Rick is correct: "Baker is standing court precedence on this subject; which was recently vindicated by the 1st Circuit, but ignored by the 9th as inconsequential to their findings."

The 1st Circuit acknowledged Baker as precedent.

You are wrong on another point. You said:

"We know that our marriage laws have discriminated against gays and lesbians for generations."

There is no gay criterion and lesbian criterion for ineligiblity to marry. You have acknowledge that fact in previous discussions.

So you try to make this about something else. You oppose the bride-groom requirement of marriage law.

And so you over-reach and complain that the marriage law was instituted to discriminate against your favored identity group "for generations".

There is no problem in the marriage law. There is no identity group requirement for eligibility and yet you would have the law changed for that very purpose.

Your comments are hypocritical and, well, plain stupid.

That's not my argument, you're not even making sense. Will you admit that the First Circuit didn't "vindicate" Baker or are you going to keep changing the subject? You also seem to have some trouble understanding the concept of precedence.

Ten grandchildren, huh? There's probably a gay one in there just thrilled to be getting anti-gay propaganda from Grammy. Lovely. You better hope he or she doesn't get to choose your nursing home!

Yourt argument boils down to the assertion that, just so long as a Court acts to impose what the People have rejected, it is thereafter unconstitutional to reverse the Court.

This is a losing argument, 14th, and the really cool part is it sounds so good to your side that they will actually walk into SCOTUS imagining they can sell it.

That is when we will all learn the foundational flaw which lies at the heart of the entire SS"M" strategy; that is, the inability to count to five.

Your argument boils down to the assertion that, just so long as a Court acts to impose what the People have rejected, it is thereafter unconstitutional to reverse the Court.

This is a losing argument, 14th, and the really cool part is it sounds so good to your side that they will actually walk into SCOTUS imagining they can sell it.

That is when we will all learn the foundational flaw which lies at the heart of the entire SS"M" strategy; that is, the inability to count to five.

Your argument boils down to the assertion that, just so long as a Court acts to impose what the People have rejected, it is thereafter unconstitutional to reverse the Court.

This is a loser argument, 14th, and the really cool part is it sounds so good to your side that they will actually walk into SCOTUS imagining they can sell it.

That is when we will all learn the foundational flaw which lies at the heart of the entire SS"M" strategy; that is, the inability to count to five.

Yourt argument boils down to the assertion that, just so long as a Court acts to impose what the People have rejected, it is thereafter unconstitutional to reverse the Court.

This is a loser argument, 14th, and the really cool part is it sounds so good to your side that they will actually walk into SCOTUS imagining they can sell it.

That is when we will all learn the foundational flaw which lies at the heart of the entire SS"M" strategy; that is, the inability to count to five.

Let's deconstruct it.

"Okay, the 9th Circuit has ruled that there is no rational basis for denying marriage rights to gay couples."

True. I note the surprisingly harsh tone of the dissent, which raises quite a salient points for the SCOTUS to consider:

"Based on a two-judge majority’s gross misapplication of Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia, Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1082 (9th Cir. 2012). Even worse, we have overruled the will of seven million California Proposition 8 voters based on a reading of Romer that would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from sister circuits who have since interpreted it. "

Why?

Let's deconstruct it.

"Okay, the 9th Circuit has ruled that there is no rational basis for denying marriage rights to gay couples."

True. I note the surprisingly harsh tone of the dissent, which raises quite a salient points for the SCOTUS to consider:

"Based on a two-judge majority’s gross misapplication of Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia, Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1082 (9th Cir. 2012). Even worse, we have overruled the will of seven million California Proposition 8 voters based on a reading of Romer that would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from sister circuits who have since interpreted it. "

Your Baker argument is the one that will cost you this case, and the entire DOMA case as well.

Yourt argument boils down to the assertion that, just so long as a Court acts to impose what the People have rejected, it is thereafter unconstitutional to reverse the Court.

This is a loser argument, 14th, and the really cool part is it sounds so good to your side that they will actually walk into SCOTUS imagining they can sell it.

That is when we will all learn the foundational flaw which lies at the heart of the entire SS"M" strategy; that is, the inability to count to five.

Typical tactic Randy, clearly my analogy was in direct response to your "words have meaning" "logic" but you skipped right over that and changed the subject to rational basis. Okay, the 9th Circuit has ruled that there is no rational basis for denying marriage rights to gay couples. So your statement merely represents your opinion and wishful thinking, not a legal fact. 

Also, you continue to claim that Baker is precedence for the Prop 8 case. It is not. The facts surrounding Perry were not substantially similar to Baker. In Perry, same-sex marriage had been legal for a period of time in CA and 18,000 same-sex couples had married there. The voters then amended their constitution to remove that existing right. That alone presents an entirely different set of facts from Baker. 

Then you claim that the 1st Circuit recently vindicated Baker. Again, they did no such thing. You're the one always rambling about the meaning of words. So here you go...

vindicate: Show or prove to be right, reasonable, or justified. 

In order have vindicated it, they would have had to consider the same question and ruled in the same manner. But they didn't, they simply acknowledged and essentially said that it wasn't relevant to their case because the arguments weren't resting on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. They didn't need to because they were answering a different question entirely: whether the federal government can ignore marriages that are legally valid at the state level. They found that it cannot. 

At one point he simulated oral sex on stage. Of course the friendly audience (on a college campus) giggled.

He is a good SSM advocate but he is also a rather weak philosopher -- he is a professor of philosophy -- and more of a showman than a man of ideas and sound argumentation. Like other SSMers, big names and small names, his pro-SSM soup is thin and very often very tasteless.

Boy, you guys really are lazy. Look it up elsewhere; you'll find it explain about a thousand times.

Similarly, your rant above boils down to a foot-stomping, curls-shaking fury in the face of the refusal of your neighbors to agree to allow you to define marriage as Federal Friendship With Benefits.

You are free to stomp, but your position will not prevail in a free electoral contest.

Promise.

Ah. So your argument is, that every single civilization throughout human history, including this one until eight years ago, was engaged in an unconstitutional act of discrimination against homosexuals.

Good luck with that one.

See you in November.

You are rambling again. Have you checked your blood sugar; maybe you should eat something sweetheart...?

The perverts have been rehearing to themselves as "gay" for less than a dozen years now - 12 years is about 1/3rd of a generation.

Sorry, we're not playing that game Ricky. We know that our marriage laws have discriminated against gays and lesbians for generations. That discrimination is the reason that the word "marriage" in our civil laws has meant only a male-female union for so long. You don't get to restate the problem and hold it up as justification for why the problem shouldn't be solved.

Your argument has about as much merit as the following:
Q: Why shouldn't women be able to vote?
A: Because democracy refers to only men participating in the democratic process...and words have meaning...that's why.

Really? Did you find The Eleventh Circuit's ruling in State of Florida v US Department of Health and Human Services "truly amazing"?

Do you honestly find it "truly amazing" that a Federal Court would uphold the rights of the individual over an act of Congress?

It sounds like you're just not happy with our three-branch system of government. May I suggest that you move several thousand miles to the east where you'll find a system more to your liking?

The courts have already rated your "theoretical abnormality" meme Epic Fail.

--So what about married couples who are deliberately childless? FAIL!!

Expanded definitions are supposed to have a link to the meaning of the word in question. In the case of the word "Marriage" the one commonality shared across descriptives is "The joining of opposites." By expanding the definition of a word which is governed by "The joining of opposites" to include a reference to "The joining of likes” you have, in fact changed the very meaning of the word.

Reality: actual being or existence, as opposed to an imaginary, idealized, or false nature.

Your proclivity exists in opposition to reality. Looks like you are going to change the meaning of a lot more words if you are to lend an appearance of acceptability to your depravity.

Honesty?

Really?

Honesty requires the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.

The refusal- your grim, almost Leninist resistance to simply acknowledging the gender of a Mom (female, all Moms are female) and a Dad (male, all Dads are male)- leads me to conclude that you have profoundly departed in very basic ways from that foundational requirement for honesty.

(PS: He's great

But, silly me, everything he says comes with an expiration date.

Definitions change because reality changes, not the other way around. And, you know, that's okay. You may not want to sit in the weird chair. Nobody's forcing you. And nobody's judging you for sticking with the old chair. But some of us prefer the new chair. Some of us need the new chair because the old chair was designed for/by a certain type of person, and our bodies aren't the same as that person's. But that's cool -- that guy needs a chair, too. God bless him.

Peace and love, y'all.

Nah, we'll let the court do the work. And the public record if your ugliness and bigotry will be just desserts.

"How so?"

Because "no it isn't" and "so what."

You are the ones demanding change; so prove your own damn case lazy.

How so?

"If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything." Confucius

Are you getting at the point that words can be re-defined? Yes, we get that; that's what we're trying to prevent.

If that's not what your getting at, then I believe your question is not whether marriage between two people of the same sex is impossible (since definitions can be changed); rather your question is why marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman, which Rick answered quite well.

Could we change the words "woman" and "man" to be defined identically? Sure, we could do that, but it would ignore the important differences between the two sexes. Likewise, redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would ignore the important differences between male-female couples and same-sex couples. Psssst: they're different!

It's been so long since you managed to slip one in, and it is wonderfully humbling to watch NOM swallow my posts, while admitting the SS"M" agitators'.

Very salutary.

Just as well, most everything you say us hard to swallow.

You have it exactly backwards. The burden of proof rests with the innovators. You have had thirty three opportunities to make the case for SS"M". You have failed thirty three times.

Next.

The SS"M" arguments have all been heard, all been considered, all been rejected 33 straight times.

I think the dialogue-ing is just about done.

It's winning time.

Spencer, you have it backwards. The burden of proof is on the radical innovators, not on the institution of marriage as it has been understood from long before the founding of our Republic.

The SS"M" arguments have all been heard, all been considered, all been rejected 33 straight times.

I think the dialogue-ing is just about done.

It's winning time.

The burden of proof rests upon the radicals who wish to redefine marriage, not upon the people who wish to retain it.

All of the SS"M" arguments have been made.

All of them have failed.

Every time.

That won;t change this November.

Actually, you have it exactly backwards.

The burden of proof is on the SS"M" supporter, to put forward good and sufficient reasons why marriage should be radically redefined.

Your neighbors have heard your arguments, Spenser, and have not found them compelling.

This will not change in November.

Actually, you have it exactly backwards.

The burden of proof is on the SS"M" supporter, to put forward good and sufficient reasons why marriage should be radically redefined in order to accommodate the radically novel beliefs of a small group of people whose identity happens, for some weird reason, to be focused upon their sexual disorientation.

Your neighbors have heard your arguments, Spenser, and have not found them compelling.

This will not change in November.

As far as the American electorate is concerned, SS"M" has already lost, and lost with a finality and unanimity almost never encountered in American politics.

Hope this helps.

Actually, you have it exactly backwards.

The burden of proof is on the SS"M" fanatic, to put forward good and sufficient reasons why marriage should be radically redefined in order to accommodate the deep and inconsolable need of a small group of sexually disoriented folk to receive the moral acceptance of their fellows, in their identity-politics blitzkrieg.

Your neighbors have heard your arguments, Spenser, and have not found them compelling.

This will not change in November.

As far as the American electorate is concerned, SS"M" has already lost, and lost with a finality and unanimity almost never encountered in American politics.

Hope this helps.

Pete, always happy to see you confirm that the real agenda you pursue here is an anti-religious agenda.

Just as the true face of the marriage corruption movement is a profound, shrieking hatred of religion.

But of course we do not vote on whether the Jews or the Christians are right.

We do vote on whether a small group of profoundly disoriented, whipped-up-into-a-ridiculous frenzy radicals get to decide to throw five thousand years of human history- not to mention the unanimous decision of the voters in 33 consecutive states!- into the garbage bin.

Yes, we do vote on that.

See you in November, Pete.

You (and others) beg the question by insisting, without argument, that the word "marriage" can't ever refer to the union of a gay couple. Why can't it? It appears you want to claim that marriage between a gay couple isn't really "marriage," since that would be impossible. Show the impossibility. Can you?

Don't you love the drivel?

Catholics say there is a Jesus, Jews say there isn't ... neither side can prove they are right....

Certainly.

Words have meanings.

Marriage means that formal, stable union of a man and a woman, from which union children commonly result, and within which union they are best nurtured.."

Society recognizes marriage, it does not invent it, or submit various design proposals to Congressional Committees or Federal Courts.

Society benefits from marriage, as it does no other relationship, precisely because marriage secures the next generation, best nurtured.

Our interests in securing this generation extend to recognizing and fostering this union of the two complementary genders of our species, especially against the completely insane and fascist shrieking of folks who demand that their sexual preferences are somehow relevant to the question of marriage.

They aren't.

All are equally free to marry.

But no male can marry another male (homosexuality is irrelevant to the question).

No female can marry another female (lesbianism is irrelevant to the question).

Because- whatever you want to call couplings of same sex partners- you can no more call it "marriage", than you can call "five" the sum of two plus two.

Simple.

White cannot be black, two plus two cannot equal five, debt cannot be defined by a judicial proceeding as wealth, and marriage cannot be defined by judicial proceeding as

Is it simply because they can't reproduce?

(Btw, I wonder how long it will be until NOM decides to censor my comments again).

Except that was not the ruling, not worded like that. .

Gridwold changed all that during your religious tantrums over contraception in the 1960s. Procreation is not a requirement of marriage.

Love is irrelevant from a societal/governmental perspective of marriage. I'm with my wife because I love her; I married her because I intended to have children with her.

But I did not marry her because I love her; that's almost contradictory, isn't it? "I love you, therefore I am going to "lock-in" under contract for life." No, the point of the marriage idea is to "lock-in" in the event children are conceived. I know, it's not very romantic, but it's really not a romantic institution; it's a familial union involving children.

I would like to see the look on your wife's face when she hears you repeat verbatim what you typed in here, "Has nothing to do..........preference is irrelevant."

Btw, what you think or feel about myself, or anyone else, identifying as a homosexual is 100% irrelevant. Nor am I in the least concerned with which sexual identity or orientation you identify.

Look, do what you gotta do, I could;t be less interested in dramatic, sweeping arias concerning your sexual orientation.

It has nothing to do with this.

This is about protecting marriage- the sole institution of society which binds children with their parents into families- from the inconceivably gargantuan need of approval from which you apparently suffer so greatly that you actually come in and type messages about your sexual leanings as if strangers were remotely interested.

Sigh.

We re going to protect marriage, and there isn;t anything you can do to change that.

But it's not personal.

So please.

Go do whatever it is you find needful to do.

Oh, on a separate note, as one who has overcome ssa, I don't have much sympathy for people who have adopted a homosexual identity.

Must be looking in the mirror, then.......

As far as truth goes, man and woman united is absolutely unique, and justly needs a word to name it. If national laws takes the word marriage away, we should be confident and united enough to invent another word. If Google and Facebook can make their way into the languages and dictionaries of the world in a decades time. There is no reason why a word like “Oaurou” (pronounced o-roo) could not become internationally known and accepted. So that when our children say, “I want to become an “Oaurou” when I grow up”, they will be expressing clearly what they want. That is their wish to join to the opposite sex (in order to become a completed and independent human species) and eventually have biological offspring (and develop a family) from that “Oaurou”. And when one of our children whats to join to the same sex (or if sex is irrelevant to his union) they will be able to say in clarity, “I want to get married when I grow up”. (Though I wouldn't present that idea to the judges just yet... We'll keep it between us, the people. And than we'll have “Oaurou” pride parades, not to change minds, but simply to celebrate our joy of the “Oaurou”. And eventually demand our equal representation at the government level; but how secondary that will be. For all things pertaining to humanity can come from one healthy Oaurou. We don't need affirmation, only nominal identification.

Right now I see the “Supreme” Courts final (for now) ruling on this issue, a roll of the dice, at best.
But what a day it would be for America, if they would put into words in its constitution (what has always been understood without words) that marriage is between a man and a woman. End of story.

I do appreciate the thoughtful and constructive rebuttal; and I too read the NY Jurists decision which she based on her own personal opinion; ignoring guiding SCOTUS precedence and the Supremacy Claus.

I make every effort to read the official court findings and then bounce my interpretation off of a few reliable sources. For four years now I've been pointing out that Baker is standing court precedence on this subject; which was recently vindicated by the 1st Circuit, but ignored by the 9th as inconsequential to their findings. The 9th based its findings on its refusal to acknowledge another SCOTUS precedence that allows states to draw back expanded rights providing they do not cross the bar originally established by SCOTUS.

The overarching theme I’m trying to relay here is that the State does not govern the Fed.

"Procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one woman pairings"

SCOTUS then reiterated its support of the traditional definition of marriage in Baker v. Nelson which was rooted in the original 1875 ruling on this subject; thus reiterating:

"Procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one woman pairings"

SCOTUS upheld the Federal Governments right to declare a Tomato a fruit for the sake of commerce; they will most certainly uphold its own precedence on the definition of marriage and its link to this nation’s history and traditions.

How can you be that disgusting and still stand yourself? You even cheered Walker’s decision to release the taping of his sham trial, and then cried tears of joy when Walker's handpicked successor upheld Walker's decision, but when the 9th overturned this miscarriage of justice you just shrugged it off like it was no big deal.

I suspect you will follow the same tact when the SCOTUS smack-down comes along next summer. In the mean time I hope you enjoy your last year of hope.

Prior to Obama working to sabotage its defense every federal appellate court that heard arguments on DOMA upheld it – 11 circuit benches including the 1st which just ignored precedence.

judicial activism = any court decision that conservatives don't like

Marriage is central to our civilization's recovery of moral stability.

Since marriage is worth defending, we must of necessity be completely up to speed on the various tactics being employed to undermine its legal foundation.

You do realize you have your work cut out for you. Your peer over at the Ruth Institute, Jennifer the great has already written a superb book on 77 arguments against marriage corruption. It will be interesting to see how your book matches up against hers.
I do hope you went through the comments here as some of the commenters bring up great arguments that I never thought of.
John N. has brought up great points that no one else has ever thought of. How the marriage licenses and benefits are priviledges and not rights so no civil rights were violated. He also has pointed out the singles issue. How married people got benefits not afforded to singles because these are incentives to procreate. Since SSM does not procreate it is totally unfair to single people. Where is the justice in telling single people that they are not eligible for the same treatment as married people because of procreation then give the same benefits to homosexual couples even though they do not procreate like single people.
I have noticed the opposition has always ignored the priviledges and singles argument because they have no answer. The singles issue alone proves that they equallity argument is a farce. When the state gives out marriage licenses and benefits to married people but not singles it created inequallity in the first place. Next time you get some homosexual activist who brings up the equallity issue confront him or her about why is it alright to violate equallity in the first place by giving benefits to married people. If the issue is about equallity then that means no marriage licenses or benefits so that singles are treated equally with married people. Again the cannot beat this argument.

Therefore we can expect NOM to keep a close eye on these supplemental assaults upon the legal protection of families and especially of children, who are united to their own mother and father uniquely through institution of marriage.

Marriage is central to our civilization's recovery of moral stability.

Since marriage is worth defending, we must of necessity be prepared to recognize and counter threats to it from the opposition, wherever they occur.

Really? Then why does NOM focus so much energy of gay parenting?

Somewhere that Cambodian boy had a family: a mom and a dad. Very sad that he lost that family, but nice that he was adopted by an American since presumably the kid would otherwise have been raised in an orphanage. Now he has an adoptive family; a group of strangers living together.