Christopher Ciccone supports Kim Davis

Madonna and Christopher Ciccone during The 70th Annual Academy Awards –
 Red Carpet at Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles, California, United States.
(Photo by KMazur/WireImage)

The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:

 The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States

no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, career or political, can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief!(Madonna’s openly gay brother), Christopher Ciccone on Facebook, came to the defense of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples:

“The county clerk in Kentucy deserves about as much support as you would give her if she were a muslim women who insisted on covering her face and refused not only gay marriages licenses, but divorce, accusations of rape and driving a car without ur mans approval…..perspective is everything…..this woman is a civil servant, she is required to follow federal law…..but why should she….when DOJ and other civil authories don’t follow federal law when they choose not to…..i.e. Washington State and Colorado (POT) come to mind…or the abstract notion of “sanctuary cities”…..i always thought that sanctuary was the province of churches…….these things aside….this is why we have elections…..if the folks of this county in Kentucy don’t want her as the county clerk….then don’t have to vote for her…..that is how a democracy works….not to mention the courts….in the mean time…..since when are we the arbiter of other peoples faith?…….can you honestly say that you know how much a person is allowed to have??..if i’m not mistaken, it’s in the constitution…..something about religious freedom or something……selective shaming and bullying corrupts a democracy….freedom of press, speech and religion give it strength. Not to mention reason and the god given compassion we as humans have a right and responsibility to practice. Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners. Is it so difficult to allow this women her religion?…or must we destroy her in order for here to betray her faith. No matter how we judge its truth. The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers.”

Elena Kagan 2009: “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage”

Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by courts and understood by the nation’s citizenry and its elected representatives. By this measure, which is the best measure I know for determining whether a constitutional right exists, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. ....I previously answered this question briefly, but (I had hoped) clearly, saying that “[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” I meant for this statement to bear its natural meaning.

Transgender change rooms working as planned: He was naked, had an erection. Save the #Pretendbians

Compare this ogling transgender man's disrespectful behaviour that was arguably illegal with the lesbian radical Brennan who created an anti-transgender blog called “Pretendbians,”

Brennan, a former member of the Boards of the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Baltimore, said she has been a gay activist since 1995 but says transgendered women are male and should not have access to "female spaces."

...what comes to mind is the Supreme Court of the United States has found sexual discrimination to be legal if there is a State Interest. It is what will stop the Gay Marriage issue... and support radical lesbians who hate trannies... not to mention conserve gay softball teams.

Marriage Equality: Federal Judge Strikes Down Polygamy Ban Based on Gay Rights

(CBS) Advocacy groups for polygamy and individual liberties on Saturday hailed a federal judge's ruling that key parts of Utah's polygamy laws are unconstitutional, saying it will remove the threat of arrest for those families.
U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said in the decision handed down Friday that a provision in Utah law forbidding cohabitation with another person violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees basic rights, including freedom of religion.

(Knish) If we’re not going to have any standards for marriage except “People in a relationship of some kind” then there’s no reason not to recognize polygamy. Or any of the crazier stuff coming down the pike. And that was why the left pushed the gay marriage scam to begin with.

The legalization of polygamy followed logically from the legal arguments against one man-one woman, as was predicted not just by me, but also by Professor Martha Nussbaum, one of the leading legal advocates for gay marriage, “Polygamy would have to be permitted.”

A U.S. District Court judge has sided with the polgyamous Brown family, ruling that key parts of Utah’s polygamy laws are unconstitutional.

Judge Clark Waddoups’ 91-page ruling, issued Friday, sets a new legal precedent in Utah, effectively decriminalizing polygamy.

(Knish) And the argument for striking down a polygamy ban? Modernity. Of course. We’re all so modern now that we know marriage is no longer between a man and a woman. It can be between anything and anything. A man and a man. A man and three women. A man and a tree.

“To state the obvious,” Judge Waddoups wrote, “the intervening years have witnessed a significant strengthening of numerous provisions of the Bill of Rights.” They include, he wrote, enhancements of the right to privacy and a shift in the Supreme Court’s posture “that is less inclined to allow majoritarian coercion of unpopular or disliked minority groups,” especially when “religious prejudice,” racism or “some other constitutionally suspect motivation can be discovered behind such legislation.”

The judge cited the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court case that struck down laws prohibiting sodomy. He quoted the majority opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that stated the Constitution protects people from “unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places” and “an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression and certain intimate conduct.”

As same-sex marriage has gained popular approval and legal status in recent years, some have hoped — and some feared — that other forms of cohabitation might follow. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his bitter and famous dissent from the 2003 Lawrence case, said the nation was on the verge of the end of legislation based on morality, and was opening the door to legalizing “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”

Just like Cass Sunstein and Samantha Power wanted

Gay Married Men Accused of Raping Their 9-Year-Old Adopted Son

Oh yeah, because children of homosexual parents do "as well" as those with biological, mom and dad parents.
Democrat family values.
At London's Daily Mail, "'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial."
And at the Hartford Courant, "Plea Agreement For No Jail Blows Up; Glastonbury Couple Accused of Abusing Boys Headed to Trial."
We'll see how much the mainstream media reports on this, although so far it's not been getting a lot of national coverage --- although it should.

via americanpowerblog.blogspot.com

#GayMarriage and the Dysfunctions of Modernity (Answering the Stupid Question: How will gays marrying affect your marriage?)

(Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan thought she scored some points when she demanded that the lawyer defending California's Proposition 8 tell her the exact "harm" gay marriage would cause.) Of course, the point is that we don't know how such a social experiment will turn out, or what specific "harm" will follow, no more than we know the benefits.Why would same-sex marriage, virtually unknown among human societies, be a "human right," but polygamy, extensively documented in history and prevalent today all over the world, wouldn't? Even the ancient Greek celebrator of homoerotic attraction, Plato, called sex between males "against nature." No more scientifically based are the alleged "studies" that purport to show that children reared by gay couples suffer no adverse effects. As Nelson Lund writes in the Wall Street Journal, professional organizations like the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics claim that scientific research shows no differences between children growing up with gay couples and those raised by heterosexual parents, a claim parroted recently on NPR. But these studies are riddled with compromising flaws such as tiny nonrandom samples, a lack of control groups, and reliance on self-report from gay parents, no more an objective source of information than straight parents' estimations of their parenting skills. Moreover, the most comprehensive study that did use a large randomized sample found several disadvantages for children raised in a household where parents were involved in a gay relationship. But as Lund reports, this study "has been vociferously attacked on methodological grounds by the same organizations that tout the value of politically congenial research that suffers from more severe methodological shortcomings."(MORE)

Mothers Abuse Children 3 Times more than Dads – Federal HHS Statistics

(Answering the Stupid Question: how will gays marrying affect your marriage?)Nearly 40% of all births are to unmarried women. The rate in the Hispanic and Black communities is twice that. According to the CDC In 2007, 93% of births to 15–17 year-olds and 82% of births to 18–19 year-olds were nonmarital. Re-defining marriage by polygamy could absorb large numbers of unmarried single mothers. As men marry multiple times, providing male role models to millions of boys lacking that today.

Inequality for All

(Put an equal sign on your Facebook profile and you're a civil rights hero.)Inequality in the name of equality has become an institution. It has become the institution that justifies all the other institutions of government and academia. If discrimination ever disappeared beyond the ability of modern eight-wave bigotry researchers to discover it in episodes of classic television shows and random interracial interactions, then the entire modern state would simply collapse.

Equality is Never Equivalence

(HERE'S A NEW SYMBOL USING RED "EQUALITY" IMAGE)

Sperm donor ordered to pay child support to lesbian couple despite him giving up rights to the child

This is what happens when civilization takes the Daddy out

(Sperm donor ordered to pay child support to lesbian couple despite him giving up rights to the child | Mail Online) By Daily Mail Reporter

• Angela Bauer, 40, and partner Jennifer Schreiner, 34, placed ad in 2009
• Donor William Marotta relinquished financial responsibility for child
• Kansas state ordered Mr Marotta to pay after lesbian couple applied
  for welfare

A sperm donor has been ordered to pay child support for the biological daughter he fathered to a lesbian couple who found him via Craigslist. Angela Bauer, 40, and partner Jennifer Schreiner, 34, placed an ad on the site three years ago for a donor which was answered by William Marotta.
'We are foster and adoptive parents and now we desire to share a pregnancy and birth together,' Bauer wrote in the online posting.

Donor: William Marotta, pictured, answered an ad placed on Craigslist by Angela Bauer, and her partner Jennifer Schreiner looking for a sperm donor

Battle: Angela Bauer and former partner Jennifer Schreiner (right) are supporting their sperm donor William Marotta in his fight against paying child support for their daughter

Mr Marotta provided sperm which was used for artificial insemination by Ms Schreiner. In return, he gave up parental rights including financial duties for the child.

Should sperm donors be exempt from all financial responsibility for the child?

The three signed a legal document which stated Mr Marotta, a married mechanic who fosters children with his wife, would have no rights to the child. 
Bauer and Schreiner updated Marotta on their daughter's well-being occasionally but he has had little contact, according to the Kansas City Star.
The arrangement changed earlier this year when Ms Schreiner, the only parent registered on her daughter's birth certificate, applied for social welfare.

Ms Bauer had been supporting the child but was left unable to work due to ill health.
On October 3, 2012, attorney Mark McMillan filed a petition on behalf of the Department of Children and Families seeking a ruling that Marotta is the father of Schreiner's child and owes a duty to support her.

United: Ms Bauer and Ms Schreiner celebrating their same-sex union. The couple adopted eight children together during their relationship but have not been given the same rights as straight couples

Caregiver: Mr Marotta is a married mechanic who fosters children with his wife

It said the department provided cash assistance totaling $189 for the girl for July through September 2012, and had paid medical expenses totaling nearly $6,000.
Schreiner had allegedly been put under pressure to reveal Mr Marotta's name so that her daughter could continue to have health care.
The legal agreement that the three made in 2009 was deemed invalid by Kansas state because they did not use a certified doctor for the insemination.

THE DOT.COM WAY TO MAKE A BABY: RISE OF ONLINE SPERM DONORS

It may appear unconventional but searching for sperm donors on Craigslist is not unheard of.
In 2010, the popular cafemom blog lit up in outrage after a man from Beaverton, Oregon advertised his sperm donor services on Craigslist. He wrote: 'I'm ready to help. We'd be very discreet, no one needs to know.'
Another ad for a potential donor in San Diego read: 'I'm not offering thrilling risky sex, just pregnancy.'
Craigslist requires that users agree to guidelines when posting ads for services.
However the site 'does not control, is not responsible for and makes no representations or warranties with respect to any user content... You must conduct any necessary, appropriate, prudent or judicious investigation, inquiry, research and due diligence with respect to any user content'.
Among the long list of banned items on Craigslist are illegal goods; offensive material including porn and anything deemed malicious or fraudulent. There is no mention of sperm donors.

Ms Bauer and Ms Schreiner, who separated in 2010, plan to help Mr Marotta fight the state's decision, saying they are 'forever grateful' for the child he gave their family. 
Ms Bauer, from Topeka, told cjonline.com this week: 'We’re kind of at a loss. We are going to support him in whatever action he wants to go forward with.'
Hannah Schroller, Mr Marotta's attorney, argued that the case was consistent with a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court denied parental rights to a man who sought them after providing a sperm donation under similar circumstances.
A licensed physician performed the insemination in the 2007 case.
Schroller wrote that Marotta took the same actions as the man in the 2007 case did, and he - like that man - should be considered a sperm donor, not a father.
She stressed that sperm banks regularly ship donations for the intended purpose of artificial insemination within the United States and abroad to both residential and medical facility addresses.
Schroller argued in court documents that if a donor is free of parental responsibility only when a doctor performs an insemination, 'then any woman in Kansas could have sperm donations shipped to her house, inseminate herself without a licensed physician and seek out the donor for financial support because her actions made him a father, not a sperm donor.
'This goes against the very purpose of the statute to protect sperm donors as well as birth mothers'.
Ms Bauer and Ms Schreiner had been together for eight years and adopted eight children. They ended their relationship in 2010 but continue to co-parent their sons and daughters who range from three months to 25 years old.
The state of Kansas does not recognize same-sex unions, so each of their children was registered for adoption by a single parent.
A motion to dismiss the state's case will be heard in Shawnee County District Court on January 8.
Angela de Rocha, spokeswoman for the Department for Children and Families, said that Kansas law prevented her from commenting on the case.

Moving on: Jennifer Schreiner posted this picture with a man believed to be her new partner since the end of her relationship with Angela Bauer

Using Children as Weapons

Nonie Darwish

If these are not abuses of the human rights of the child, what is?

In the Middle East, children are being used by the adults who should be caring for them to turn them into jihadist weapons to conquer the world -- sometimes with bombs strapped onto them to kill their perceived enemies. Children are given gun training to learn how to kill Jews, and are told that dying for the sake of jihad is the highest honor and the only guarantee to go to heaven. If these are not abuses of the human rights of the child, what is? In the elementary school we attended in Gaza, the political and cultural agenda of the Arab world was pushed down our throats in effectively every subject.

American children today are also suffering from adult agendas shoved down their throats: the environmental agenda, the feminist agenda, the gay agenda, the Islamist agenda, the class-envy agenda, the racial-divide agendas, the animal-rights agenda, ad infinitum. What people in the West fail to see is that they, too, are using their children as weapons: as tools to bring about social, cultural and political change, often to destroy the American system as we know it and replace it with a new America that the popular culture and many Americans seem so desperate to accomplish.
Experiments in child rearing do not only happen in ignorant third world countries, where people do not know better. My daughter came home from high school asking which topic to pick for an essay she was asked to write. The topics were: suicide, mass murder, or being bullied and oppressed because you are gay or from a certain race or national background. When I suggested "none," her answer was that this was the list the teacher given.
Boys are told that what was once considered normal boy play, roughhousing, has now become a crime, bullying. Girls are encouraged to perceive themselves as victims of men and marriage, and to feel hurt about it.
The American political and social divides are trickling down to our schools and placing horrific pressure on our kids. In divorces, the father is watching his kids taken away from him while the mother is told she can do everything on her own without a father. In political and cultural divisions, adults are also acting like hostile, divorcing parents tearing their kids apart during custody battles. As in the Middle East, where kids are unintentionally hurt for political, social and psychological experimentation, in America we are also usurping their innocence.
Adam Lanza, mentally ill or not, may not have had to end the way he did. He lacked fear of authority while living in the isolation of a large home with a mother desperate to please him by taking him shooting, buying assault weapons, guns and ammunition for a son she knew was not well. This mother was told by the popular culture that she could replace the father in her son's life, and that the son would not feel any difference whether the father's activities were done by the father or her. This poor mother told her friends she was trying to bond with her 20-year-old son -- what she unfortunately did not know was that this is an age when young men hate to be seen with their mothers.
American culture has hurt women, children and the family structure by telling women they could do everything, by telling men they are disposable and by telling girls that motherhood and marriage are unnecessary.
In the larger picture, the American epidemic of mass gun shootings by young men could be a cry for help by several generations of American kids who have suffered under decades of experimentation and indoctrination in our public schools. It could also be a cry for help by American single mothers, who are told they can take the role of both men and women in the family including the difficult task of raising young boys to adulthood alone. Women need a break; and kids need fathers as much as they need mothers. They also need the traditional extended family relations: the nurturing grandmother, the funny uncle or aunt, cousins. It is time for America to end the self-righteous pressure on our kids to change America.

Nonie Darwish is author of "The Devil We Don't Know" and president of FormerMuslimsUnited.org

via writingtw.blogspot.com

Superman To Go Gay? DC Comics Says One Of Its Most Known Characters To Come Out Of The Closet Thanks To Obama’s Gay Marriage Backing…

Captain Fabulous.

(Weasel Via Fox News:) Could Superman be gay?
Honchos at Superman’s comic book home, DC Comics, said this weekend that one of their most identifiable (but as of yet unnamed) straight characters will soon be coming out of the closet, according to a report.
At the Kapow Comic Convention held last weekend in London, DC co-publisher Dan DiDio said the publisher would be reintroducing a previously existing character who would now be “one of our most prominent gay characters,” the website BleedingCool.com reports.
Didio said DC’s position had shifted on the subject since he said in an interview last year that any homosexual characters would be new introductions, and that none of their existing characters’ sexual orientations would shift.
DC vice president Bob Wayne likened DC’s change in tune to President Obama’s shift on gay marriage, explaining that DC’s policy “has evolved,” the report says.

I curse the day Time Warner bought DC

North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

(Fox)May 8, 2012: Frances Newby cuts a wedding cake during a Vote For Marriage NC event in Raleigh, N.C. The national debate over gay marriage focused on North Carolina, as voters made it the 29th state to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman. (AP)

RALEIGH, North Carolina –  North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment on Tuesday defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th state to adopt such a ban. (MORE)

to the haters. I hope there is something out there that you need and others don't that will be given to everyone just to spite you.

If you are gay you don't have to worry about pregnancy within a contract designed for family. it would be unethical to pretend otherwise. NC banned gay marriage? Good. it's time to stop pretending that marriage isn't something exclusive, unique and essential.

Jewish Viewpoint on Premarital Sex

(Devorah) Generally, Judaism has a liberal viewpoint about premarital sex and human sexuality. This liberalism however does not condone nor approve of premarital or extramarital sex but provides the proper guidelines and conditions on when it should be done by a man and a woman.
From Judaism’s point of view, sex is a natural act between a man and a woman and is almost similar to eating and drinking. However, they also hold the opinion that anything natural if done improperly, can become a harmful, offensive and shameful. If done in the proper context, eating and drinking can be satisfying and if done according to God’s commandments, it even becomes a holy act.
Similarly, Judaism sees premarital sex as being against the religious law and is immoral but proper sex is a sacred and blessed act.
The Torah states that it is not good for man to be alone. Judaism views the sacrament of marriage as the fundamental means to legitimize the companionship, intimacy and sexual relationship and love between a man and a woman.
Since marriage is meant to sanctify the union of a man and a woman, Judaism values sex and physical intimacy as a means of strengthening vitally significant marital bonds and as a way of obeying the commandments of procreation.
In as much as the Torah also states for mankind to be fruitful and multiply, the commandment therefore elevates sex within marriage to a holy and sanctified act as it is performed in accordance with the commandments.
Generally, the Torah does not approve nor condone premarital sex. The stand is such that some Rabbis go as far as proclaiming that even if an individual sins with his eyes, he or she can be deemed guilty of adultery. Judaism’s zealous viewpoint has led to the segregation between men and women during festive occasions, in public and even having separate days for visiting and paying homage to the departed.
The only time that premarital sex is sanctioned is when the act of sexual intimacy is intended as a mode of lawful betrothal. Between engaged couples who may want to live in together prior to marriage, the relationship is prohibited by tradition.
All told, Jewish Law strictly prohibits sexual relations outside of marriage or before marriage even between two consenting adults. The religious pronouncements on sexuality are very clear and strict that even sexual relations between a man and wife in the context of marriage are covered by certain provisions. Jewish Family Purity Laws specifically forbids sexual relations when the wife is ritually impure (niddah) and declares that couples have to firmly refrain from sexual relations during the wife’s menstrual cycle. The strict ruling even goes as far as declaring that physical closeness between the wife and husband should be avoided as well during the wife’s menstrual period. Sexual relations can only be acceptable approximately 12 or 13 days after the first day of the menstrual cycle but not until after the wife has performed the necessary ritual of purification, mikvah.
Judaism does not look upon sexuality as essentially dirty or evil as some religions do. In fact, they have a very liberal viewpoint about sex and the physical intimacy of a man and a woman if it is done with love, and within the vows of a marriage.

in a world where the progressive left see marriage as a more and more a professional business arrangement for those involved in family making… it has become very expensive to be married. It also is involved in all kinds of red tape and bureaucracy involved in associating government in your interactions. I consider myself a social conservative, but I can not see consummating a marriage without killing the natural attraction to a girl. While my intent is to be married… If I were to really love a person I would not want to involve society in what I do. Further I would not want to be associated with gay marriage… which obviously would categorize my attraction in a similar way. I can most certainly see why so called legal marriage today would not be necessary for religious reasons in a Jewish community that has a perspective that is hostile to heterosexuality and it’s inherent exclusive nature.

Incestuous twin brothers wonder if they should reveal their secret relationship.

(Gemini)(Slate)Dear Prudence,

My fraternal twin and I (both men) are in our late 30s. We were always extremely close and shared a bedroom growing up. When we were 12 we gradually started experimenting sexually with each other. After a couple of years, we realized we had fallen in love. Of course we felt guilty and ashamed, and we didn't dare tell anyone what we were doing. We hoped it was "just a phase" that we’d grow out of, but we wound up sleeping together  until we left for college. We knew this could ruin our lives, so we made a pact to end it. We attended schools far apart and limited our contact to family holidays. But we never fell out of love with each other, so after graduation we moved in together and have been living very discreetly as a monogamous couple ever since. I'm not writing to you to pass moral judgment on our relationship—we're at peace and very happy. Our dilemma is how to deal with our increasingly nosy family and friends. They know we’re gay, and we live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, so we’re getting pressure to settle down. I feel we should continue being discreet for the rest of our lives and blow off their questions. It's nobody's business, and I fear they would find our relationship shocking and disgusting. My brother, though, is exhausted with this charade. He thinks that if we get the family together with a therapist to talk through the issues, they'll eventually accept it. I think he's out of his mind, but I also want to make him happy. Is this one of those times when honesty is not the best policy? If so, how do we get everyone to stop worrying we will die alone? I'm also concerned about the legal implications of this—would the therapist be required to report us to the authorities? Could we go to prison?

ahem

Wonder why when you go online and meet people it seems so Gay?

(thenextweb.com)(image) The Wall Street Journal studied a week of Foursquare check-ins, and found that from 100 categories women were most likely to check-in to cosmetic shops, doctors’ offices, educational venues and shops. Men? Well, apparently gay bars and tech-startups had the highest proportion of men, whilst travel and airports also featured highly. Yeah... maybe the gay marriage issue wasn't getting the momentum you thought it was... you just don't talk to people in reality... that's all.

Why Same-Sex Marriage Bans Qualify as Sex Discrimination

(Volokh.com) 2012-02-08  The Ninth Circuit decision striking down California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage is unpersuasive because it claims that the law fails to meet even minimal “rational basis” scrutiny. Eugene Volokh does a good job of explaining why. But there is an alternative constitutional rationale for striking down same-sex marriage bans that avoids this problem. Proposition 8 is an example of sex discrimination, and must be evaluated under the higher standards of scrutiny applied to gender discrimination by the Supreme Court.
Although the sex discrimination argument has been advanced by several academic advocates of gay marriage, nonacademics tend to be skeptical because the same-sex marriage bans seem to be targeted against gays, not men or women. Hostility towards gays is certainly part of the motivation for bans on same-sex marriage. But that does not prevent these laws from qualifying as sex discrimination. In terms of the way the law is actually structured, a same-sex marriage ban in fact discriminates on the basis of gender rather than orientation. And it is perfectly possible to discriminate on the basis of sex even if the motivation for doing so is something other than sexism.
Consider the hypothetical case of Anne, Bob, and Colin. If same-sex marriage is forbidden, Anne is allowed to marry Colin, but Bob cannot do so. This is so even if Anne and Bob are identical in every respect other than gender. Bob is denied the legal right to marry Colin (and all other men) solely because he is a man. Denial of a legal right solely on the basis of gender is the very essence of sex discrimination.
By contrast, sexual orientation actually has no effect on the way the law operates. Anne is still allowed to marry Colin, even if one of them happens to be gay or lesbian. Bob is denied that right regardless of his sexual orientation. There are actually lots of real world cases where gays or lesbians have entered into opposite-sex marriages, such as the famous example of former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey, a closeted gay man who was married to a woman for many years. McGreevey’s marriage was not illegal, even if his actions were morally dubious.
All of this simply underscores the reality that a ban on same-sex marriage discriminates on the basis of gender rather than orientation – even if the motivation for the discrimination is hostility towards gays and lesbians. Under the Supreme Court’s approach to sex discrimination, any “statutory classifications that distinguish between males and females” are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny. A ban on same-sex marriage pretty obviously “distinguish[es] between males and females.”
Although a ban on same-sex marriage qualifies as sex discrimination, it is not automatically unconstitutional. Since the 1970s, the Supreme Court has taken the view that laws that discriminate on the basis of sex do not violate the Constitution if they can pass “intermediate scrutiny,” which requires them to be “substantially related” to an “important state interest.” If opponents of same-sex marriage are right to claim that Western civilization will fall into deep decline if the practice is allowed, that would be enough to pass the test. Ditto if they can show that same-sex marriage somehow inflicts severe harm on children. But any such arguments would be subject to detailed judicial scrutiny. They would have to be backed by real evidence, and could not pass muster just by being minimally plausible, as under the “rational basis” test.
Some originalists might reject (Eugene Volokh)'s argument on the grounds that sex discrimination itself is not really banned by the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Eugene Volokh) criticized such arguments in this post. For a much more comprehensive rebuttal, see this important recent article by Steven Calabresi and Julia Rickert.
A more moderate originalist critique of my position might hinge on the idea that the framers of the Amendment would not have thought of a same-sex marriage ban as sex discrimination. But it is not hard to figure out that a law under which a legal right is dependent on gender discriminates on the basis of sex. The Framers surely thought that this was justifiable sex discrimination. But that does not mean that it isn’t sex discrimination at all. If asked whether marriage laws circa 1868 limited the right to marry on the basis of gender, most people at the time would surely have said yes. And, as in the case of occupational discrimination against women, the Framers’ view that this form of sex discrimination is constitutionally permissible hinged on dubious factual assumptions that we are not bound by today.
In sum, a ban on same-sex marriage easily qualifies as sex discrimination and is therefore subject to heightened judicial scrutiny. Whether it could withstand such scrutiny is a question I leave to others, though (Eugene Volokh) is skeptical about its chances.

UPDATE: Many commenters seem to be assuming that, in order for a law to qualify as sex discrimination, it has to be motivated by hostility to men or women. Not so. As the Supreme Court puts it, a law can qualify as unconstitutional sex discrimination so long as it is a”statutory classification… that distinguish between males and females.” Similarly, a racial classification counts as racial discrimination for constitutional purposes even if the motives behind it are benign.

It is also not true that a ban on same-sex marriage avoids qualifying as sex discrimination because it affects members of both genders. It still denies rights to both men and women solely on account of their sex.
The fact that Bob cannot marry Colin solely on account of gender is not somehow “balanced” by the fact that Anne is similarly forbidden to marry Carol.

Similarly, a law banning interracial marriage still qualifies as race discrimination even though both blacks and whites are barred from marrying members of the other racial group.

you can slice it how you like it, and call it what you want it... but I don't see the existential need for gay people to protect themselves from unwanted accidental pregnancy within the contractual union. It doesn't matter if it is because of gender or orientation... this is a label. It doesn't matter if the cup is half full or half empty... the point is there is a need for a cup to hold water. The real world application invokes a real need for aid to those that have a unique problem that Gay people don't have.

BREAKING: Washington State Senate Passes Marriage Equality

Most know what Washington State feels about men. It should be of no surprise that the burden of responsibility due to financial obligations from pregnancy has been ignored in a state the does not treat men like women. Those that do not live with any threat of responsibility will now be treated like they do. Be sure to read wadvpress.org for evidence of the bigotry of progressive feminists towards nature and the penis.

(thinkprogress.org) A little more than an hour ago, a bipartisan group of Washington State Senators voted 28-21 in favor of marriage equality.  The state senate was widely seen as the biggest hurdle to marriage equality and passage by the state house should follow.  Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) urged the state house to pass the bill so she could sign it immediately:

Tonight the Washington State Senate stood up for what is right and told all families in our state that they are equal and that the state cannot be in the business of discrimination. I believe that this decision should be made by our state Legislature, and I’m proud our elected leaders recognized that responsibility.
Tonight our families are better for this vote. Our kids have a brighter future for this bill. And our state is better for this bill. I encourage the House to approve this bill and get it to my desk for my signature. I look forward to the day when all Washington citizens have equal opportunity to marry the person they love.

Opponents of marriage equality have vowed to seek the 120,000-plus signatures necessary to force a statewide referendum on the measure.

Rick Santorum faces off with New Hampshire students on gay marriage

The Left attacks character like usual, but there is most certainly an existential reason for marriage and traditional marriage has an inherent character that a gay marriage would not.

Marty Markowitz's holiday card: "We got the Brooklyn Nets"

(Atlantic Yards Report) ...The cover(Goodbye to Hurricane Irene) and the inside of Borough President Marty Markowitz's holiday card. (Here's some Brooklyn Paper analysis of Markowitz's "gay marriage" theme.)
He's so excited, he states, "We got the Brooklyn Nets," even though they won't arrive til next year.
By the way, Steve Buscemi, shooting for an Emmy, is no fan of Atlantic Yards.

yeah... great... people who like to sodomize their way into non pregnancy are worthy of the same government benefits as those who live a life where pregnancy is a reality that can change life as they know it... but hey... they have the Brooklyn Nets... and in a "Progressive", "MoveOn dot Org" world... that is bliss. Ass monkeys!

NY drops eye test for driver's license renewal

You don't need to be intending to make babies within marriage to get married and now you can drive blind. Why should a marriage license be any different then a driver's license? That does have a certain logic.

(NYPost)ALBANY, N.Y. — New York is dropping its requirement for vision tests to make it easier for drivers to renew licenses online or by mail.Department of Motor Vehicles Commissioner Barbara Fiala said in a statement Monday that the change is one of several stemming from Gov. Andrew Cuomo's call for streamlining by state agencies. Another change is a new Internet application, "MyDMV," which allows customers to set up personal online accounts to do business with DMV. Starting Wednesday, drivers will "self-certify" that they meet the vision requirement when they renew. New licenses and commercial licenses will still require eye tests at a DMV office or by a doctor. Fiala said vision testing wasn't required in New York from 1993-2000, and six other states don't require eye tests for renewals.

 (I Hate the Media) This will give new meaning to the bumper sticker...