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

Heh! I'll note that Quark's hand was photoshopped in for comedic effect.

It's been a busy day on the marriage equality front, so let's get started.

First, to Montana where that state's Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that gays and lesbians do not have a case to claim they are being treated unequally unless they actually have some real-time discrimination against them... or something. It is a bizarre ruling that told the couples suing to wait until they actually are harmed in the specific sense (i.e. fired from a job for being gay or being denied visitation rights in a hospital) instead of being victims of general animus. In other words, just because you don't have equal rights doesn't mean you are actually suffering anything.

Ooookay.

In a blistering 119-page dissent, Justice James Nelson, who will be retiring next month, pretty much told the majority to shove it:

There are many who believe that gays and lesbians are second-class citizens; that they are morally inferior; that they are objects worthy of societal scorn, derision, and hatred; that they may be reviled and demonized on the floor of the Legislature with impunity; that they may be discriminated against by local governments; that they may be bullied in their schools and workplaces; and that they are not entitled to the same rights accorded to heterosexuals. Such views parallel those held by many—even the United States Supreme Court—regarding racial minorities and women a century ago. . . . We legitimize those similar, pernicious views about gays and lesbians when, as the Court does today, we abrogate our solemn obligation to declare and uphold the constitutional rights of all Montanans—especially those among us who have been subjected to majoritarian and state-imposed hatred and discrimination.

My abiding belief is that no person—no human being—in our society should be reviled, demonized, and discriminated against for being gay, lesbian, or bisexual, any more than they should be treated in that fashion for being Native American, Presbyterian, female, disabled, poor, or Irish. No person should be the object of state-sanctioned bigotry simply for being born homosexual or for choosing to love another person of the same sex. No person should be made to suffer the deprivation of their civil rights and liberties because of the religious beliefs and doctrines of others—doctrines that are now constitutionalized in the Marriage Amendment and enforced by Montana’s government. And no person should be stripped of her or his inviolable human dignity based on sexual orientation. Ever!

Hear, hear!

Next up, Rhode Island.

This is an interesting turn of events. The President of the Rhode Island Senate, a Democrat, is a staunch opponent of marriage equality and had refused to allow a vote on marriage equality to come to the floor. However, she has said that if the Rhode Island House of Representatives passes a marriage equality bill, she will allow a committee to hear it and allow it to the floor.

Rhode Island is the only state left in New England that does not allow gay marriage. However, if couples from Rhode Island get legally married in another state, Rhode Island will recognize their marriage.

Gov. Lincoln Chaffee has stated that he supports marriage equality and will sign the bill the minute it hits his desk.

We now cross the Atlantic and land in the Vatican where the official newspaper of the Vatican, the Osservatore Romano, featured a front-page editorial stating that same-sex couples exist in a "different reality" because they cannot conceive children.

Saying that marriage between a woman and a man is equal to that between two homosexuals is, in fact, a denial of the truth that affects one of the basic structures of human society, the family. We cannot base a society on these foundations without then paying a very high price as happened in the past when there was an attempt to achieve total economic and social equality. Why repeat the same mistake and chase after an unattainable utopia?

Yeah! To hell with social equality! My God! That may lead to peace and justice and harmony!

And who wants that?

Phoenix Rev wrote:

We now cross the Atlantic and land in the Vatican where the official newspaper of the Vatican, the Osservatore Romano, featured a front-page editorial stating that same-sex couples exist in a "different reality" because they cannot conceive children.

Saying that marriage between a woman and a man is equal to that between two homosexuals is, in fact, a denial of the truth that affects one of the basic structures of human society, the family. We cannot base a society on these foundations without then paying a very high price as happened in the past when there was an attempt to achieve total economic and social equality. Why repeat the same mistake and chase after an unattainable utopia?

Yeah! To hell with social equality! My God! That may lead to peace and justice and harmony!

And who wants that?

When you claim to be the only true path to peace and happiness, it's bad for business if people figure out how to get there without following your rules.

Stengah wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

We now cross the Atlantic and land in the Vatican where the official newspaper of the Vatican, the Osservatore Romano, featured a front-page editorial stating that same-sex couples exist in a "different reality" because they cannot conceive children.

Saying that marriage between a woman and a man is equal to that between two homosexuals is, in fact, a denial of the truth that affects one of the basic structures of human society, the family. We cannot base a society on these foundations without then paying a very high price as happened in the past when there was an attempt to achieve total economic and social equality. Why repeat the same mistake and chase after an unattainable utopia?

Yeah! To hell with social equality! My God! That may lead to peace and justice and harmony!

And who wants that?

When you claim to be the only true path to peace and happiness, it's bad for business if people figure out how to get there without following your rules.

...can't believe I never thought of it that way. Genius!

Phoenix Rev wrote:

We now cross the Atlantic and land in the Vatican where the official newspaper of the Vatican, the Osservatore Romano, featured a front-page editorial stating that same-sex couples exist in a "different reality" because they cannot conceive children.

Saying that marriage between a woman and a man is equal to that between two homosexuals is, in fact, a denial of the truth that affects one of the basic structures of human society, the family. We cannot base a society on these foundations without then paying a very high price as happened in the past when there was an attempt to achieve total economic and social equality. Why repeat the same mistake and chase after an unattainable utopia?

Yeah! To hell with social equality! My God! That may lead to peace and justice and harmony!

And who wants that?

Always glad to hear my marriage is invalid because of my vasectomy. In other news, the Pope is now on Twitter (@pontifex), presumably because Twitter is 6.

We cannot base a society on these foundations without then paying a very high price as happened in the past when there was an attempt to achieve total economic and social equality. Why repeat the same mistake and chase after an unattainable utopia?

I'm confused. Is the pope comparing supporting equal rights to socialism/communism? Did the pope really come out with a statement saying social equality is bad? Is the pope really against the idea of "chase"ing after a utopia where all people are treated equally regardless of who they are? Wow. Dumbass. Isn't there a line in the bible that we are all equal before the eyes of god?

EDIT:

Always glad to hear my marriage is invalid because of my vasectomy. In other news, the Pope is now on Twitter (@pontifex), presumably because Twitter is 6.

Heyooooooooooo!

*double take*

*double double take*

Wha?

This can't be right.

On gay marriage, meanwhile, Gingrich argued that Republicans could no longer close their eyes to the course of public opinion. While he continued to profess a belief that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, he suggested that the party (and he himself) could accept a distinction between a "marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state" -- the latter being acceptable.

"I think that this will be much more difficult than immigration for conservatism to come to grips with," he said, noting that the debate's dynamics had changed after state referenda began resulting in the legalization of same-sex marriage. "It is in every family. It is in every community. The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to ... accommodate and deal with reality. And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states -- and it will be more after 2014 -- gay relationships will be legal, period."

Welcome to the new reality, Newt. Glad you recognized it.

:Shock:

Newt's going rogue!

It was inevitable that a GOP politician would eventually wake up and smell the polling numbers.

And what a better time to rail against same-sex marriage than in a Christmas address to the faithful:

At his annual Christmas speech to the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI called same-sex marriage a “manipulation of nature” to be deplored and an attack on the “essence of the human creature.”

It was the second time this week that Benedict took aim at marriage equality:

People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given to them by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves.

The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned.

Says the man who took a vow of celibacy and, you know, denied his nature and decided that it is not something previously given to him.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

And what a better time to rail against same-sex marriage than in a Christmas address to the faithful:

At his annual Christmas speech to the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI called same-sex marriage a “manipulation of nature” to be deplored and an attack on the “essence of the human creature.”

It was the second time this week that Benedict took aim at marriage equality:

People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given to them by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves.

The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned.

Says the man who took a vow of celibacy and, you know, denied his nature and decided that it is not something previously given to him.

So, on the day the Catholic Church celebrates Christ and all his glory, he spends a chunk of his address talking about something that Jesus himself had nothing to say on. Does he understand most people probably listened to this to get some good Christmas stories and not his new hellfire topic of the month?

Inter-faith alliance against gay marriage?

... does the Pope think he's playing Risk?

Hey, now, every minute that the Catholic Church spends opposing gay marriage is a minute they aren't diddling ten-year-olds/hiding the fact that somebody else is diddling ten-year-olds. Really, their ranting is saving young boys of the world from being molested. Consider the time they spend on this a pubic . . . er, public service.

I think you need to change your avatar for statements like that.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Hey, now, every minute that the Catholic Church spends opposing gay marriage is a minute they aren't diddling ten-year-olds/hiding the fact that somebody else is diddling ten-year-olds. Really, their ranting is saving young boys of the world from being molested. Consider the time they spend on this a pubic . . . er, public service.

Sadly, I think you underestimate their ability to multitask.

NathanialG wrote:

I think you need to change your avatar for statements like that.

I'm not sure I could set that kind of precedent... I'd be changing my avatar to reflect my mood way too often.

I'm curious, what's the study by that Rabbi that they mentioned that gay marriage is destroying families?

EDIT: Had something about how harmless this should hopefully be, but I may be wrong and it comes off badly. Never mind.

So, they've been killing each other for thousands of years, some of them are still trying to kill each other, but they can shake hands over how horrible gay people are.

f*cking nuts.

Congratulations to the bigots at Discover Annapolis Tours who decided to officially end all trolley service for weddings instead of having to offer their services to those filthy homos (they were considering it a few weeks back).

I wonder if the brain trust at DAT understands that under Maryland law, they cannot discriminate against gays and lesbians for any of their services.

I am looking forward to their crocodile tears in the near future when they close down the whole business in spite (while claiming it is just because they love Jesus so much) rather than provide services to all of the public, include those godless sodomites (no word on if they would refuse service to atheist heterosexuals who engage in anal sex).

So, three cheers for DAT!

Congratulations! Embrace your bigotry!

It's what some skewed vision of Jesus wants you to do!

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Congratulations to the bigots at Discover Annapolis Tours who decided to end all trolley service for weddings instead of having to offer their services to those filthy homos.

I wonder if the brain trust at DAT understands that under Maryland law, they cannot discriminate against gays and lesbians for any of their services.

I am looking forward to their crocodile tears in the near future when they close down the whole business in spite (while claiming it is just because they love Jesus so much) rather than provide services to all of the public, include those godless sodomites (no word on if they would refuse service to atheist heterosexuals who engage in anal sex).

So, three cheers for DAT!

Congratulations! Embrace your bigotry!

It's what some skewed vision of Jesus wants you to do!

I have like five quotes to pick apart here from that story that are just too stupid for words, but I'm going to use words none the less. But, I gotta get started on what is likely to be a LONG drive home due to snowy stuff.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Congratulations to the bigots at Discover Annapolis Tours who decided to officially end all trolley service for weddings instead of having to offer their services to those filthy homos (they were considering it a few weeks back).

I wonder if the brain trust at DAT understands that under Maryland law, they cannot discriminate against gays and lesbians for any of their services.

I am looking forward to their crocodile tears in the near future when they close down the whole business in spite (while claiming it is just because they love Jesus so much) rather than provide services to all of the public, include those godless sodomites (no word on if they would refuse service to atheist heterosexuals who engage in anal sex).

So, three cheers for DAT!

Congratulations! Embrace your bigotry!

It's what some skewed vision of Jesus wants you to do!

Look at the way that guy grips that pole. That's a conservative Western grip, not some fancy Continental Overhand grip. That's how a real man runs his hand up and down a slippery pole.

Why is there a stripper pole on the trolley?

Be nice if someone with library access could enlighten us on the study proper. I get scared when media starts talking about studies. Doubly on conclusions, that is where we get fun stuff like this, or videogames lead to violence sorts of stuff. I even heard of one study that says men came from apes, and my grandfather was a chimp.

You can file this next story under "Another Clown Looking for an Additional 15 Minutes of Fame."

Mark Regnerus is an associate professor of Sociology at the University of Texas-Austin. This past summer, he published a study saying that children of gays and lesbian parents were worse off than if those children had married heterosexual parents. Within days, Regnerus' study had been mocked, ridiculed and scrutinized to the point where Regnerus had to walk back some of his statements. The problem with the study included:

1. The study didn't actually compare married gay couples and married straight couples.
2. At no time does the study establish a causation between gay parenting and negative outcomes for the children of those couples.
3. The study doesn't do anything to prevent using data from overlapping subpopulations.
4. The study never actually defines the words "gay" and "lesbian."
5. The study was funded by a conservative anti-gay group and Regnerus opposes same-sex marriage.

After his pasting by just about everyone for his shoddy research and ridiculous claims, Regnerus went back to his UT office, not to be heard from until a few days ago when he released a piece called "Porn Use and Supporting Same-Sex Marriage." His thesis: men under 40 who watch a lot of porn or more likely to support marriage equality. He sub-thesis: This is because watching graphic, sexual material softens you up into supporting something deviant like gay marriage.

I kid you not:

There is a correlation between watching porn and support for gay marriage among men, Dr. Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at University of Texas at Austin, found. Exposure to diverse and graphic sex acts, he believes, may undermine a traditional view of marriage. Using data from The New Family Structures Study, a project for which he was the principal investigator, Regnerus found statistically significant positive correlation between porn use and support for same-sex marriage among men, even after controlling for other predictors, such as political party, religiosity, marital status, age, education and sexual orientation. In the full sample, 42 percent of men and 47 percent of women agreed or strongly agreed that gay marriage should be legal. Among men who view porn daily or almost daily, though, 54 percent strongly agreed (not just agreed) that gay marriage should be legal while only 13 percent who said they viewed porn monthly or less believed the same, Regnerus wrote for The Witherspoon Institute's "Public Discourse."

Regnerus states:

Moreover, the web’s most popular pornographic sites do little to discriminate one sex act—or category of such—from another. Gazers are treated to a veritable fire-hose dousing of sex-act diversity. (These are not your grandfather’s Playboy.) So, add to the sharing of bodies temporarily and nonexclusively a significant dose of alternative forms of sexual activity—positions, roles, genders, and numbers—and that’s basically where porn presses its consumers today: away from sex as having anything approaching a “marital meaning” or structure of the sort outlined in the article cited above.

Which leads him to this conclusion:

In the end, contrary to what we might wish to think, young adult men’s support for redefining marriage may not be entirely the product of ideals about expansive freedoms, rights, liberties, and a noble commitment to fairness. It may be, at least in part, a byproduct of regular exposure to diverse and graphic sex acts.

This isn't even worth refuting.

How in the hell does an associate professor at a very large university forget the most basic of principles in statistic: correlation does not imply causation? (Even though Regnerus says he understands that, it begs the question of why suggest correlation may imply causation?)

Within weeks, I bet Regnerus will be backtracking on his latest research and, like his other vile study, will get a pass from the University of Texas.

(Note: this was updated to clarify that Regnerus was not publishing a study, but a piece for the Witherspoon Institute about his views on some data correlations.)

-----------------------------

Maybe Regnerus can do a research study on this garbage:

An American church is promising gay men they will be cured of their homosexuality if they stroke horses.

"Pastor" Bell is a sociopath and should ever be allowed to interact with minors ever again.

I have updated my post on Regnerus. I understood this to be another research study, but it turns out it was a series of conclusions by Regnerus (from other data) that was put up in a piece on the Witherspoon Institute website. His article appears here.

Well we have two things here.

His study of “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study” is more or less locked to me. And this is the one I wish we could get into.

The porn and attitudes of acceptance of homosexuals among men watching more porn is another matter entirely. That reads, more or less innocuous, unless you already have a bent that the US is going down the toilet into Sodom and Gomorrah. The Witherspoon Inst. seems to be in the pillar of salt camp. I would say men who watch a larger volume of and more diverse subject matter of porn would be likely to have more liberal attitudes regarding sexuality than men who do not. That seems a harmless correlation to find. And it is quaint to see these groups taking 30 year old chatting points out of the cupboard. I am waiting for the study to start blaming witchcraft and bad humors. Maybe all you and Rubb Ed need is a good bloodletting to rid the devil of you.

KingGorilla wrote:

His study of “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study” is more or less locked to me. And this is the one I wish we could get into.

Yes, it quickly became a pay-for-view study, but I am trying to locate a colleague with a copy.

Although this is not an unbiased source, here is someone who took a lot of time to read the study and pick apart some of the problems.

One of the main problems with Regnerus' study, like most studies that talk about children raised by gay vs. straight parents is that the studies inevitably try to equate married heterosexual couples who have biological offspring with unmarried homosexual couples who have children from another marriage or relationship. You simply cannot equate the two. Likewise, you can't even begin to equate a married heterosexual couple with a gay couple that is unmarried, in a domestic partnership or a civil union. Marriage is a distinct and separate state of a relationship, and although I don't want to give the impression that marriage is a magic wand of some sort, there is a distinct change in the dynamic of a relationship when the couple becomes married.

In any event, if I find a copy, I will post a link here or send it to you.

The porn and attitudes of acceptance of homosexuals among men watching more porn is another matter entirely. That reads, more or less innocuous, unless you already have a bent that the US is going down the toilet into Sodom and Gomorrah. The Witherspoon Inst. seems to be in the pillar of salt camp. I would say men who watch a larger volume of and more diverse subject matter of porn would be likely to have more liberal attitudes regarding sexuality than men who do not. That seems a harmless correlation to find. And it is quaint to see these groups taking 30 year old chatting points out of the cupboard. I am waiting for the study to start blaming witchcraft and bad humors. Maybe all you and Rubb Ed need is a good bloodletting to rid the devil of you.

Innocuous, perhaps, but in a charged atmosphere, correlations like the one Regnerus latches onto is fodder for the right wing Christian set that is getting more and more desperate as gay marriage is gaining acceptance at record pace. One can easily see how this can be spun to get a twofer where no only do they get to condemn the deviancy of gay marriage, they get to clutch their pearls and talk about how the perverts who watch "Debbie Does Dallas" can't wait to support other "perverts."

As for the bloodletting, the exorcism didn't work, so I don't think that would either.

that trolley guy wrote:

Grubbs' message went on to suggest Maryland residents contact their lawmakers to "request they amend the new marriage law to allow an exemption for religious conviction for the layperson in the pew. The law exempts my minister from doing same-sex weddings, and the Knights of Columbus don't have to rent out their hall for a gay wedding reception, but somehow my religious convictions don't count for anything."

This brings up an interesting thought. If Grubbs shut down his business, opened a church, and provided the trolley as a service of the church, would he be able to skirt the laws?

If he were an arm of a religious institution, sure. The Knights of Columbus is a private religious fraternal organization. They are like the Masons or Shriners, with more trinity.

My major qualm is that these organizations get direct funding and tax subsidies from state, local, and federal entities while being agents of hate.

Where this twit sees an unfair loophole that he should be able to exploit, I see state sponsored hate.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

His study of “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study” is more or less locked to me. And this is the one I wish we could get into.

Yes, it quickly became a pay-for-view study, but I am trying to locate a colleague with a copy.

Although this is not an unbiased source, here is someone who took a lot of time to read the study and pick apart some of the problems....

...In any event, if I find a copy, I will post a link here or send it to you.


Found it.

[size=10]*wanders away, muttering about pseudoscience*[/size]