Four justices did so. The three justices in dissent noted that the Four had claimed to use a standard known as rational basis review. But they turned constitutional jurisprudence upside down and shifted the burden. The Four began with a predrawn conclusion and then proceeded to act against the judicial restraints in interpretation of the law: the judiciary is not empowered to rewrite an unambiguous statute.

If you are not familiar with the majority and other opinions of the justices in the Goodridge case, then, you ought not to cite it as an example making your own arguments.

The man-woman criterion does NOT use gayness in drawing lines of eligibility nor of ineligibility. Indeed, the pro-SSM justices in Goodridge failed to decide on that basis. A lot of rhetoric was tossed around, but the reasoning was poor and unsound.

This abuse of judicial review has served to misinform the discussion about SSM ever since.

* * *

The pro-SSM Iowa opinion did little better. It based its reasoning on same-sex sexual attraction and romance, of which neither are legal requirements. Yet it also attacked the centrality of responsible procreation, as have you, by claiming that legal requirements must exist for something to be the basis of the marriage law's eligiblity lines.

* * *

Pointing at the license is not sufficient, Kevin, as I have explained previously. What is being licensed? SSM. What is SSM? It is circular to say it is the license.

Name the essential legal requirements that distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category. State the societal significance of the distinctive feature(s). Cite the legal requirement that makes the feature(s) the public basis for special status.

* * *

Kevin said: "A judge can just as easily accommodate a discriminatory marriage statute by virtue of his personal or religious beliefs."

So you depend on the judiciary but you say that the judges are undependable?

I think you are now trying to dodge the problem with the pro-SSM opinions by playing the game of "you too!" That is a logical fallacy, Kevin.

Abuses of judicial review are contrary to the role of the judiciary no matter the issue at stake. The Iowa pro-SSM opinion does not provide the basis for imposing an SSM merger. It reads like a stump speach for an election campaign in front of a pro-SSM audience. Even the bits you have cited make little, if any, sense in terms of the interpretation of the marriage law and the state constitution.

You say that judges can't change constitutions, but that is false. They are not supposed to do so, but the abuse of judicial review is a temptation to which many have succumbed when they feel their policy preference carries extra-judicial force. The pro-SSM opinions are classic examples of this. Ironically, this undermines whatever merit might exist in the substance of the pro-SSM political argument. Yet SSM argumentation keeps returning to only the pro-SSM opinions -- or more precisely the conclusions rather than the legal reasoning -- to assert that gay identity politics trumps the law and constitutional jurisprudence.

In this way these pro-SSM court opinions have encouraged bad habits among SSMers. You know, like citing unsound reasoning as if the judicial outcome is made more reliable by unreliable judges.

If you think that judicial restraint and the intent of the constitution is of the utmost importance, then, you ought to object to these examples of judicial over-reach.

Defending marriage is a noble cause. Attacking its core meaning, not so much.

Likewise, defending our constitutional replublican form of government is a noble cause. Discarding judicial restraint and the intent of the constitution, regardless of the strength of one's personal views on a given issue, is itself a form of unjust discrimination and an abuse of governmental authority.

The courtcentric SSM campaign has been guilty of the latter, time and time again. The legislative battles have relied heavily on the example of a handful of justices who have injected themselves into the political arena. A judge ought not to act like a legislator. Yet that is what the pro-SSM side has been depending on.

Even, as your own words illustrate, you think judges to be undependable. You see them as politicians. If they disagree with you, they must be as biased as those who agree with you, I guess. That's an example of how the judiciary has been brought under disrepute by these pro-SSM opinions (those in majority and those in minority).

The rules of interpretation, Kevin, do not permit the judiciary to rewrite a statute when that statute's intent is clear. Maybe you ought to admit that your stated standards do not apply to SSM argumentation because the SSM issue is an exception. That, or acknowledge that to abolish the man-woman criterion of marriage is beyond the judicial power.

It is even further removed from the judicial power to change the constitution to fit a judge's policy preference.

* * *

Your talk about NOM and so forth is really bogus. You should look at the millions of dollars spent in the pro-SSM campaign's propaganda machine. It is fueled by identity politics which seeks to impose a peculair sectarianism.

What you complain about is that NOM has begun to organize a national campaign that will fight the protaganists like HRC on a state-by-state basis. NOM is not imposing a religious meaningn of marriage.

You ought to stop blowing that trumpet, Kevin, because its noise is not to be mistaken for an actual bonafide argument.

* * *

The Massachusetts court put the burden on the state to justify discriminating a specific group of people in denying marriages licenses to them. But I haven’t read that decision so I don’t know that much about it. But I do not think that marriage licenses deserve some special treatment beyond the granting of any other kind of license. If the state cannot justify discriminating against homosexuals in the granting of fishing licenses, or medical licenses, or drivers licenses, how can it justify discriminating in granting marriage licenses?

I am much more familiar with the Iowa decision, Varnum, where a unanimous court ruled that discriminating against homosexuals in the granting of marriage licenses defied the state’s guarantee of Equal Protection.

I think the states have disregarded the religious meaning of marriage, which is appropriate in a secular country. Otherwise, atheists and people of faith who are unfettered from a religious definition of marriage would be forced to abide by some religious definition of marriage. Plus, if they conformed to a religious definition of marriage, they might feel obligated to also outlaw adultery and divorce, two common practices in America, even among Christians, who are prohibited by the Bible from engaging in such activities.

Same-sex marriage is different from non-marriage in that the same-sex couple who are married have a marriage license and enjoy a variety of rights and obligations because they possess the marriage license. The unmarried same-sex couple do not possess these rights via possession of a marriage license. The same holds true for opposite-sex couples, married or unmarried.

“Judges are not supposed to inject their personal policy preferences into their interpretation of the law and the constitution.”

I believe that’s true. Judges on either side of this issue are probably guilty of this. A judge can just as easily accommodate a discriminatory marriage statute by virtue of his personal or religious beliefs.

“For Kevin, when judges change the constitution that’s a-okay. When The People amend their constitution, that’s mob-rule. At least when it comes to the SSM-merger.”

Judges can’t change constitutions, just interpret them. That’s their job and one hopes they are, and want to be, good at it. When a majority votes to strip the civil rights of a minority, especially when financed by organized religion using lies and distortions, it’s a problem. That people of faith, who are always free to practice their own faith as they see fit, seek to impose their faith on others, it creates a raft of problems: diminishment of religion generally, social discord, and of course, limits the rights of the non-believers.

Marriage discrimination is when a state denies a marriage license to a defined group of people without advancing a state interest. Ironically, denying same-sex couples marriage licenses actually undermines state interest in promoting the well-being of families and children. I think that message is starting to get out, from what I’m reading.

Unconstitutional means contrary to the intent of the constitution.

The judiciary judges the constitutionality of laws. Laws created that do not meet the standards provided in the constitution are ruled unconstitutional, and null, or if the judiciary prefers, modified to bring them into conformance with the constitution, if a clear remedy is available.

Define "unconstitutional".

Explain how the judiciary's role is different from that of the two other branches of government.

Come on. Basic stuff. You seem to be confused but perhaps your answers will prove otherwise.

Judges are not supposed to inject their personal policy preferences into their interpretation of the law and the constitution.

Ask yourself why restraint is a necessary requirement for the judiciary.

As Kevin said, judicial rulings cannot be changed (at least not beyond the usual path of appeal).

When it comes to changing the constitution, well, pro-SSM courts have done that, too, because it is easier than following the legitimate amending process. And because it is more difficult to correct judge-made amendments to constitutions.

The arrogance of SSMers was on full display in California where the court entertained the argument that The People could not amend their own constitution.

Indeed, the pro-SSM judges in California made both judicial and political errors.

The judicial error they refused to correct: they decreed that people who SSM'd would have marital status because the judiciary had said so. This was supposed to solve the problem the judiciary created when it did not stay its decision until after the vote on the marriage amendment.

The judiciary's political blunder was to inject itself into the amendment campaign on the No side. The two errors are joined at the hip.

Examine the CA court's pro-SSM opinion and you will find that the emphasis is on gay identity politics. Count the number of times that the word homosexual or its variants was used in the offered reasoning. It is an example of bamboozlement.

For Kevin, when judges change the constitution that's a-okay. When The People amend their constitution, that's mob-rule. At least when it comes to the SSM-merger.

This goes to show that the SSM campaign promotes a distorted view of how our government is designed. It corrupts the practice of self-government. So the damage and harm done is not just to marriage, which is of great importance, but also to governance.

Plus those opinons failed to distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category.

And failed, utterly, to distinguish marriage from nonmarriage.

Read the dissenting opinions, also, and see for yourself how gay identity politics has been the central theme of this abuse of our judicial system.

You have said that the judiciary may not legislate. Well, the legisaltures in these states you cited have not changed the marriage statutes to enact a merger of SSM with marriage.

Plus, the pro-SSM opinions (the legal reasoning offered) do not support the conclusion that the courts produced.

Did you know that the Massachusetts Court, for example, did not rule that the man-woman criterion of marriage has no rational basis? They claimed that the state did not provide such a basis; of course, that's false. That court also did not say that the man-woman criterion is unjust sex discrimination -- only 1 of 7 justices asserted it was. And of the 7 justices, none decided that it was unjust sexual orientation discrimination.

The abuse of judicial review is blatant. The Massachusetts court's pro-SSM justices put the onus on the state to justify what they called a "ban"; but that conclusory rhetoric is the very opposite of the rational basis standard of judicial review. They turned constitutional jurisprudence upside down.

There was no ban on SSM in that state. But the marriage law unambiguously recognized the man-woman criterion was an essential requirement. The judiciary is not empowred to replace the clear meaning of a statute.

The court did not strike down the marriage law. It requested the Legislative Branch to change the law. That was not done. Yet somehow licenses have been issued for SSM.

To sum-up: the pro-SSM Goodridge opinion was an abuse of judicial review; its reasoning did not get marriage right.

Yet this is the most celebrated of pro-SSM cases in the USA.

"I invite you hold yourself to a standard of persuasiveness [...] by how well they persuade the undecided reader."

Sure. At the outset of the contest over the CA marriage amendment, the No side had a lead of 10-15% points in the opinion polls.

They lost. We won.

Also, it a similiar pattern applies to other state marriage measures. The Yes side grew while the No side shrank. Campaigns and arguments do count for something. And single-issue campaigns focussed on the man-woman basis of marriage succeed not only with the undecided but also with those who start out favoring the SSM merger. Opinon surveys also indicate that support for SSM is much softer than support for marriage. And that's even if with questions that skew towards the SSM position.

The task for SSMers is far more difficult because their own stated standards destroy their own assertions about SSM. So your side relies more on emotivism than reason; more on identity politics than justice -- that is the theme of the SSM campaign is always "just us" and not justice.

So your challenge has been met many times both in terms of persuasion and convincing.

You waste pixels dodging rather than facing the actual disagreement on the marriage issue. You misrepresent -- either due to your incompetence or due to a deliberate tactic -- and trip over so manny errors of your own making that it has become comical to watch you clear your throat and claim to be correcting others.

Have you graduated from grade 8 social studies, yet?

The core of marriage is not arcane. Sex integration is combined with responsible procreation and it is like the hub in a wheel with the other aspects of marriage being the spokes.

The presumption of paternity is vigorously enforced and its sexual basis is well understood. It is extrinsic to the one-sexed arrangement -- whether or not that arrangement is sexualized.

Kevin, what is the sexual basis, if any, for SSM law?

You can't point at the sexual basis of marriage because A) you insisted that sexuality be taken out of consideration, B) you disparaged the centrality of responsible procreation, and C) you insisted on a legal requirement to determine what is and is not essential to the legal status.

So, no sexuality, no presumption of paternity, and no legal requirement that forces people who'd show-up for a license to SSM.

Speculating about personalized subjective preferences does not justify the societal preference for marriage. The state has no business licensing personalized subjective preferences. Society, through the state, licensing something.

Your failure to distinguish marriage from nonmarriage now kicks you in the butt. Likewise, your failure to distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category.

You need more than nothing. And all you have offered so far is ... nothing but a self-inflicted butt-kicking.

What did you mean by "partner"?

* * *

Your list of "reasons people marry" does not answer the question I had asked.

But your list is full of subjective preferences.

1. "selfishly want that person for themselves"

2. "notify others that they are no longer available for an intimate relationship"

[By the way, what did you mean by "intimate"? You insisted that sexuality be taken out of consideraton.]

3. to demonstrate to their significant other their level of commitment

[Commitment to what?]

4. want to ensure lifelong companionship

[A license ensures that? You have said that divorce and adultery paved the way for SSM.]

5. want to raise children

[Can be done without a license, as you have insisted, already.]

6. want the specific rights and obligations the state grants

[Ah, the ole government licensing a license ploy, again.]

7. want the health and wealth benefits

[The magical license of a license ploy. Misrepresenting Maggie Gallagher discredits you, again.]

All told, the "I want" may be the basis for a personal choice, but your remark was about sexual fidelity and "the great reason".

If this is it, then, you have just conceded that Mr. George was correct in that bit you quoted from him.

You may want to read more carefully. It may help you from disagreeing before you realize that you do agree with what was actually said.

I asked:

If you really wish to discuss the bit you quoted (you know, instead of changing the topic) please start by explaining if you believe there is objective justification for sexual fidelity as a norm of marriage.

Yes or no, why do you believe that?

* * *

It appears that my question was persuasive since it persuaded you to runaway from it and instead to, you know, change the topic.

Your concession is noted.