explanation of homophobia plausible as a general explanation (though certainly it is as a contributing one) since it is not applicable to all contexts where this social pattern exists.

If nobody considered same-sex marriage, how could they have any wisdom regarding same-sex marriage?

As to your other point, name a historical culture that accepted homosexuality such that it would have made sense to have same-sex marriage.  I've never heard of such a thing and it certainly doesn't exist in US/Anglo-American history.  Anglo-American history is certainly the proper history to consult here because that's what our law is grounded on, not some hypothetical culture that tolerated homosexuality somewhere at some point.

[bedstuy]

Why did marriage in Anglo-American historical times exclude gay couples?  That's the question you need to answer.

Why is that the question?  Wouldn't the larger question be, "Why has marriage been a predominantly opposite-sex institution throughout history until very recently, both in historical contexts where homosexuality has been condemned as well as those where it has been tolerated"?

Which is a more plausible explanation?  Your mystery reason or my common-sense reason that I would venture to say is obvious.  You want to divorce this from some judgment of homosexuality, but that's just impossible, particularly when you want to rely on these vague reasons about what marriage might could possibly somehow something something.  Same sex marriage just wasn't considered until the 20th century.

We both agree that it wasn't considered. The question is why it wasn't considered.  I don't find your explanation of homophobia plausible as a general explanation (though certainly it is as a contributing one) since it is not applicable to all contexts where this social pattern exists.

If nobody considered same-sex marriage, how could they have any wisdom regarding same-sex marriage?

As to your other point, name a historical culture that accepted homosexuality such that it would have made sense to have same-sex marriage.  I've never heard of such a thing and it certainly doesn't exist in US/Anglo-American history.  Anglo-American history is certainly the proper history to consult here because that's what our law is grounded on, not some hypothetical culture that tolerated homosexuality somewhere at some point.

You really seem not to understand what I'm saying, so let me put it this way:  If you were to go back at pretty much any time in history more than a few decades ago and tell someone that the reason marriage is something between a man and a woman is because of anything to do with homosexuals, they would either think you were bonkers or were making a joke.

You're right that I don't understand what you're saying. 

They didn't even consider gay marriage at all because they live in a world before the modern understanding of sexual orientation.  They didn't exclude gays necessarily out of malice specifically.  But, they didn't consciously exclude gay people from marriage for any reason that we need to credit today.  I guess your point is that they made a secret judgment that marriage is only one man and one woman and their judgment is correct because of super secret reasons you can't divulge.  ]

My point is that we can't trust 19th century or early 20th century judgment on including gay people in anything because they had a completely different understanding of homosexuality than you and I do.  And, especially when one of those judgments deprives people of equal civil rights, the burden should be on your side to make at least rational argument why gay people can't get married. 

[bedstuy]

If you went back to the 1700s and talked about people of different religions marrying because they liked each other or found each other attractive, you would have been considered bonkers.

That isn't even remotely true. Even where there were prohibitions against it, they would have understood exactly why someone would want to marry someone of a different religion based on fondness or attractiveness. It is more our time that doesn't understand them.

There weren't prohibitions against inter-religious marriage. The idea wasn't conceivable. There was no way to get married. If a Jew and a Catholic in Russia in 1790 wanted to marry, who would have conducted it? How would they have registered it? I'm all ears.

There have been interfaith marriages in many places and times across millennia, but perhaps it was not possible in the case you mention given the institutional arrangement of that setting. But the prohibition is implicit is in the refusal of the religions to conduct and sanction such a union is it not?  Cannot a person conceive of something which may not possible in actuality? My impression is that it isn't that it would be considered not a true marriage for two people of different religions to wed, but that a person could not be considered a true follower of their religion if they did so. Perhaps in some theology it would not be considered a true marriage either, but then they probably wouldn't consider it a true marriage if two people married who were both of the same 'false' religion either. 

As for your camera-phone comment, it doesn't work as an analogy because a camera phone at a wedding would not have a meaningful opposite to people in the past. To say "there was no camera phone at a wedding" would not make any more sense than to say "there was a camera phone at a wedding." On the other hand to say "marriage is between a man and a woman" would have made sense regardless of how much sense it would have made sense to say "marriage can be between a man and a man." Ancient peoples created myths and poems and art centered around the idea of marriage as a union between male and female. They didn't do any of that for the non-existence of cell phones.

You would agree that ancient peoples were wrong about their understanding of sexual orientation though?  How does that not invalidate your argument here?

[bedstuy]

Concepts of sexual orientation are so culturally specific in any case, but it's not at all clear to me what about my argument would be invalidated. What about sexual orientation do you think is key here?

First off, we're talking about the US anglo-American culture which is relevant to US law.  Right?  What happened in Italy or Russia is not going to have much relevance to US law.

The crux of your argument is that people in the past didn't see fit to let gay people get married, so we don't necessarily even have to consider allowing SSM today because sometimes (why?) law and reason must be trumped by tradition.

To me, that's basically taking a judgment of gay people who you and I would vehemently disagree with when it comes to sexual orientation at total face value.  Just, as we would vehemently disagree with them about the role of women or race or a number of other social issues, we find their opinions about homosexuality to be extremely wrong and horrible in a certain sense.  So, why are we listening to their judgments today when we disagree about the basic assumptions that underpin their reasoning?  We've been over this like 4 times and you refuse to answer, so maybe this is a waste of time, but whatever.

[bedstuy]

I haven't made the argument that same-sex marriage is something that shouldn't even be considered. That would be hypocritical to absurd degree on my part.  What I have been saying is that when it is considered, then tradition, while not necessarily dispositive, is relevant. By all means tradition should be questioned, but we should also allow it to question the assumptions of modernity.  Instead, we have seen courts go out of their way to trash tradition. It is indeed odd, in the Anglo-American context, given that precedent and the common law are nothing if not appeals to tradition.  We wouldn't even care what these people in black robes say were it not for a tradition to do such a thing.

The law has to be something though, right?  If there weren't laws, marriage would not exist insofar as we're discussing it here.  And, there are two laws that appear to conflict, these state marriage laws and the 5th/14th Amendments of the Constitution.  So, it's not this weird thing that marriage law is up for grabs in a court.  I don't see how it could be any other way unless you're making an argument against judicial review in general.

I don't believe that support for same-sex marriage should actually require the demonization of its opponents, denigration and derision of tradition, and having views on sexuality that can be accurately summed up by a Macklemore song.  In the case that it does, I'm afraid that it fails to be something I can support.

Who is demonizing people?  Is it demonizing to point out that someone is using bad logic or has a certain set of beliefs?  If that's demonizing, what about the opponents of SSM, aren't they horrendous human beings for how they demonize gay people, torture children and ruin people's lives over sexual orientation?  You would rather be on their side than be on the side of people who make pointed reasoned arguments to change laws?  That's bonkers.

You seem to keep coming back to this idea that marriage being defined as a man and a woman depended on certain false views about sexual orientation, but then you seem to say they didn't think about such things, so I'm confused about what you are claiming. I don't see why views about sexual orientation as typically defined are necessarily behind views about marriage, but maybe you can clarify this for me.

I don't think sexual orientation was even a concept for people in 1800.  As a threshold matter, same-sex marriage never made became an issue because it would be ridiculous considering their beliefs about homosexuality.

So, having opposite sex marriage had no real consideration of whether one-man, one woman was magically perfect for some reason, it was the only option based on the process of elimination.  It's like they had vanilla ice cream in their freezer and nothing else.  You're saying they decided to have vanilla ice cream for dessert because they had this infinite wisdom about selecting ice cream.  Well, if it's the only choice, how much stock do you put in that decision?  Forget why they only had vanilla/opposite sex marriage, if there was no other option given their baseline assumptions in their metaphorical freezer of gender-gender pairs, what is the logic behind venerating that decision?  This is about categories at the end of the day.  If they had one option to fit in the box, of course they picked the one option.  Today, logic and experience present us with multiple categories of who could be a married couple. 

[bedstuy]

You are right, it is not a weird thing that marriage law ends up in court. The problem I have is with the argumentation being made. I am open to the idea that there is an argument a court could make declaring same-sex marriage to be valid that I would find convincing. I've been trying to think of it and I haven't gotten there.  Perhaps it exists already and I haven't read it, but the general trend has been to depend heavily on arguments that say that appeals to tradition are irrational and any opposition amounts to nothing more than bigotry.

Who is demonizing people, you ask?  It certainly seems that you are demonizing opponents of SSM as a group in what you just said. Given the discrimination and bullying that sadly still exists in our society, it is understandable, but neither accurate nor helpful to do so.

I think that experience is a good argument for same-sex marriage, given the fact that people have formed relationships patterned after marriage whether they are recognized by the state or not. I don't see any reason why logic alone would dictate that same-sex marriage would be allowed. I
think it is worth asking in your parable why there was vanilla ice cream in the freezer in the first place. I don't think we can assume it was merely accidental.

There are plenty of arguments for allowing same-sex marriage.  You would agree.  My original point is that there are no coherent arguments against it except those premised upon either religion or homophobia.

You're saying there might be or least we can't assume there aren't.  Well, you can maybe me to death, but you have produced any of these arguments.  You can always say, well, maybe there are good arguments in favor of my position.  It's a lame argument and you can return to it in a long-winded fashion, it's still lame.  Then you tell me, "Or, at least it's mean to these opponents of same-sex marriage to call them homophobes."  To me, it's not mean to call a homophobe a homophobe, particularly in the context where homophobes murder and attack gay people and influence our government and our society.  And, this is about challenging a law that's on the books in some US states.  These opponents of same-sex marriage aren't these poor, disenfranchised little waifs, they're people demanding that a law be kept on the books for everyone.  If you enter the public debate like that, you're fair game for rational argument. 

Now, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're wrong, maybe we're both wrong.  Sure, buddy.  But, as to the original point, you can't defend your argument at all.  You maybe-d around.  You said "tradition!" enough times to be cast as Tevye in a production of "Fiddler on the Roof."  You don't have any arguments, I suppose because you don't think that public policy needs to be supported by any rational arguments or reasons or principles.  I guess that makes you a conservative defending same-sex marriage as before you Somalians defended female genital mutilation and Aztecs defended human sacrifice.

[bedstuy]

No, but I will say that going in to change a culture without taking the time to understand it has always worked out splendidly.

You: I'm not sure you should be allowed to get married.
Me: Why?
You: Someone else thinks you shouldn't.
Me:  Why is that?
You:  A reason, it might be a good reason.  Also, they're from a long time ago so they're automatically right.
Me:  Ok...
You:  Stop expecting people to have reasons for things!  It's mean!
Me: ...
You:  Maybe I'm right, sometimes there's a new thing and it's not a good thing.
Me: ...

[bedstuy]

No, but I will say that going in to change a culture without taking the time to understand it has always worked out splendidly.

You: I'm not sure you should be allowed to get married.
Me: Why?
You: Someone else thinks you shouldn't.
Me:  Why is that?
You:  A reason, it might be a good reason.  Also, they're from a long time ago so they're automatically right.
Me:  Ok...
You:  Stop expecting people to have reasons for things!  It's mean!
Me: ...
You:  Maybe I'm right, sometimes there's a new thing and it's not a good thing.
Me: ...

"Gay people should be married because homophobes are homophobes. It's airtight reasoning. They didn't in the past because of they hated gays. Okay not really, they weren't thinking about it. No, yes it was because of bigotry. Or not. They were just stupid and irrational. Not like me, I'm super smart. No really, I really am. Maybe sexual orientation something 14th amendment something logic something human sacrifice."

see I can play that game too.

You can't play the game of coming up with reasons that you hold your position. 

No, but I will say that going in to change a culture without taking the time to understand it has always worked out splendidly.

You: I'm not sure you should be allowed to get married.
Me: Why?
You: Someone else thinks you shouldn't.
Me:  Why is that?
You:  A reason, it might be a good reason.  Also, they're from a long time ago so they're automatically right.
Me:  Ok...
You:  Stop expecting people to have reasons for things!  It's mean!
Me: ...
You:  Maybe I'm right, sometimes there's a new thing and it's not a good thing.
Me: ...

"muh tradition"

There's a reason the courts continually throw out these bans time after time. There's simply no logical reason for or societal interest in banning gay marriage. Writing long winded posts about how those who oppose gay marriage are the TRUE victims and how muh tradition should inform our current views is stupid. Yes, gay marriage was banned for 99% of recorded human history. Women were also considered property for 98% of recorded human history. Indeed shua, surely our ancestors had a grand overarching purpose (NOT based on ignorance and bigotry, 4realz) for making women property, and if not adopt that view, we should certainly respect it.

The reason why courts, in the last couple of years in particular, have started throwing out bans on gay marriage is simply because its not the done thing, socially speaking, to uphold them anymore. Had someone brought a challenge to court demanding the legalisation of gay marriage in 1984 or 1994, they would have been laughed out of the building. Now, the majority of the population (and, crucially, the people the help mould the opinions of the majority of the population), have shifted from the position of 'meh, keep it illegal, its pretty strange', to that of 'meh, feck it, let them marry'. The arguments have not changed one iota (although the pro-gay marriage advocates have put a considerably more emotional slant on their arguments in recent years it seems); the opinions of the majority have, and the courts are now reflecting those changes. So, no, there's no 'logic hole', in the anti-gay marriage arguments, those arguments are simply unfashionable nowadays.

In 1984, people openly said that being gay was immoral and detrimental behavior.  Remember, in 1984 the Supreme Court upheld a ban on gay sex.  My point is that once you remove the assumption that being gay is a negative behavior or characteristic and you conceptualize gayness as an orientation, rather than as deviant criminality, you can't justify depriving gay people of the same rights as heteros. 

Look at it this way, once we had the feminist revolution, you couldn't justify depriving women of the same rights and opportunities as men, unless there was a compelling justification related to gender.  Once we had the civil rights revolution, you couldn't justify depriving black people of jobs, housing, educaton, etc.  This is just another social revolution influencing the law because it changes our basic assumptions.  My answer to you is this, stop crying about the law changing unless you can make an argument that the baseline assumptions of 1984 were correct vs. the assumptions of 2014.

[bedstuy]

bedstuy, I have presented you with reasoning as to how tradition can act as a repository of knowledge and you didn't like it one bit.  I presented a few possibilities as to what the functional nature of this knowledge could possibly be in the case of marriage as a gendered institution, or at least might reasonably be thought to be, which you didn't seem to give much consideration. I could present more, but to what end?  What you seem to be looking for is proof that gendered marriage has a utility to the fulfillment of some Hobbesian social contract. I am sorry to disappoint you, but my initial post in this thread should have tipped you off that wasn't forthcoming from me and involved a different kind of reasoning. It is coherent, whether or not it is convincing.

No, you used a bunch of weasel words because you're too afraid to make an argument because it will sound homophobic and ridiculous.  I really don't know what your argument was because you kept qualifying and maybe-ing and just sort of suggesting what perhaps, maybe, could be the type of idea that would justify a ban on gay marriage.  But, you never actually laid out the principles or ideas based on tradition.  I'm not asking for anything crazy.  Just a reason that's goes beyond, "gay marriage shouldn't be legal because marriage is between one man and one woman."  You can't possibly think that sort of tautology is a justification for anything.

But yes, I remember what you sort of tried to say. 

1.  Gay people can't make babies.

That's true.  But, that's a ridiculous argument considering that marriage does not apply this test to heterosexuals who can't produce children.  And, considering we allow gay adoption, it's certainly anti-child and functionally untrue that gay people don't raise children.

2.  I'm not totally sure, but you said something about a fence and how tradition is magically correct.  I have to assume your argument is that society will agree that homosexuality is immoral in the future and this will be a short period of relative acceptance and freedom for homosexuals.  Is that the crux of the argument?

Listen, if you think being gay is wrong, just say it.  Do you agree with that traditional understanding of homosexuality?  Do you think the traditional understanding of homosexuality deserves respect like the traditional exclusion of gays from this civil right?  So, that point, what about Lawrence v. Texas?