Is There Any Rational Case for Banning Gay Marriage?

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/posner-gay-marriage/379667/

?nbemlf

Competing with William Faulkner, Flannery O’Connor once wrote, is an inevitably losing proposition: “Nobody wants his mule and wagon stalled on the same track the Dixie Limited is roaring down.”

Federal District Judge Martin Feldman may feel like that luckless muleskinner today. His decision affirming a state ban on same-sex marriage appeared Wednesday. On Thursday, the Dixie Limited, in the person of Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, ran over him going the other way.

In an opinion for a unanimous three-judge panel, Posner upheld a district-court ruling that struck down same-sex marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin. The opinion is a Posnerian tour de force: clear, clever, thorough, witty, and—well—odd. It replies to most of the arguments Feldman accepted, including the most important one—that the courts should defer to the political process in matters of social policy.

At this point, we know all the arguments against marriage equality: Procreation. Tradition. Morality. Caution about social change. Democratic process. Feldman’s opinion had a kind of listless, get-off-my-lawn tone. You kids and your same-sex marriage, can just count me out, he seems to be saying. Procreation, slippery slope, democratic process, can I go now?

[SamKnause]

1. No.

There is nothing rational about religious beliefs.

Take religion out of the equation and gay marriage would not be an issue.

[merrily]

2. Whether or not religous beliefs are rational, no one's interpretation of the Bible

should become secular law. That is part of separation of church and state which is a Constitutional right that we all have.

And it is only one interpretation of the Bible that leads to making it secular law, as well as homophobic bigotry. The bible says God hates gossip, but we have no laws against gossip. Ditto coveting your neighbor's wife and a host of other things condemned in the Bible.

Almost universally ignored: humans judging other humans is also condemned by the Bible.

[merrily]

3. No rational basis whatever.

States that have allowed same gender marriage have lower divorce rates.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/States-That-Allow-Same-Sex-Marriage-Have-Lower-Divorce-Rates-213335351.html

I am not sure if that is because they allow same gender marriage or if something else accounts for it. Either way, it's clear that "traditional" marriage did not suffer in those states.

"Facts have a liberal bias."

[uppityperson]

4. No. Even biblically, you need to pick and chose to make any sort of point.

Looking forward to the day when people are appalled this was ever an issue.

[Amimnoch]

5. Well, let's lookie at each of these arguments individually:

Procreation: Just in todays news, there's a front page, national headline article about a couple in their 90's, in Virginia (one of the states who's judiciary has stood on this argument against us), and the right of these two to be married (which I do happen to fully agree with) is fully supported by fox news correspondents, and the righties. Isn't it odd that they have no issue with this couples ability to procreate as being a precluding reason that they can't get married? I guess it is really just bigotry that keeps them targeting ONLY us using this weak assed argument.

Tradition: If ever there was an argument that should hold no legal status, it is this one. Tradition has proven again.. and again.. and again to be no reason to deny any group equal rights. Just how traditional do these jackasses want to get? Traditionally women had no rights of inheritance, no right to vote, hell had almost no rights at all. Traditionally daughters could be wed off at the age of 14. Traditionally it was a-o-k to own other people who were of a different race. Traditionally it was okay torture prisoners with any method the imagination could dream up. Frankly.. tradition can kiss my butt.

Morality: This one is HILARIOUS in my book. They base their morals on the bible. There are exactly 4 passages in the entirety of the New Testament in which any kind of argument against homosexuality can be made. Three of the 4, and you have to make a BIG stretch of the language to make said argument. NONE of these 4x passages are anywhere to be found in any of the Gospels of the New Testament.. which are supposed to be the core books on the words of JC. But, the gospels DO condemn, quite strongly I might add divorce in no less than 7 places. How many of these pricks spouting their high morality based on their book for fairy tales have been divorced, are friends, or relatives to people who have been divorced? How many of these self righteous pricks have no issue at all with people who are divorced? Frankly.. Morality can kiss my butt as well.

Caution about social change??? Too stupid to even go into details on. Really... Social change is a reason to deny rights??? WTF??

Democratic process?? The whole purpose of checks and balances is to prevent the majority voting out the rights of minorities! This Judge is a joke, and he'd be funny if he wasn't entrusted with so much power.

[dickthegrouch]

6. Only if there's a rational case for banning all marriage

I keep contending that the only equitable solution for those states that don't want same-sex marriage, is for them to dump all marriages. The contractual and economic benefits must be equitable for all per the constitution.

[Fearless]

7. Of course not. Love is love. And all love should be encouraged!

[DavidG_WI]

8. Only that

Marriage itself should be banned. Massive waste of time and money for the party just so you have a 50% chance of divorce, not to mention the inevitable getting married again...

I've got relatives that are on their 5h marriages...