The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

That was quick!

Dr. Ben Carson, the man who decided to give Pres. Obama the "what for" during the recent National Prayer Breakfast, was seen as a possible rising star within the GOP and beyond.

Well, until he appeared on "Hannity" and revealed he doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about:

HANNITY: All right, last question, we have the issue of the Supreme Court dealing with two issues involving gay marriage. I've asked you a lot of questions. I've never asked you that, what are your thoughts?

CARSON: Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition. So he, it's not something that is against gays, it's against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications.

Gays. Just like pedophiles and people who have sex with animals.

And thus ended the very brief presidential aspirations of one Dr. Ben Carson.

Good riddance.

Oh man, I was hoping it wasn't the same Ben Carson who wrote Gifted Hands that inspired me in high school when I was studying to be in medicine. But sadly, there goes another person I had admired. That was required reading for us in high school.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

That was quick!

Dr. Ben Carson, the man who decided to give Pres. Obama the "what for" during the recent National Prayer Breakfast, was seen as a possible rising star within the GOP and beyond.

Well, until he appeared on "Hannity" and revealed he doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about:

HANNITY: All right, last question, we have the issue of the Supreme Court dealing with two issues involving gay marriage. I've asked you a lot of questions. I've never asked you that, what are your thoughts?

CARSON: Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition. So he, it's not something that is against gays, it's against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications.

Gays. Just like pedophiles and people who have sex with animals.

And thus ended the very brief presidential aspirations of one Dr. Ben Carson.

Good riddance.

You have a lot more faith in the general public than I do. This won't hurt him except with people who wouldn't vote for him anyways.

billt721 wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

That was quick!

Dr. Ben Carson, the man who decided to give Pres. Obama the "what for" during the recent National Prayer Breakfast, was seen as a possible rising star within the GOP and beyond.

Well, until he appeared on "Hannity" and revealed he doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about:

HANNITY: All right, last question, we have the issue of the Supreme Court dealing with two issues involving gay marriage. I've asked you a lot of questions. I've never asked you that, what are your thoughts?

CARSON: Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition. So he, it's not something that is against gays, it's against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications.

Gays. Just like pedophiles and people who have sex with animals.

And thus ended the very brief presidential aspirations of one Dr. Ben Carson.

Good riddance.

You have a lot more faith in the general public than I do. This won't hurt him except with people who wouldn't vote for him anyways.

I m not so sure, the venn diagram of people who live in the bible belt and those that really, really like their goats has a bit of overlap.

Dr. Carson is Seventh-Day Adventist. He would have the same issues in a presidential run as Romney did.

http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-li...

Rush Limbaugh has admitted that they lost on gay marriage. It's over. It doesn't matter what the Supreme Court does they've lost.

It felt good listening to it.

Dr. Carson tries to "clarify" his remarks.

He actually doesn't.

CARSON: As a Christian, I have a duty to love all people — and that includes people who have other sexual orientations — and I certainly do, and never had any intention of offending anyone. What I was basically saying — and if anyone was offended I apologize to you — but what I was basically saying is there is no group…I wasn’t equating those things, I don’t think they are equal. If you asked me for an apple and I gave you an orange, you would say ‘well that’s not an orange.’ And then I’d say well there’s a banana…’that’s not an apple either.’ And there’s a peach…’that’s not an apple either.’ But it doesn’t mean that I’m equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way, I’m not equating those things.

Dear Dr. Carson,

JUST. STOP. IT.

What if he took the orange, banana, and peach and placed them in a nice basket with a ribbon and a card though?

LouZiffer wrote:

What if he took the orange, banana, and peach and placed them in a nice basket with a ribbon and a card though?

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/Fruits_zps8e835233.png)

If you asked me for an apple and I gave you an orange, you would say ‘well that’s not an orange.’

Dr Carson: ...why would I say that's not an orange if you handed me an orange? You failed your own metaphor within the first sentence. Then you rolled like five natural 1 skill checks in a row on bluff and diplomacy. At this point, you basically fell on your own sword and then tripped and fell off a cliff two miles away.

IMAGE(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/gay_marriage/gay_marriage.png)

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Dear Dr. Carson,

JUST. STOP. IT.

And this is why people should read prepared statements when they're trying to clarify their position. Though as a neurosurgeon I suppose no one should expect him to have any communication skills whatsoever.

Someone did a rather brilliant job of truncating the transcript of the DOMA case for those who don't want to wade into the 87 pages of the actual thing.

Here's the link.

Here's a sample:

SCALIA: I’m going to ask you a ridiculous question: When did it become unconstitutional to discriminate against gays and lesbians?

OLSON: It would be bad form at this juncture to say, “F*** you, Scalia, you just want to grandstand,” so I’m just going to say it’s a nonsensical question.

SCALIA: I’m a nonsensical person. Answer the question.

Hee!

That summary is pure gold.

KAGAN: So a state could pass a law refusing to recognize a marriage between people who are both over 55?

COOPER: No, because they could procreate!

KAGAN: I have checked with my girl parts, and they assure me this is not possible.

Jeez. Olsen's contention that society's interest in keeping marriage straight was to stop old men from porking younger women was particularly entertaining even without the translation.

Just a small correction, Paleo. That was Cooper's contention, not Olsen's.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Just a small correction, Paleo. That was Cooper's contention, not Olsen's.

Ah. Sorry. I stand corrected.

Do people like Cooper really believe their arguments? Or are they just covering up their "this is icky and it should be banned" positions?

Bruce wrote:

Do people like Cooper really believe their arguments? Or are they just covering up their "this is icky and it should be banned" positions?

I think they do believe their arguments because they have entered a realm of desperation.

You can hear this in the audio recording of the SCOTUS/Prop. 8 hearing just this past week. Here is a section for consideration:

MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples. Suppose, in turn -­

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples — both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional -­

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE KAGAN: No, really, because if the couple — I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.

(Laughter.)

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, society's -­ society's interest in responsible procreation isn't just with respect to the procreative capacities of the couple itself. The marital norm, which imposes the obligations of fidelity and monogamy, Your Honor, advances the interests in responsible procreation by making it more likely that neither party, including the fertile party to that...

If you listen to the audio recording at the time of the second bit of laughter after Justice Kagan says, "there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage," Cooper is completely serious in his next breath and word. He doesn't snicker at what is a very funny line. He is completely resolute and focused on this idea that it's the end of the world if we allow gay people to get married.

The sad thing is that he doesn't even see the fact that we already have gay marriage here and it isn't going anywhere. In fact, I am will to make a bet that within 5-10 years, another 8-10 states will have gay marriage in addition to the 9 (plus DC) that already have it. And there is little stomach to amend the U.S. Constitution on this matter as you simply can't get 290 of 435 members of Congress, 67 of 100 U.S. Senators, and 38 of 50 states to agree to the amendment.

Again, I am certain he believes it, but he does so for absolutely all the wrong reasons.

It is amazing to what extent folks will go to protect their prejudices.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Bruce wrote:

Do people like Cooper really believe their arguments? Or are they just covering up their "this is icky and it should be banned" positions?

I think they do believe their arguments because they have entered a realm of desperation.

You can hear this in the audio recording of the SCOTUS/Prop. 8 hearing just this past week. Here is a section for consideration:

MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples. Suppose, in turn -­

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples — both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional -­

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE KAGAN: No, really, because if the couple — I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.

(Laughter.)

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, society's -­ society's interest in responsible procreation isn't just with respect to the procreative capacities of the couple itself. The marital norm, which imposes the obligations of fidelity and monogamy, Your Honor, advances the interests in responsible procreation by making it more likely that neither party, including the fertile party to that...

If you listen to the audio recording at the time of the second bit of laughter after Justice Kagan says, "there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage," Cooper is completely serious in his next breath and word. He doesn't snicker at what is a very funny line. He is completely resolute and focused on this idea that it's the end of the world if we allow gay people to get married.

The sad thing is that he doesn't even see the fact that we already have gay marriage here and it isn't going anywhere. In fact, I am will to make a bet that within 5-10 years, another 8-10 states will have gay marriage in addition to the 9 (plus DC) that already have it. And there is little stomach to amend the U.S. Constitution on this matter as you simply can't get 290 of 435 members of Congress, 67 of 100 U.S. Senators, and 38 of 50 states to agree to the amendment.

Again, I am certain he believes it, but he does so for absolutely all the wrong reasons.

He's also implying that fidelity and monogamy are purely heterosexual practices.

At common law, procreation had nothing to do with marriage. It was purely a matter of inheritance rights. I do not think anyone can look at Henry VIII and see some sanctified tradition. Get a wife, have a legitimate son, pass on lands and titles. Or else, the family legacy reverts back to the crown. That intent is carried on all the way into the 20th century. In the 20th century, after the abolitionist movement and the rise of feminism-women getting the right to vote and own property, and then rights to divorce, that changes.

America began its trek away from common law traditional marriage when the first ships of Puritans, Quakers, and fortune seekers went to a new world that was not expressly subject to the crown's laws. Colonial Americans could not get what would be deemed a legal English marriage, because they had limited resources to petition the Anglican courts for a marriage. In the same way, American views of real property rights also became distinct from the common law of England. The simple fact that a man in America could own land without a title is a tremendous boon in modern human history. That was not so for subjects to the Spanish or French crown in the new world.

And I would have found it nice to get perhaps the likes of Stephen Presser at Northwestern to speak before the Court.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

He's also implying that fidelity and monogamy are purely heterosexual practices.

It's also historically wrong, unless you put on blinders and take the stance that polygamous marriages were never - not one single time - recognized by any tribe, religious institution, or state in all of history or now.

But that has been one of the new lines. If you watch carefully, the meme has switched from:

"Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman."

to

"For the past 2,000 years, marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman."

You don't have to be a theologian to figure out was event occurred around 2,000 years ago.

But it is being done to buffer against the fact that polygamous marriages were approved by the tribe, some religious institutions, and some governments.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

You don't have to be a theologian to figure out was event occurred around 2,000 years ago.

Jesus went through puberty?

As his Easter gift to gays and lesbians, New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan reminds us filthy homosexuals that he loves us, God loves us and that gays and lesbians have a right to be friends with each other:

DOLAN: Well, the first thing I’d say to them is, “I love you, too. And God loves you. And you are made in God’s image and likeness. And – and we – we want your happiness. But – and you’re entitled to friendship.” But we also know that God has told us that the way to happiness, that – especially when it comes to sexual love – that is intended only for a man and woman in marriage, where children can come about naturally.

How big of you, Archbishop.

How incredibly big of you.

But wait! There's more:

We gotta be – we gotta do better to see that our defense of marriage is not reduced to an attack on gay people. And I admit, we haven’t been too good at that.

If (condescendingly) letting Rubb Ed and I be friends is his idea of doing better, he has an incredibly long way to go to even attempt to show he isn't attacking gay people.

Honestly, that's way better than I expected from the Pope. I get how it's insulting, frustrating, and maddening but the last quote you put in at least shows an empathy for homosexuals as human beings that I haven't seen from high levels of the Catholic Church before.

Hell, if the DOMA people didn't base their entire defense on vilifying gay people and instead played as traditionalists I would at least take their arguments seriously (still completely disagree).

Vector wrote:

Honestly, that's way better than I expected from the Pope. I get how it's insulting, frustrating, and maddening but the last quote you put in at least shows an empathy for homosexuals as human beings that I haven't seen from high levels of the Catholic Church before.

Hell, if the DOMA people didn't base their entire defense on vilifying gay people and instead played as traditionalists I would at least take their arguments seriously (still completely disagree).

Not the pope - the Archbishop of NY

Tanglebones wrote:
Vector wrote:

Honestly, that's way better than I expected from the Pope. I get how it's insulting, frustrating, and maddening but the last quote you put in at least shows an empathy for homosexuals as human beings that I haven't seen from high levels of the Catholic Church before.

Hell, if the DOMA people didn't base their entire defense on vilifying gay people and instead played as traditionalists I would at least take their arguments seriously (still completely disagree).

Not the pope - the Archbishop of NY

I have no idea how I misread that other than I realizing I don't know the Pope's name.

I'll stick with my point but admit the effect is severely reduced.

Vector wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Vector wrote:

Honestly, that's way better than I expected from the Pope. I get how it's insulting, frustrating, and maddening but the last quote you put in at least shows an empathy for homosexuals as human beings that I haven't seen from high levels of the Catholic Church before.

Hell, if the DOMA people didn't base their entire defense on vilifying gay people and instead played as traditionalists I would at least take their arguments seriously (still completely disagree).

Not the pope - the Archbishop of NY

I have no idea how I misread that other than I realizing I don't know the Pope's name.

I'll stick with my point but admit the effect is severely reduced.

At this point, Francis or Francisco.

According to Sue Everhart, the Georgia GOP Chairwoman, the push for marriage equality is just a giant ruse to allow the takers to take more because straight people will pretend to be gay and have a sham gay marriage just so they can get those sweet, sweet government benefits:

You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow. Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride.