NOM BLOG

Brian Brown: Delaware Gay Marriage Vote Will Be Campaign Issue Next Election

 

Brian Brown spoke with the Associated Press about the fact that gay marriage will be a political issue in the next elections in states where legislators -- especially Republican legislators -- voted to redefine marriage:

Delaware State Capitol"...opponents of gay marriage say Delaware lawmakers will face consequences for supporting the measure, which cleared the Senate on a 12-9 vote and was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jack Markell barely half an hour later.

“I think there will be some people that will be replaced,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, a conservative group opposed to same-sex marriage.

Brown said he thinks both Cloutier and Rep. Michael Ramone of Newark, the only other Republican lawmaker to vote for gay marriage, will be defeated if they seek re-election.

“Either in a primary or in a general election, we don’t really care,” Brown said, adding that plenty of Democrats oppose gay marriage.

“The reality is that these were very close votes, even with a supermajority of Democrats in Delaware,” he noted. “They needed 11, they got 12.”

While gay marriage is now the law of Delaware, Brown said his group would work to overturn it.

“It may take a long time ... but we’ll continue to fight and continue to support candidates who support traditional marriage,” he said."

93 Comments

  1. Andrew
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    Hilarious. I hope the moderating is enjoying reading all the comments.

  2. Andrew
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    Two years ago, Brown vowed to overturn the marriage equality law in NY using a three-phase process (http://www.nomblog.com/10773).

    Just wondering, two years out, how that campaign is going. Any closer? Or did you just replace the 'turncoat' Senators mostly with Senators who also support marriage equality?

  3. OldKingBlog
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    Andy-baby: that campaign was a success; all but one were rreplaced by senators who support normal marriage. Now, haul that keyster over to Moveon. And stay there.

  4. Andrew
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    Good robot.

  5. Andrew
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    This site cracks me up I tell you.

  6. Andrew
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    Anyway OldKing, where are those newly pro-marriage majorities?

  7. Andrew
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    I don't see any marriage amendment coming out of either chamber.

  8. leviticus
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    We need to team up with someone like like Tony Perkins who wrote the GOP platform on marriage. Mr. Perkins knows how to use the GOP dog whistle that makes ALL Republicans march in line. We must get rid of all the stray RINOs next election.

  9. leviticus
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    The LDS church needs to get more involved in states like Illinois, they have the political organization and the groundwork in place to do a door-to-door campaign. Think Prop 8 and they got it done.

  10. RAJ
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    leviticus,

    ... but here's the problem:

    (maybe you know this about how the LDS corporation works, and maybe you don't)

    ... those old guys who run the church really, Really, REALLY care about what outsiders think of them! Prop 8 was an LDS public relations disaster and I don't expect their brand will recover for a very long time. They mostly sat out the last round of marriage equality contests --- maybe because of Romney, maybe not, whatever the reason, I don't think you can realistically count of large-scale LDS participation going forward.

  11. Ken
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    I predict that the Mormon Church might do an about-face on gay rights and gay marriage in a few years. Salt Lake City is a surprisingly gay friendly city with gay rights protections, so it's not uncharted territory.

    Accepting gay people is going to have less impact than abolishing polygamy, when all the families had to be restructured.

  12. RAJ
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    Ken,

    Doubtful, but that would be one prediction I'd be delighted to see come true. Not for myself --- I left long ago and am not personally looking for any change or fulfillment from them --- but for a generation of younger LDS members coming of age, discovering they are homosexual and doing it in a much more humane era.

    I think it would be to the LDS church's great credit if it could find a way to integrate some of the members of its OWN family into full fellowship and acceptance.

  13. Robert
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    One thing Brian Brown does well is represent the vicious, vengeful side of Christianity.

  14. Ken
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    In about 1978, I was driving home from work when I heard a news flash that the President of the Mormon Church had a revelation that blacks were okay for the priesthood. (That made evangelism a lot easier in South America, where nearly everyone is mixed race.)

    At the time, my Mormon boss was having an argument with his brother. The brother advocated the spiritual inferiority of blacks, my boss said it was wrong. The brother said, "That's the church's position, believe it or get out." The next day their roles were reversed.

    Eventually someone high up will find out they have a gay relative, whom they love. The teachings about gay people will become a public liability. Then the President will issue a new prophecy and it will be added to Doctrine and Covenants.

  15. Ken
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    Just because people claim to be Christians doesn't mean they are. In Matthew 25, the people who claimed to be Christians were not, and the people who thought they were not Christians were surprised to find out they were.

    Brian Brown represents Christian-flavored American folk religion, which uses the Bible to prove what they happen to believe, not as a guide to what they should believe.

  16. Richard
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    Ken your story is an excellent example to show the rest of us that, as happens in most of recorded history, once aggrieved segments of the population come to know, be related to, care about and love their supposed enemies, the walls of intolerance come tumbling down and a new-found measure of respect and even love takes hold and what was thought to be intolerable seems benign. This is what I believe is happening across the country. A minority exists to be sure but it is marginalized in its churches and blogs.

  17. Raj
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    Ken wrote:

    "Eventually someone high up will find out they have a gay relative, whom they love."

    Ken, that's already happened. There's more than one Mormon General Authority with a close gay relative, but it's complicated. It makes a doctrinal shift more likely, but not in the near term.

  18. Randy E King
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

    Sexual depravity does not turn you into a species of man unto yourself. Bastardizing the word Gay makes you look desperate; not authentic.

  19. leviticus
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

    Many people are born with disabilities or defects of character. Everyone has a cross to bear in one form or another. It's not the purpose of Christianity to legitimize the defect.

  20. Luke 6:20
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 4:36 am | Permalink

    I don't think the Delaware GOP will embrace the idea of surrendering moderate Republican lawmakers who represent liberal Democratic districts. The focus should be on helping Sen. Ernie Lopez (R-Rehoboth Beach) avoid being defeated for voting against the bill.

  21. Luke 6:20
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 4:41 am | Permalink

    We are all children if God. Thank yo for your comments, whether I agree with you or not.

  22. Will Fisher
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 4:52 am | Permalink

    Leviticus, maybe so, but it is also not purpose of the civil law is not to advance a religiously-based punishment for what you consider a defect.

  23. Posted May 11, 2013 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    Ken said: Eventually someone high up will find out they have a gay relative, whom they love. The teachings about gay people will become a public liability.

    Just like they find out they have relatives who may be alcoholics, adulterers, consume porn, try to seduce the baby-sitter or were even sexual abusers. Who always appeared quite nice to them.

    Eventually, people will realize that a homosexuality agenda is nothing but a demand for people to be blind to this type of sexuality problem.

    Liberals who are intent in normalizing homosexuality do so because of a larger push to never be held accountable for any harmful attitude or behavior regarding sexuality.

  24. Posted May 11, 2013 at 7:50 am | Permalink

    The waaaaaambulance is getting a bit full Brian.

  25. Robert
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    Alessandra, what makes you think homosexuality is defective?

  26. John B.
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    This is going to be a non-issue in Delaware for the simple fact that a majority of Delaware residents support marriage equality and the legislators were faithfully representing the wishes of the constituents who elected them. (We saw the exact same thing in Washington, DC when the marriage vote was a complete non-issue in the following election, despite NOM's best efforts.)

    The truth is that the number of Democrats who oppose marriage equality is already very small, and shrinking by the day. Meanwhile more and more Republicans are hopping on board. What should really scare Brian Brown is not just the lopsided, better-than-expected margin in the Minnesota marriage equality vote--with only 2 Democrats voting against it--but the fact that 4 Republicans voted for it.

  27. leviticus
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    Not so Will. Incest, beatiality and other crimes against nature are punished under our civil laws religiously motivated or not. Many states still have sodomy penal codes on their state law books. Check the civil law statutes and see for yourself.

  28. Andrew
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    Leviticus, it's true that some anti-sodomy laws remain on the books. And according to our Supreme Court, they are blatantly unconstitutional, and therefore can never be enforced. Your point?

  29. Randy E King
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    Andrew,

    That is not what SCOTUS ruled in Lawrence. Lawrence was related to the unequal application of the law; not the acceptability of sexual depravity.

  30. Andrew
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    Oh Randy, you are precious. Have you actually read Lawrence? I have, several times in law school.

  31. Andrew
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    The court explicitly ruled on Due Process grounds, not Equal Protection (much to O'Connor's chagrin). Specifically, SCOTUS held that intimate consensual sexual conduct is part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the 14A.

  32. Andrew
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    If Randy is representative of the level of information on the other side, it would explain why marriage equality keeps moving forward. It's always better when you can use facts and, you know, evidence to support your position. Try it!

  33. Randy E King
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    Andrew,

    Yes; I have read Lawrence several times.

    Lawrence did not invalidate, or reverse, Bowers v. Hardwick. Hardwick directs:

    "the Constitution did not confer "a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy."

    Your selective reference to Lawrence is exposed as blatant and unapologetic bias when frame in the context of Hardwick.

    Being a moron is not as glamorous as you seem to believe it to be.

  34. Randy E King
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    Furthermore; Lawrence was related to Police entering a property without due process; whereas Hardwick involved officers entering a property with a duly processed warrant of arrest.

    Obviously; your penchant for perversion is not limited to the intent of your reproductive process.

  35. Andrew
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    Wow this is like shooting fish in a barrel! Randy, could you then explain this direct quote from Lawrence:

    Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.

  36. Andrew
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    To borrow that great phrase commonly attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan: Randy, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

    Maybe you stopped reading with the opinion of the Court of Appeals? If so, do please continue to Kennedy's beautiful opinion, written for a majority of the SUPREME COURT, in 2003.

  37. Richard
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    Randy, like so many on this site is a selective reader. The only opinions and legal renderings that are to be honored are the ones that, at one time, fit their animus. Sodomy laws are still revered, gay marriage laws are ignored and wishfully dismissed. Biblical "truths" cannot be challenged. Some entity in the ether called a god supersedes Constitutional and civil law and mankind, under its own will can never police itself. This is why I have said so many times that reality is not their friend.

  38. Randy E King
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    Andrew,

    That direct quote was the personal opinion of one jurist and is not the basis for the Lawrence decision; which was based on the unequal application of the law.

    The fact is the Hardwick is still in effect; as are the anti-sodomy laws in Georgia; which Hardwick upheld.

    Kennedy's opinion is not the only opinion that matters in this world; nor does Kennedy's opinion trump the direct opposing opinions of the other jurists who dissenting in the Lawrence six to three decision.

    If in your world Kennedy is the final word in what is and what is not permissible throughout the history of these United States then surly you have to agree with Kennedys statement in this very same opinion, cautioning the reader not to read too much into his opinion, and acknowledging that his opinion should in no way be viewed as an open door to the imposition of same-sex marriage, is equally valid.

    You are a fraud Andrew; your selective references out of context prove this to be true.

  39. Randy E King
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    The SOTUS DOMA and Prop 8 decision will frame this argument in such a way as to leave little doubt about how wrong you Queers are.

  40. Andrew
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    Beyond the sheer entertainment value, this conversation has been so enlightening. It speaks to the deep, deep levels of misunderstanding and misinformation on the other side. Randy is of course a fool, who does not understand the first thing about binding precedent or the operation of the court. I have no interest in trying to persuade a fool to be reasonable (why would anyone beat their head against that wall). But the real value of this exchange has been the revelation about the failure of some parties to grasp the most basic facts. How many sheep does one Randy represent? I shudder to think.

  41. Randy E King
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    Andrew,

    It is a sin to call any man a Fool. But, then again, sin is a virtue in the world of the marriage corruption supporter.

    You obviously have no interest in demonstrating the depths of your ignorance any more then you just did.

  42. Andrew
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Ahh pulling out a little Matthew 5:22 are we? Leaving aside your faulty hermeneutics, Randy, I am flattered that you consider me a "Brother"!

  43. Randy E King
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    Andrew,

    You are the guilty of misinterpreting scripture. Mathew 5:22 states:

    "And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

    Is not limited to Brothers and Sisters; it is directed at "anyone."

  44. Andrew
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Randy sweetheart, try quoting the entire sentence. Given your limited understanding of constitutional jurisprudence, I guess I should not expect your skill at biblical interpretation to be any better.

  45. Randy E King
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    Andrew,

    You are a moron!

    "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

  46. Andrew
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

    You're welcome.

  47. Randy E King
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Fire is demonstrative of eternal destruction. Nothing lives fire. The ancient Latin word Hell is loosely defined as "Death."

    John 3:16:

    For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

    God did not so love the world that he said that he who believes in him shall not be tortured for of all of eternity. Biblically speaking you have two choices; eternal life, or eternal death.

    Marriage corruption supporters value their depravity over life itself.

  48. Randy E King
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    Andrew,

    You are still a moron who is looking for excuses for why it is OK to do what you do behind closed doors in the privacy of your own home.

  49. Randy E King
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    The entire sentence reads "And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

    The paragraph includes references to Brothers and Sisters, but that sentence ends and the paragraphs is expanded to include the final reference to "anyone."

    Now if the sentence referencing Brother and sister separated the anyone by a semicolon (:) then the anyone that was being referenced would be the brother and sister previously noted.

    You really need to go out and buy yourself an education Andrew; your ignorance is showing.

  50. Andrew
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    I guess Randy rejects the King James Version. I've always been fond of it, but to each his own.

  51. Andrew
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    Of course my broader point, Randy, is that your hermeneutic is fundamentally flawed. Or else you are imputing unrighteous anger that simply isn't there. To describe someone as unwise and imprudent, wether he is a Brother or not, does not now or ever require a heart of unrighteous anger. Which is precisely how the description is used elsewhere in Scripture.

    But yeah, your hermeneutic isn't any better than your constitutional interpretation.

  52. John B.
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    Anybody else find it more than a bit ironic that Randy tells Andrew "It is a sin to call any man a Fool" and then immediately turns around and calls Andrew a moron?

  53. Randy E King
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    @John,

    Is Moron synonymous with Fool?

  54. Randy E King
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    @Andrew,

    So you do not care that facts testify against you?

  55. Andrew
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    Nice try, Randy. You lost the facts argument long ago, when you demonstrated your complete ignorance of Lawrence.

  56. Randy E King
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    You were wrong about the context in Biblical reference, you where wrong about the context in the precedence reference, you were wrong about the intent of the 1st Amendment, you were wrong about my understanding in Lawrence, you are wrong about the weight of the opinion of a single appointed SCOTUS attorney, and you are wrong about the intent of your own reproductive system.

    It appears that when you found out that two wrongs did not make a right you thought you would go for broke.

  57. Superman
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    @Andrew

    "I guess I should not expect your skill at biblical interpretation to be any better"

    So are you saying that you know Scripture but when it comes to marriage, you just don't want to accept that portion of it?

    I think you're really smart Andrew..to the point where you know the law, the Constitution, and perhaps even the Bible itself.

    In fact, I think you're so smart that even though you know that gay "marriage" isn't morally right, you still skirt around that fact by reinforcing your knowledge of the Constitution and other laws in order to subvert Scripture itself....

    So although people like Randy may seem like sheep to you, I can see right thru you in a way...

  58. Andrew
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    Sorry Randy, remind me how I was wrong about Lawrence?

  59. bman
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    Andrew>...it's true that some anti-sodomy laws remain on the books. And according to our Supreme Court, they are blatantly unconstitutional, and therefore can never be enforced. Your point?

    ------
    Its theoretically possible for an anti-sodomy law to be distinguishable from Lawrence.

    Wikipedia sums up the essence of Lawrence as follows:

    In June 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that state laws criminalizing private, non-commercial sexual activity between consenting adults at home on the grounds of morality are unconstitutional since there is insufficient justification for intruding into people's liberty and privacy.

    Since the focus of Lawrence is to protect privacy, open or notorious sodomy might not be protected under Lawrence.

  60. Ken
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    Randy,

    Do you know the meaning of "opinion" when it is a legal term?

    Can you talk to anyone who disagrees with you without calling them names?

  61. Andrew
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    bman, that is a good stab at trying to distinguish, but the fact is that the offensive characteristic of that sexual activity would be that it is "open and notorious." The State can ban a straight couple from having sex on a sidewalk, just as it can ban a same-sex couple from having sex on a sidewalk. But if it tried to ban only the open and notorious sexuality of the gay couple, but not the straight couple, then the State action would indeed fail constitutional muster.

  62. Randy E King
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    Again misconstruing intent for the purpose of pimping your agenda. If the opinions of previous courts are trumped by the opinions of proceeding courts then law has no basis; the Constitution looses its intent.

    Lawrence was contingent upon officers unlawful entrance; violating the right to privacy. Hardwick was contingent upon a duly processed warrant of arrest which authorized entrance; voiding the right to privacy.

    But you will come to find the truth in this at the end of June when SCOTUS majority upholds the peoples right to self government.

  63. Ken
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    An unenforceable law is just clutter in the legal code. It has same effect whether it is in the legal code or not, which is to say no effect at all. There's no urgency to remove it, and in fact no real need since it is totally inert. There are still some segregation laws on the books in various states, none of them enforceable.

  64. Randy E King
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    Ken,

    Unenforceable...

    You do realize that the Georgia law was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States don't you?

  65. bman
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    Andrew->...the offensive characteristic of that sexual activity would be that it is "open and notorious."

    Your comment raises the question whether private sodomy also has an offensive characteristic.

    Although private consensual sodomy is not punishable under Lawrence, it does not necessarily mean no offensive characteristic exists in that setting.

    It can also mean, and probably does mean, an offensive characteristic is hidden or shielded from the view of law by an impenetrable legal barrier - the Constitutional right to privacy.

    A similar example might be the private use of pornography having an offense characteristic that is shielded by the right to privacy.

    However one answers that question, the point of my previous post remains - that anti-sodomy laws might stand if they are theoretically distinguishable from Lawrence.

  66. Andrew
    Posted May 12, 2013 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    bman, I'm not sure that you are getting to the central point. Of course people can have moral opinions about (ie 'find offensive') any and all things -- including sexual activity. But that inquiry stands apart from the question whether the coercive power of the state can be used to ban private, consensual sex between adults. The Supreme Court answered that question in Lawrence. The sodomy laws struck down in 2003 (and some of which technically remain on the books, though unenforceable) did not provide for a public/private distinction which you seem to want to find.

  67. Randy E King
    Posted May 12, 2013 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    Andrew,

    Morality has to have a firm basis; like a two-thousand-year-old book compiled of writings dating back some five-thousand-years.

    As opposed to understandings steaming from popular culture dating back thirty-years that have been tweaked a dozen times in an effort to fabricate an appearance of authenticity.

  68. Andrew
    Posted May 12, 2013 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    If someone's morality is based on the Talmud, the Koran, the Old Testament, or the New -- that's great. More power to them. But it is not enough to say that "Since the Koran says X, the civil laws of the United States should also say X." That argument would get you laughed out of court.

  69. Randy E King
    Posted May 12, 2013 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    This nations - the U.S. - morality is rooted in hers history and tradition; history and traditions rooted in the laws of nature and natures God; which dictates intent.

    Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior - Webster

    Immoral: not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles - Webster

    Deprave: to make bad : corrupt; especially : to corrupt morally - Webster

    Corrupt: to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions; to alter from the original or correct form or version

    The depravity you pimp is the very definition of immoral.

  70. Andrew
    Posted May 12, 2013 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    Throwing out quotes from a dictionary does not make one an expert in constitutional interpretation or biblical hermeneutics. The simple fact remains: civil equality continues to move forward in a large part due to the fact that the arguments against it are bankrupt.

  71. Randy E King
    Posted May 12, 2013 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

    Equating your depravity with morality is what has lead to the decline of western civilization. The timelines are in perfect synchronization with one another.

  72. Don Hunter
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 4:10 am | Permalink

    Randy E. King made the following two statements:
    1. "Lawrence did not invalidate, or reverse, Bowers v. Hardwick. "

    2 "That direct quote was the personal opinion of one jurist and is not the basis for the Lawrence decision;"

    Both of Randy's statements are false-and dishonest.

    1."Lawrence did not invalidate, or reverse, Bowers v. Hardwick."

    The Lawrence Court explicitly invalidated and reversed the decision in Bowers v. Hardwick. The Court in Lawrence was clear and unequivocal in its rejection of both the reasoning and holding in Bowers.
    In Lawrence the Court considered it necessary to reconsider the Bowers holding, it then went through the reasoning of the Bowers decision, outlined the deficiencies of the reasoning, explicitly stated that "Bowers rationale does not stand careful analysis," noted that criticism of Bowers has been substantial and continuing, quoted Justice Stevens dissenting opinion in Bowers, and stated explicitly that Stevens analysis was correct and should have been the basis for the majority's opinion. Finally, the Court concluded by stating clearly and unequivocally that it was reversing Bowers v. Hardwick: "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled."

    2 "That direct quote was the personal opinion of one jurist and is not the basis for the Lawrence decision;"
    (referring to the last quote above).

    Justice Kennedy's opinion was the opinion of the Court. Read the first sentence of the decision: "JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. " Kennedy's opinion was joined by four other justices-Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

  73. bman
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 6:53 am | Permalink

    Andrew->I'm not sure that you are getting to the central point....

    My argument -that offensive characteristics can be "shielded" from the view of law - was a lateral point.

    An offensive characteristic need not be limited to simply "moral opinion," either. The potential for multiple sex partners to spread AIDS is also an offensive characteristic that seems protected by Lawrence.

    Anyway, you describe the central point as, "whether the coercive power of the state can be used to ban private, consensual sex between adults."

    I think it can, but I view that as a lateral point, and not the central point.

    To show it can, see the article, 6th Circuit on Morality-Based Law: Sorry, but ‘Lawrence v. Texas’ Hasn’t Changed Things.

    In that link, Lawrence did not protect incest because the state had an interest in preventing it, despite privacy rights.

    In my view, Lawrence does not make private consensual sex a fundamental right. Rather, it requires the state to have a compelling interest to interfere with the right of privacy.

    The state certainly has an interest in deterring the many social ills that result from a free sex culture in order to reduce diseases rates, welfare rates, unwed child birth rates, taxes, high health costs, abortion rates, high risk sexual behaviors in youth, protecting a strong work force, and more.

    A strong case can be made that maintaining the civil order also means a free sex culture cannot be simply allowed.

    While a case contra Lawrence has yet to be made on those terms, the linked case above is still proof that, "the coercive power of the state [can be] used to ban private, consensual sex between adults" that Lawrence would not protect.

    Its proof, in principle, the state can ban private, consensual sex between adults where it has a compelling interest to do so.

    And so, it cannot be flatly said that Lawrence prevents the state from using its power to band such conduct.

    Back to the central point. I view the central point being your earlier statement, "....it's true that some anti-sodomy laws remain on the books. And according to our Supreme Court, they are blatantly unconstitutional, and therefore can never be enforced...".

    The central point, then, is whether all anti-sodomy laws still on the books were invalidated by Lawrence.

    That claim has not been proved true or false, as yet.

    We have agreed, however, that the claim is not necessarily true since its theoretically possible for an anti-sodomy law to be distinguishable from Lawrence.

  74. bman
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    Looks like my link to the article does not work.

    A web search on the title may provide the link for those interested.

  75. bman
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 7:07 am | Permalink

    Trying the link again: 6th Circuit on Morality-Based Law: Sorry, but ‘Lawrence v. Texas’ Hasn’t Changed Things

  76. Randy E King
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    @Don,

    Hardwick has not been reversed; though its precedence has been undermined /limited by Lawerence.

    In order for SCOTUS to reverse its own findings it must do so via a direct challenge to its findings. Lawerence was a right to privacy issue; Hardwick was not.

    You Queers really need to come up with a little bit more than half truth, falsehoods, and blatant lies in defense of your demands for special consideration for those with a proclivity for masturbating on same gendered companions.

    After all; four opinions does not a majority make on a 9 member panel.

  77. Randy E King
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    Excellent link, bman!

    Marriage corruption supporters appear to be completely incapable of even a semblance of intellectual honesty.

    Or as Scalia noted in the DOMA and Prop gr8 hearing. If laws cannot be based on morality than what law could ever exist? (Paraphrased)

  78. Andrew
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    bman, thanks for expounding on your point. And I will grant you that my initial claim was imprecise; the contours of Lawrence are still being worked out in the district and circuit courts.

    But lest anyone think the sodomy laws are somehow being given a second life, I would recommend reading MacDonald v. Moose, a decision handed down by the 4th Circuit this past March. (http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/117427.p.pdf)

  79. Andrew
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    There is also a set of cases kicking around Louisiana, which I would recommend reading.

    It is true that Lawrence did not with one stroke expunge all of the "Crime against Nature" statutes, but it took us a giant step in that direction. And the lower courts are now carrying the ball toward the endzone.

  80. bman
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    Andrew->...lest anyone think the sodomy laws are somehow being given a second life [see] MacDonald v. Moose

    The mentioned case is still being contested.

    (I have a post in moderation on that, probably due to the link I used. Trying again with a different article and no link)

    A Washington Post article title dated April 3 2013 says, "Cuccinelli challenges Virginia sodomy ruling in teen case," by Rachel Weiner.

    Excerpt:

    A petition was filed on Cuccinelli’s behalf asking for the full 15-judge court to reconsider the [three judge] panel decision.

    This case is not about sexual orientation, but using current law to protect a 17 year-old girl from a 47 year-old sexual predator...

    We agree with the dissenting opinion that the petitioner was not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief and the full court should have the opportunity to decide this matter.

    The attorney general is committed to protecting Virginia’s children from predators who attempt to exploit them and rob them of their childhood.”

    Cuccinelli agrees with the dissenting judge, Albert Diaz...who argued for deference to the Virginia Court of Appeals.

    ....Virginia courts had found that Lawrence did not apply to minors, meaning that teenagers engaging in consensual sexual activity could be at risk of prosecution.

  81. Ken
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

    I live in Virginia. The problem is that the anti-sodomy law is too general and covers too much ground. Several issues are intertwined. Repealing the law repeals too much. In Virginia's case, the law has to be replaced.

    Cuccinelli has done a number of things relating to sexuality and anti-discrimination laws that had to be reversed by the governor.

  82. Ken
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    Virginia state universities, two counties and one city have anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation. Cuccinelli issued an opinion that those laws and policies had no effect because state laws don't include that. The university system was in an uproar because they would have serious trouble attracting professors and students, and the jurisdictions howled because the voters were upset. Virginia is antigay enough without making it worse.

    Cuccinelli's reasoning did not make legal sense for reasons I can't explain here. The governor reversed him by issuing a state policy. Cuccinelli did something else that got everyone upset but I forgot what it was.

  83. Ken
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    bman, before you have too much respect for Virginia courts, it was a Virginia court that wanted to put Mr. and Mrs. Loving in jail for being a biracial married couple. They escaped to DC, and their suit against Virginia resulted in the decision that legalized biracial marriage everywhere.

    They don't play well with others, either. Recently a Virginia court made a decision about Vermont law that put the court in contempt of court.

  84. bman
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    Here, I highlight how the 4th Circuit ruling was quite unconcerned by the loathsome debauched nature of the 47 years old man's solicitation of a 17 year old.

    Here is what the court sees:

    ... the anti-sodomy provision is unconstitutional when applied to any person..

    Its a perfect example of an offending characteristic being shielded by the court even though the offending characteristic flies in the face of reason, decency, and common sense.

    In effect, he was told by the court he can go about making debauched propositions to all the 17 year old girls he meets.

    It leaves the community with no effective legal means to stop sexual predators from approaching their teens with loathsome debauched solicitations, and it over burdens the ability of the community to protect the moral environment around its youth with enforceable laws.

    Its not just "someone's moral opinion" that was offended, but the good of the community as well.

    I am glad the case is still being contested by Mr. Cuccinelli.

  85. Andrew
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    Yes bman it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court feels it is necessary to take up this issue. If it doesn't, and the 4th Circuit's opinion stands (or if it does take it up and affirms the MacDonald opinion), I think it will be a strong statement on the lingering usefulness (or lack thereof) of the sodomy laws still on the books.

  86. Ken
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    bman, Virginia law is tangled up and needs to be untangled.

    However, another Virginia law requires me, because of my profession, to report to the police any activity or conversation that even remotely resembles child abuse or child molestation, even if it is told to me in confidence. The police determine the facts in the case and prosecute the malefactor. Even though it requires me to turn in people who may later turn out to be innocent, I think that it is a good and necessary law.

  87. Posted May 13, 2013 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

    Ken writes: "Virginia is antigay enough without making it worse."

    So quit forcing 'gay marriage' (though really same-sex fake marriage) on Virginia citizens. We have much more important, and urgent issues to handle in this country. We can no longer live without restraint - the economy won't permit it. I read 46 cents of every dollar the government spends is borrowed!

  88. Ken
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    So, we should do a cost-benefit analysis on personal freedom? Should we start charging for freedom? How much are you willing to pay in a freedom tax to fix the deficit?

  89. Ken
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    The Virginia constitution prohibits SSM and the law prohibits anything that remotely resembles it. A judge can void any contract between two people of the same sex. I am totally powerless to change that. I have the freedom of speech to say I don't like it, and I don't even have to pay a fee for that.

  90. Ken
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    @Randy, you keep talking about one person masturbating on a companion. It is odd that you would say that about something you don't do. You obviously wouldn't lie, and you wouldn't have gay friends, so where does the information come from? It took a while to find out. My source says that either you or your source is getting your information from gay porn. The scenes often end that way, because the viewer can't tell otherwise that the actor climaxed.

  91. Posted May 14, 2013 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    "Should we start charging for freedom? "

    Freedom does come with a cost. You forget that. But same-sex fake marriage is freedom to change the definition of marriage. And your movement is paying dearly for that lobbying.

    Obviously, same-sex fake marriage is not a right. If it was a right, it wouldn't need to be legislated. That's the question, not the premise.

    Take your silly arguments to non-thinkers who will buy into them.

  92. Ken
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    LIttle Man, Freedom does come with a cost, as any veteran can say, but so far we don't enumerate freedoms and grant or revoke them based on cost-benefit studies.

    If what you say is true, we have no rights, because all our rights were legislated. We call that legislation "the constitution."

  93. Ken
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    Little Man, actually, I have been taking your advice. I've taken my silly arguments to non-thinkers; however, they don't buy into them so easily.