Opinion

DISSENT

I am dissenting from the above editorial because it is my firm belief that by legalizing gay marriage, New York has become the latest state to embarrass itself and this country. Contrary to what the rest of the editorial board suggests, there is strong research conducted by Dr. Bruce J. Ellis, Professor of Psychology at the University of Canterbury, and others demonstrating that a child needs a father to develop properly. Further, there is no interest compelling enough to justify legalizing gay marriage. By the logic above — namely that “it is self-evident that people should have the right to marry whom they love,” the government should allow first cousins or siblings to marry. Love is not enough for the government to spend my tax dollars subsidizing a relationship which does not serve a compelling interest. Heterosexual relationships, on the contrary, allow for the propagation of American society, which justifies a government subsidy. For the rest of my argument, please see my counterpoint on page five. While I do not endorse New York’s decision, I do agree with the rest of the editorial board’s encouragement of the MIT community to continue providing support and services and raising awareness for LGBT students, as it would for any other group that has faced lack of acceptance or has been the subject of social marginalization.

40 Comments
1
Anonymous about 7 years ago

It's a good thing, then, that this country was founded on the concept of human rights, rather than "compelling interests."

2
Jacob about 7 years ago

Dear Ryan Normandin

You seem to be quoting a lot of studies that suggest a child without a father or a mother can sustain significant mental trauma "a child needs a father to develop properly."

So are you similarly in protest of the legalization of divorce?(evident in America where 50 of all marriages end in divorce.)Studies have proven that a child without a continuous parental figure are less healthy than one that does.

so are you similarly opposed to military being sent to protect (used loosely) your country, often leaving mothers and children void of a father figure?

so are you similarly opposed to widows taking custody of the children of their dead sons and daughters in law?

you are drawing connections between homosexual parenting and psychological trauma, even though psychological trauma is found in heterosexual, and divorced couples.

And you also drawing connections to mutational, and mutilated children (found in incestuous couples)and physiological trauma (found everywhere)

And on top of that your drawing connections from homosexuals(aka gays) to mutation and mutilation.

NON OF THESE CONNECTIONS EXIST (and if they do it is not because of homosexuals and it is only in uncontrolled cases)

GRAMMAR SECTION

First sentence of this paragraph made no sense. If in doubt re-read." by legalizing gay marriage....(rest of your sentence).(full stop) New York.....

The University of Canterbury's professor of psychology needs some quotes that's just lazy on your part. And others would love names also.

Since when did you decide whether something was compelling or not. you are not a politician or in a place of power. You are a journalist (used loosely) who's opinion editorial is based purely around your ignorance and naivety around compelling arguments to legalizing gay marriage.

Your article (used loosely) has went into the pro's but not the cons of the study. there is a much more substantial case than (as you put so bluntly) "it is self-evident that people should have the right to marry whom they love."

I can't believe a mathematician is teaching you how to write. Go back to collage and take an English class

kind regards

Jacob Watson

3
Anonymous about 7 years ago

MIT is the last place this kind of hatred to be published!

If someone were to speak against interracial marriage, or speaks in favor of discrimination against racial minorities, that would be unacceptable. It might be legal in the guise of free speech, but will be roundly rejected and criticized by almost everyone.

Your views are full of hatred and animosity towards gays and lesbians. After this note of dissent where you openly air your opposition to MIT's policy of LGBT inclusion, you must be let go from MIT tech.

I hope everyone reading this article of hate comes down heavily against such bigoted and devious views being expressed on MIT tech.

4
Ryan Normandin about 7 years ago

Hey Jacob Watson,

I respect that you have a different opinion (although you did a poor job of communicating it and understanding my own points), but in the future, I would recommend you stick to the math. After all, you seem quite proud of it, despite not showing up in a Google search, so I question jut how much of a "mathematician" or "professor" you are.

I say this because looking beyond your posts, which contained more anger and spite than substantive content, you clearly do not have a grasp of the very subject you hope to lecture me on: grammar.

The first sentence makes perfect sense; it may be long, but it is coherent and grammatically correct.

I am not quoting the University of Canterbury Professor's words or research directly, so I do not need quotation marks. If by "quotes" you are referring not to quotation marks but to the actual research, I directed readers to my more extensive piece.

Regarding my qualifications in determining what is a compelling interest, as a political science major who has studied the constitution and is well-versed in logical proofs, I am probably over-qualified to decide what a compelling interest for the government is. You don't have to be a politician or in a "place of power" to use common sense.

My brief dissent specifically mentioned

that "it is self-evident that people should have the right to marry whom they love" because that is the point the Editorial from which I am dissenting made.

Finally, if you are going to attempt to lecture someone on grammar, I would recommend that you get your own correct. You failed to use proper capitalization, punctuation, and syntax throughout your post. You also spelled "college" wrong, when recommending that I return to one (I currently attend MIT), which I find to be ironic.

In conclusion, I would recommend that you pick up a copy of the Harbrace Guide to Writing, 2nd Edition, which will feature yours truly. (This would be because I know how to write.)

Kind Regards,

Ryan Normandin

P.S. I don't have children, and for that I am thankful because you will not have the opportunity to teach (used loosely) them.

5
Anonymous about 7 years ago

Wow, this is homophobic. Disturbing.

6
Ryan Normandin about 7 years ago

#3- Just want to point out that while I firmly disagree with the endorsement of New York's decision, I clearly state in the dissent that I am NOT opposed to MIT's policy of LGBT inclusion; quite the contrary. I state that "While I do not endorse New Yorks decision, I do agree with the rest of the editorial boards encouragement of the MIT community to continue providing support and services and raising awareness for LGBT students, as it would for any other group that has faced lack of acceptance or has been the subject of social marginalization."

7
Anonymous about 7 years ago

"While I do not endorse New York's decision, I do agree with the rest of the editorial boards encouragement of the MIT community to continue providing support and services and raising awareness for LGBT students..."

A rather tenuous position to hold, don't you think? You believe the Institute should support a group that is marginalized, and at the same time you also support the continual marginalization of said group?

And yes, gay marriage ban is endorsement of social marginalization of gay people. Gay marriage ban is endorsement of the view that heterosexual couples are superior over homosexual couples. You more or less said it yourself, "Heterosexual relationships, on the contrary, allow for the propagation of American society, which justifies a government subsidy." In your view, the inferior homosexual couples should not qualify for government subsidy, because 1) they can't reproduce and 2) they're bad parents even if they have kids.

8
Ryan Normandin about 7 years ago

I suppose that's where we must disagree. I do not view a ban of gay marriage as an endorsement of social marginalization, discrimination, etc. Rather, I do not want the government spending money on things that are not justified by a compelling interest. (We all know they do more than enough of that as it is.) Gay marriage is not justified under a compelling interest. Government should stay out unless there's a compelling interest not to; heterosexuals allow for the propagation of American society while homosexuals do not. Thus, government should subsidize heterosexual marriage and not subsidize homosexual marriage.

9
Anonymous about 7 years ago

I suppose we have to disagree. Marriage is a fundamental right, as ruled by the Supreme Court in Loving vs. Virginia. How can denial of a fundamental right to a certain group not be considered discriminatory by said group? And how can open expression of heterosexual superiority not lead to marginalization of homosexuals?

As for "compelling interests", are the needs of homosexuals not compelling enough for you, the heterosexual? Gay people are not going to disappear and they are going to continue demanding marriage rights because it is their "compelling interest" to do so, does the state have a "compelling interest" to let this issue drag on indefinitely?

10
Ryan Normandin about 7 years ago

We are arguing almost two different points: I want to stay focused on the argument presented in my article. My article does not discuss civil rights. Marriage is a contract. Contracts do not have rights. Whether the government chooses to incentivize the signing of a contract should be based on whether or not that contract serves a compelling interest. Heterosexual marriages do (propagation of society) and homosexual marriages do not.

11
Anonymous about 7 years ago

"Marriage is a contract. Contracts do not have rights."

And this, of course, flies in the face of American jurisprudence as established in Loving vs. Virginia. Do you support Loving to be overturned?

"Whether the government chooses to incentivize the signing of a contract should be based on whether or not that contract serves a compelling interest."

By your standard, only virile heterosexuals' "contracts" should be incentivized by the government. Not all heterosexual marriages fulfill "propagation of society", a "compelling interest" that you hold dear in this discussion. Do you support nullification of childless heterosexual marriages? Do you support that before entering marriage, a couple must present adequate evidence to the government that they intend to have children either by birth or by adoption? Do you support government holding heterosexual couples accountable should they fail to have children?

Heterosexual marriages with child do (propagation of society), and childless heterosexual marriages do not. Why should my tax dollars subsidize childless heterosexual marriages if I accept your argument? Where's the "compelling interest" in a childless heterosexual marriage?

12
Ryan Normandin about 7 years ago

Regarding your first point: Loving v Virginia is completely distinct from homosexual marriage. The 14th Amendment does indeed prevent bans on interracial marriage. Remember at that time that "marriage" meant "heterosexual marriage." Of course all individuals should have a right to sign a contract binding them to a heterosexual marriage; the 14th Amendment protects that right. And the reason heterosexual marriages are incentivized is because they serve a compelling interest (propogation of society). Leading into your next point. Allow me to quote from an article previously run in The Tech a few years back by Adam Kolasinski:

"Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met."

Thus, all heterosexual marriages are subsidized and homosexual marriages are neither subsidized nor protected by the 14th Amendment/Loving v Virginia.

13
Anonymous about 7 years ago

"Remember at that time that "marriage" meant "heterosexual marriage.""

Sure, but that's because the gay rights movement hadn't taken off yet. It literally was Pre-Stonewall.

"Of course all individuals should have a right to sign a contract binding them to a heterosexual marriage"

Not true. If a homosexual man signs a contract binding him to a homosexual woman, that would be fraud since neither party is heterosexual and would not have children. By saying "all individuals", you clearly do not recognize that there exists gay people at all.

""Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly....."

In other words, the government offers a tax break because of a "compelling interest" (propagation of society), but it is somehow too "expensive and burdensome" to provide oversight that this tax break is serving its purpose. Is that good governance? Aren't we in a deficit?

I dispute that it'd be expensive and burdensome to root out the childless heterosexual couples. I will humbly propose the following cheap and easy ways to ensure your "compelling interest" is uphold against dastardly childless heterosexual couples:

1. A heterosexual couple must sign an affidavit punishable by perjury affirming that they intend to have children before receiving the marriage license. Thus, an elderly couple would never be granted marriage license in the first place.

2. A married heterosexual couple may not file their taxes jointly without their children's birth certificates. This makes perfect sense if we accept your argument of "compelling interests", because in this scenario the IRS would not recognize a couple's marriage without at least a child.

Would you support either measure?

"Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest."

At this stage, battling over gay marriage is by itself costly. Given that homosexuals are not likely to give up, granting gay marriage keeps the peace between heterosexuals and homosexuals, which I believe qualifies as a legitimate state interest.

14
bman about 7 years ago

"#9Anonymous Marriage is a fundamental right, as ruled by the Supreme Court in Loving vs. Virginia. How can denial of a fundamental right to a certain group not be considered discriminatory by said group?"

The majority of high courts to consider the issue have found same sex marriage is not a fundamental right.

See http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.Jan2011-2-american-courts.pdf

You also cited the Loving case, but the Supreme Court ruled against same sex marriage after Loving, in Baker v. Nelson.

The compelling reason marriage is a fundamental right is because the right to procreation that exists in nature between man and woman is legally recognized by marriage.

There is no natural right to procreate with the same sex, however, and so there is no fundamental right to same sex marriage.

15
Anonymous about 7 years ago

"The majority of high courts to consider the issue have found same sex marriage is not a fundamental right."

"You also cited the Loving case, but the Supreme Court ruled against same sex marriage after Loving, in Baker v. Nelson."

Consider that Perry v. Schwarzenegger seems to be going so well for the gay marriage movement, aren't we therefore close to a Brown v. Board of Education moment?

But for argument's sake, I'll reword the question to:

How can denial of a right, considered to be fundamental by a certain group, not be considered discriminatory by said group?

I'm sure you and Mr. Normandin are aware by now that homosexuals are clearly not buying your argument that gay marriage is not a fundamental right. Therefore, how do you propose we should address this grievance from homosexuals? Specifically, that their relationships, which they believe deserve protection, are currently being denied that.

16
Anonymous about 7 years ago

This is for the Tech editorial board:

It's been 7 years since the now Prof. Adam Kolasinski wrote "The Secular Argument Against Gay Marriage". I bet a good feature everyone would want to read is an interview to see if he still feels the same way, that 7 years of gay marriage in MA has led to the "marital chaos" so ominously predicted in his column.

Adam Kolansinki's Linkedin Profile:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/adam-kolasinski/8/498/6b5

17
Anonymous about 7 years ago

Ryan Normandin:

Kindly stop pretending as though you are supportive of LGBT rights while you advocate inhumane discrimination against them.

My current research at MIT is aimed at preventing young LGBT folks from ending their lives. I have had so many interactions with parents who have lost their kids, as well those that considered ending their lives because of bigotry and hate. So when I read your nefarious hate-rants here on MIT Tech, it saddens me immensely that even in this altar of science called MIT, we still the expression of views that are so antagonistic to everything that is noble and right in this world.

If you are in favor of civil rights for racial minorities, but oppose the Department of Justice pursuing cases of racial and hatred under the guise of opposing the government using tax payer dollars, you are clearly opposing civil rights.

Who are you to deny people the right to be with the one they love? For example, consider the case of binational couples that have been torn apart because the federal government won't recognize same-sex marriage. How would you feel if the government decides if you can stay with the person you love?

No one in their right minds who support LGBT rights will ever oppose same-sex marriage.

It is because of people like you, with your hatred and contempt for LGBT folks that we have the scourge of many youngsters ending their lives. It is for the same reason that everybody reading this article should condemn it in the most withering terms imaginable.

MIT, for all that it has done for humanity, is the last place for this kind of outrageous bigoted, hate-filled and disgusting bilge.

If any young LGBT person is reading this and is saddened by what it would be like when they grow up, I want to tell you that it gets better. There are other forces in this world beside that of hate - the overwhelming majority of those that you know will love you and continue to support your rights.

18
Anonymous about 7 years ago

Comment 17

Well said!

19
bman about 7 years ago

"#15/Anonymous: Consider that Perry v. Schwarzenegger seems to be going so well for the gay marriage movement, aren't we therefore close to a Brown v. Board of Education moment?"

Judge Ware's recent ruling, that recusal was not required, means the case is still what it was before his ruling. So, its really not a game changer in my view.

"Anon: "But for argument's sake, I'll reword the question to: How can denial of a right, considered to be fundamental by a certain group, not be considered discriminatory by said group?"

Part of the problem with your question is that it can be viewed like blacks being denied rights, or it can be viewed like refusing to legalize polygamy. Both groups would perceive a denial of a fundamental right.

To me, opposing a same sex marriage law is like opposing a polygamy law and its not like opposing racial equality.

The US Supreme court essentially agreed with my view in Baker v. Nelson since it did not apply the Loving case (supporting inter-racial marriage) to same sex marriage.

Supposing, then, your question is similar to legalized polygamy being denied by the court, if the group still has a grievance the question is not how "we" should handle it, but how should "the group" handle it.

At that point they can continue to pursue change in a peaceful manner and/or accept the ruling and go on with their private lives.

20
bman about 7 years ago

"#17/Anonymous: Kindly stop pretending as though you are supportive of LGBT rights while you advocate inhumane discrimination against them."

As I mentioned in post 19, opposing a same sex marriage law is like opposing a polygamy law, and not like opposing racial equality.

The US Supreme court has essentially agreed with that approach in Baker V. Nelson.

You may as well accuse the court of "inhumane discrimination" as us.

Your refusal to see the difference between things that are different is your fault, not ours.

When you accuse us of hate that is prejudice and bigotry on your part.

Its hate coming from you to us, not the other way around.

21
Anonymous about 7 years ago

"Judge Ware's recent ruling, that recusal was not required, means the case is still what it was before his ruling. So, its really not a game changer in my view."

You are aware that the ruling, as it currently stands, declares the gay marriage ban in CA in violation of the 14th Amendment? How is this not a game changer?

"Part of the problem with your question is that it can be viewed like blacks being denied rights, or it can be viewed like refusing to legalize polygamy. Both groups would perceive a denial of a fundamental right. To me, opposing a same sex marriage law is like opposing a polygamy law and its not like opposing racial equality."

Equating homosexuals with polygamists, and you are surprised that homosexuals find you offensive and throw the bigot hat at you? But that's a side point, the main point you have now touched upon is that whether homosexuality should be recognized as a legitimate identity a person may have. In other words, we frown upon racism, because we consider being black or other racial minority as an inalienable part of a person's identity, therefore worthy of protection under law. We do not lend this recognition toward polygamy, as we do not believe that being a polygamist is essential to a person's being.

By equating homosexuals with polygamists, are you of the opinion that sexual orientation is not a legitimate part of a person's identity? In other words, do you believe that no true homosexual exists, only confused heterosexuals in need of therapy?

"The US Supreme court essentially agreed with my view in Baker v. Nelson since it did not apply the Loving case (supporting inter-racial marriage) to same sex marriage."

The Supreme Court dismissed Baker v. Nelson with a one-line sentence "for want of a substantial federal question". Therefore, it did not explicitly address the merit of same sex marriage, and sure enough, Baker didn't affect the ruling in Perry. More importantly, Baker was ruled before Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark decision that literally legalized being gay.

22
Anonymous about 7 years ago

bman,

Perhaps you could explain 'how' opposition to same-sex marriage is 'like opposing' polygamy?

By failing to recognize that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic, you further undermine your position by equating same-sex marriage with polygamy.

And as has been pointed out, the SCOTUS has refused to hear the case, which you seem to have grievously assumed to have been a verdict in your favor. Also lacking from your rather selective memory are recent rulings in federal courts (here in MA and also in CA) ruling that DOMA was unconstitutional.

It is clear that your bias against homosexuals stems from an inherent prejudice and hatred, and that none of any reasons devoid of such bigoted intentions by you can justify your opposition to same-sex marriage.

Please stop hiding your hatred behind the garb of such absurd arguments.

23
bman about 7 years ago

"#21/Anon...The Supreme Court dismissed Baker v. Nelson with a one-line sentence "for want of a substantial federal question". Therefore, it did not explicitly address the merit of same sex marriage...."

Here is the Wikipedia on that

--begin quote--

In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below. However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.

-- end quote--

That also replies to post #22,

"...SCOTUS has refused to hear the case, which you seem to have grievously assumed to have been a verdict in your favor."

Since it was "a decision on the merits of the case" it was reasonable for me to regard it in favor of my view.

24
Anonymous about 7 years ago

Ryan Normandin seems to have disappeared, but the same question (which bman refused to answer) can be asked of him given that he does not believe gay relationships qualify for the 14th Amendment:

Are you of the opinion that sexual orientation is not a legitimate part of a person's identity? In other words, do you believe that no true homosexual exists, only confused heterosexuals in need of therapy?

25
Anonymous about 7 years ago

bman,

Your assumption there is wrong. Challenges that have turned out to be in favor of same-sex marriage in federal courts in CA, MA as well as the state supreme court in Iowa are all contrary to your assumption. Baker vs. Nelson did not address the constitutionality of a federal law, neither did it address questions like that of heightened scrutiny or cases where states already allow same-sex marriages but the federal government doesn't.

Also consider the fact that the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disease in 1973 (2 years after Baker).

One wouldn't be surprised if you hold the view that homosexuality is a mental illness that can be cured.

26
bman about 7 years ago

"#25/Anonymous: Your assumption there is wrong.

The reasons you gave don't hold up.

"Anon: ...federal courts in CA, MA as well as the state supreme court in Iowa are all contrary to your assumption."

Not quite.

Walker's case is under appeal so it doesn't count.

The question of whether state courts like Massachusetts, Iowa, and California (before prop 8) can have same sex marriage legalized is not addressed by Baker.

Baker doesn't say a same sex marriage law violates the Constitution. It says there is no federal requirement for the states to have a same sex marriage law.

"Anon: Baker vs. Nelson did not address the constitutionality of a federal law..."

What "federal law?"

My point was simply that Baker v. Nelson reviewed the merits of a same sex marriage case and it did not regard same sex marriage as comparable to racial equality under the federal Constitution.

If it did, it would have taken the case instead of saying there was no federal question involved.

And just as the Supreme court did not view same sex marriage like racial equality neither do I.

Which means, if you accuse me of hate, you need to accuse the court of hate too.

But maybe, just maybe, you will see you can't do that to the courts too, and so you shouldn't do that to me either.

By the way, the link below lists 9 high courts that have rejected a right to same-sex marriage since Lawrence (2003). See: http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.Jan2011-2-american-courts.pdf

If you want to call me and every court that disagrees with you "bigoted," that only shows you are the one being bigoted.

So, make sure you get those hate letters to the courts mailed soon if you intend to call me bigoted.

"Anon:....neither did it address questions like that of heightened scrutiny or cases where states already allow same-sex marriages but the federal government doesn't."

The 9 courts listed rejected the need for heightened scrutiny, and Baker obviously did too.

"Anon: Also consider the fact that the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disease in 1973 (2 years after Baker)."

Here is what former president of the APA Dr. Nicolas says about the APA, "The APA has permitted political correctness to triumph over science...The public can no longer trust organized psychology to speak from evidence rather than from what it regards to be politically correct." See http://www.narth.com/docs/destructive.html

27
bman about 7 years ago

Correction: That should read "Dr Nicolas Cummings," not "Dr. Nicolas."

28
Anonymous about 7 years ago

bman

bman,

You are stepping on your own foot. And yes, thank you for spelling out in some detail your outright hatred of homosexuality.

"Baker doesn't say a same sex marriage law violates the Constitution. It says there is no federal requirement for the states to have a same sex marriage law."

So if it does not violate the constitution, why oppose it then? The SCOTUS has ruled many times over the marriage is a fundamental right of every citizen. Baker was a time when same-sex marriage was not legal in any of the states. Now that it is legal in six states, under your own interpretation of the Baker ruling, these states are not in violation of the constitution. Then why oppose it? Perhaps you can list the rational basis of opposing same-sex marriage if it is not in violation of the constitution? Baker says the absence of specific legislative action prohibitive of same-sex marriage does not mean that the federal constitution authorizes them. But in cases where the states have legalized them, the cases are different from Baker. To argue that this shouldn't be the case, you must argue why you think same-sex marriage should not be allowed because some states have already afforded same-sex couples the right to marry.

As for heightened scrutiny, you can dismiss the Tauro ruling and the Walker ruling, as well as the recent unprecedented ruling in the bankruptcy case (which your right-wing buddies conceded defeat), but those are cases that have clearly established heightened scrutiny. So please add these under your list of cases on heightened scrutiny.

29
Anonymous about 7 years ago

bman,

Here's more for you:

Thank you for stating clearly that that you think homosexuality is a disease. That is an admission that everyone reading this exchange should see.

I will say again, that your opposition to gay marriage stems from an inherent bias and hatred towards gays and lesbians. Might I refresh your memory on the SCOTUS record on civil rights?

1. 1896: In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court upheld a Louisiana law requiring restaurants, hotels, hospitals, and other public places to serve African Americans in separate, but ostensibly equal, accommodations.

2. 1938: In Missouri ex el Gaines v. Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that Missouri could not satisfy its obligation to provide equal protection by sending an African American resident to an out-of-state law school and that Lionel Gaines must thus be admitted to the all-white University of Missouri School of Law. This case was the beginning of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund's effort to chip away at the separate-but-equal doctrine

Are you against civil rights? If you're not and you loathe people who discriminate on the basis of race, then you despise the Supreme Court for its judgment in 1896. So kindly stop giving me the pile of rubbish on hating the courts if I call you out on your hatred of LGBT folks.

Even if your views on Baker were to be accepted, the ground has changed with respect to Baker because of the SCOTUS own rulings on sex discrimination with respect to Roemer and Lawrence with respect to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The fact is that legal opposition to same-sex marriage is on its way out. Deal with it! Also, you can dismiss science when it's politically against your ideology and bias, but it's better to concede that, rather than question the science with no rational basis, which comes across as a pile of rat droppings.

30
bman about 7 years ago

"#28/Anonymous: ... thank you for spelling out in some detail your outright hatred of homosexuality.:

No, you are just spinning it that way.

You imagine hate is the only possible reason to oppose same sex marriage, and that's simply absurd to presume.

There are are many reasons to oppose same sex marriage that do not involve hate.

For example, many people simply believe marriage is intended by God for one man and one women.

Though you do not agree with that belief, it does not mean they feel hate.

Can someone be against legalizing polygamy for non-hate reasons?

Sure they can.

But since they can, you should presume "by default" that someone can be against legalizing same sex marriage for non-hate reasons too.

Simply being against a same sex marriage law does not prove someone feels hate.

Its absurd to claim such thing, but hate often makes one say absurd things.

31
Anonymous about 7 years ago

Commenter #28 and #29:

Excellent points! Someone has done their research before posting :-)

32
bman about 7 years ago

"#31/Anonymous: Commenter #28 and #29: Excellent points! Someone has done their research before posting :-)"

Looks like you and the other commenter are related. You both think alike and you both have the same screen name!

33
Anonymous about 7 years ago

bman,

Please. Yes, surprisingly 'anonymous' always has the same screen name. Thankfully.

You've admitted that your religious reasons are a rational basis for opposing same-sex marriage. While you are perfectly entitled to this opinion, it cannot be a rational basis in court. It's called separation of church and state.

34
bman about 7 years ago

"#33/Anonymous You've admitted that your religious reasons are a rational basis for opposing same-sex marriage. While you are perfectly entitled to this opinion, it cannot be a rational basis in court. It's called separation of church and state."

Your point about the court is moot because religion is not the only reason I or other people oppose same sex marriage.

The point shows its wrong for you to presume hate simply because people oppose same sex marriage.

I noticed you ignored that entirely in your reply.

35
Anonymous about 7 years ago

No, I'm not ignoring your point, but merely have nothing to add because of your inability to counter my points.

I still by what I said. In my research at MIT so far, I have interacted with parents whose children tragically ended their lives because of intolerance and bigotry. People such as yourself, who dismiss homosexuality as a curable disease and something utterly sinful must be called out. If someone belonging to religion x determines that they cannot allow people of other races to rent their property, etc, but proclaim that they still love those people, then what exactly is the point?

36
bman about 7 years ago

"#35/Anonymous ....determines that they cannot allow people of other races to rent their property, etc, but proclaim that they still love those people, then what exactly is the point?"

The point is that you need to stop presuming hate just because someone one opposes same sex marriage.

If someone opposes a PUBLIC law for reasons that do not involve hate, then its not hate.

37
Anonymous about 7 years ago

bman,

Try telling that to the aforementioned parents, LGBT couples whose lives have been upended, or others who have suffered grievous anguish and pain. Hate and prejudice must be called what they are.

38
Anonymous about 7 years ago

"The point is that you need to stop presuming hate just because someone one opposes same sex marriage."

I don't think presuming is necessary given that you have refused/neglected to answer the below question:

"Are you of the opinion that sexual orientation is not a legitimate part of a person's identity? In other words, do you believe that no true homosexual exists, only confused heterosexuals in need of therapy?"

If you believe that homosexuality is incommutable, then how is denying them rights not a form of hatred? Bman, do you believe that homosexuals can "change" to heterosexuals?

39
bman about 7 years ago

"#37/Anonymous: Try telling that to the aforementioned parents, LGBT couples whose lives have been upended, or others who have suffered grievous anguish and pain. Hate and prejudice must be called what they are."

And so you don't need to even try to see if the person has a non-hate reason or not.

You already have a "license" to accuse them of hate even if that is not their intent.

40
bman about 7 years ago

#38/Anon: from bman: "...you need to stop presuming hate just because someone opposes same sex marriage.

Anon: I don't think presuming is necessary given that you have refused/neglected to answer the below question: "Are you of the opinion that sexual orientation is not a legitimate part of a person's identity? In other words, do you believe that no true homosexual exists, only confused heterosexuals in need of therapy?"

My not answering your question until its proper turn does not justify your making a hate accusation.

Once again you pounce on a false opportunity to accuse of hate.

As for your question, in the Conaway case the Maryland court ruled that sexual orientation is not a specially protected category. So, again you need to write a hate letter to the court since it did not agree with your view of orientation.

My view is that "orientation" claims are too subjective to be proved. .

Therefore, my focus is on abstract behavior or conduct. By abstract behavior I mean what are the objective merits to society if the conduct was performed by anyone.

If any two men want their sexual relationship recognized as marriage, or if any man wants to marry many women it matters not what the "orientation" is, or their "race" might be.

What matters are the merits to society if it normalized the behavior. No special rights based on orientation or race.

Law is supposed to treat all persons as equal but not all conduct as equal.

Granting special approval to conduct based on race or orientation undermines the impartiality of law.

Anyway, once we have identified an abstract behavior we ask this next question:

"Are children more secure if the behavior is increasingly practiced by society around them? Or, are children more secure if the behavior is decreasingly practiced by society around them?"

We then set public policy based on the answer.

I think most people would agree children are more secure if the society around them is sexually moral rather than sexually carnal.

Most can agree that a same same sex marriage law would naturally erode sexual morality in society, resulting in a less moral environment around all children.

In turn, a less moral society would tend to increase high risk behaviors by children and around children, incline toward more single parent households with less marriage between men and women, and less security for children all around.