Obama Judge Invents Constitutional Right to Gay Marriage in Utah

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


676014

It’s time again to play liberalism’s fastest growing game show, “Invent your own Constitution.” Freedom of Religion? Sorry, I don’t see that one there. Right to bear arms? Are you kidding me. This isn’t the 18th century.

Gay marriage? Absolutely there. It’s exactly what the Founders had in mind. Sure it’s not actually written in the Constitution, but it’s strongly implied. Isn’t it?

At least that’s what Obama’s judge, Robert J. Shelby thinks. And that’s why he struck down Utah’s court limiting marriage to well… people capable of biologically marrying each other and producing offspring as opposed to any random assortment of people.

 “The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason,” wrote U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby in the 53-page decision. “Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional.”

Who decides what rational is? And since when is that even a justification to override state law and declare it unconstitutional?

It’s an Obama judge we’re talking here so the question answers itself.

Hours later, the Utah attorney general’s office appealed the decision to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver and also filed a motion asking Shelby to stay the ruling while it seeks to defend Utah’s Amendment 3.

“The federal district court’s ruling that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right has never been established in any previous case in the 10th Circuit,” it said.

Because there is no such right.

The Utah judge ruled just 16 days after he heard arguments in the case and well before his self-imposed deadline to render a decision by Jan. 7, when the next hearing in the matter was to be held, relying on extensive briefs filed in the case by both sides.

Again, exactly what you expect from an Obama judge.

Shelby’s decision, like so many previous ones, allows for the invention of a status and then the mandate that it be given the full force of law regardless of how many laws there are against it on the grounds of equal treatment.

This makes the legalization of polygamy, group marriage and pedophilia inevitable since all such laws banning them deny “equal status” to such “alternative lifestyles”.

  • Judahlevi

    If you are going to change civil ‘marriage’ due to a right of the “pursuit of happiness” (I guess a homosexual pair cannot be happy being together unless they are married), then it certainly should include polygamy and all other combinations. If there is nothing sacred about a ‘married’ couple’s genders, then the number two is not sacred either. Civil marriage will become a free-for-all.

    Once the marriage argument was allowed to be framed as a ‘right’ (it is not), then anyone opposed could be considered a person who tried to prevent others from exercising their natural rights. If you agreed it was a ‘right’, there was no counter argument. Homosexual marriage was never a natural right, but this argument is lost now because of name-calling, media support, and judges who wish to legislate from their bench.

    • A Z

      The gay lobby said the slippery slope argument was bogus. But the “Sister Wives” polygamists are already suing. Some signatories of the “Beyond Marriage” bunch have said that the goal is more than getting gay marriage legalized. In the past iconic gay leaders such as Harry Hays and the the author of “Howl” have stood of for NAMBLA and pedophilia. Even now pedophiles are holding conferences. Sure they are small but if they gain headway (no pun intended) others in the gay community will support them.

      • Jim Duley

        Why do we oppose polygamy anyway? What is wrong with it really? The Bible is full of it. Shouldn’t it be allowed?

        • john spielman

          GOD tolerated polygamy in the beginning but Jesus (the incarnation of GOD) said that from the beginning God made them male and female and that the TWO “should become one”- not three or four become one!

          • Jim Duley

            Thank you!

          • BagLady

            I have no doubt Jesus pondered over society and saw its problems. Perhaps the children were suffering from the willy-nilly couplings. Most of ‘God’s’ laws were mandated through research by sensible men such as Jesus.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          The Bible is full of a lot of things. Just because it’s there doesn’t mean it’s approved.

          And you’ll note that every major polygamous marriage in the Bible was badly troubled.

          There’s a message there.

          • JeffreyRO55

            Exactly. Society will never accept polygamy because it is such a flawed arrangement. And it doesn’t violate anyone’s right to equal protection under the law to ban it, which is not the case, obviously, with banning same-sex marriage.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Societies can and do accept it more readily than homosexuality. Polygamy, is just as legit a case for equal protection, as gay marriage.

          • JeffreyRO55

            If you say so. Can you point to a poll that says people want polygamy to be legal? We know that a majority of Americans want same-sex marriage to be legal. I don’t think that’s true of polygamy.

            No, polygamy is not a matter of equal protection, since “wanting to be in a polygamous marriage” is just a desired marital arrangement, and doesn’t deny someone the right to marry. It’s like the difference between telling someone they can’t own a car but other people can, and telling everyone they can’t own a pink car. If you’re telling everyone they can’t to it, it’s kind of hard to claim an equal protection violation.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Did Americans want gay marriage to be legal 20 years ago?

            I’m sure when there’s a dozen sitcoms about happy polygamous couples and enough polygamous pressure groups duplicating the gay efforts, that will change.

            And once polygamist groups argue that they represent an identity, rather than a chosen lifestyle, and that normal marriage cannot possibly accommodate them… the rest is easy.

          • JeffreyRO55

            You raise a great point: desiring to be in a polygamous marriage is not an identity, it’s just a desire.

            You’re fundamentally ignoring the fact that the government has a well established right to regulate marriage, including who may marry. It’s easy to outlaw polygamy, since it doesn’t violate anyone’s constitutional right to marry, as same-sex marriage bans do. Everyone has the right to marry, including gay people. but just as gay or straight people can’t marry a child, they can’t marry more than one person. Unless and until society decides to change that, which is certainly possible and has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, of course.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            So is homosexuality. There are any number of sexual arrangements. They don’t have the status of marriage.

            Polygamy violates the right of a man to marry two women for a tripartite family as a ban on gay couples violates the right of two men to play house.

          • JeffreyRO55

            Uh, ok, so what do you call two men whose names are on a marriage license? “Not married”?

            There is no right to marry more than one person, and no legal principles propelling the legalizing of same. That is, obviously, not the case with same-sex marriage. Funny, here in the world of reality, how state after state is legalizing same-sex marriage, yet not one has legalized polygamy. Ever stop and wonder why that might be? Ever ponder how no “polygamous” family has been able to get anti-polygamy statutes overturned? What will change, once same-sex marriage is legal?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            What do you call a marriage license with a man and two women’s names on it?

          • JeffreyRO55

            Non-existent.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Until someone issues it. And then it’s still worthless. Just like a gay marriage license.

          • JeffreyRO55

            People, gay or straight, who possess marriage licenses seem to find them valuable.

            Don’t hold your breath for someone to issue a polygamy marriage license.

          • Jim Duley

            It provides legal benefits. It is not at all worthless

          • IzzyKiddnya

            The the “union” which forms a family is an INDIVIDUAL decision (in OUR society —-

            Why should society even have a say?
            What makes them (society) an arbiter?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            The union of Abraham and Hagar worked out well, didn’t it? Yep. A very strong message …

          • Hedley LaMarr

            And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

            2 Samuel 12:8.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Statement of fact that David became king and got the privileges thereof. Not a specific endorsement of it as something G-d approves of.

        • A Z

          What Greenfield said in response to you post.

          Let’s pretend the Bible did not exist for argument’s sake.

          There is the film of “Lost Boys” about the polygamous community near Fours Squares out west (which has not been busted

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(polygamy))

          http://www.scribd.com/doc/2599316/Polygamys-Lost-Boys

          Then some Canadian Researcher did a study on the ill effects of polygamy.

          This may not be the paper I was wanted, but it’ll do.
          https://stoppolygamyincanada.wordpress.com/effect-of-polygamy-on-women-and-the-family/

      • BagLady

        With respect, you talk a lot of eyewash. “Pedophiles are holding conference ….. others in the gay community will support them”. What utter bigoted twaddle. What has being gay got to do with the vile act of wrecking a child’s life with self-centred filth?

        If I was gay and religious, it might well be that I would desire to marry my partner. (It would probably be beneficial tax-wise to boot). I would not take too kindly to people like you and you and you denying me this ceremony and a bit of paper. It makes not one iota difference to your life. “Mind your own business” I’d say.

    • Lanna

      The Gays are trying to justify their immoral lifestyle and make the majority accept their ideologies! That’s how the communists are destroying our society, by implementing every immoral and perverse act known to man!

      • BagLady

        I thought communism died with the Soviet Union. Has it been resurrected elsewhere? Even Cuba is open for business (it always has been, of course. Jump off from Mexico with no stamp in the passport and a lovely holiday can be had).

        Has it ever existed? Communism? There is the theory of course, but it’s never been practised. Too dependent on capitalism.

        • Lanna

          You’re kidding, the Communists have been slowly invading our schools systems and organizations with anti-Christian rhetoric, trying to pull off the politically correct attacks, implement common core and agenda 21, brainwashing our children and taking prayer out of schools, implementing a no values system to brain wash our children, divide people, implement a Socialist government, re-distribution of wealth through Obamacare, create a welfare society to make people dependent on the government, not themselves, they have been at it since the Berlin wall came down. How naïve you are, or just trying to see what we know!!!! Hitler’s rules were never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong, never concede that there may be some good in your opponents ideas, never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame for what goes wrong, and keep telling the big lie over and over, if you repeat it frequently, people will sooner or later believe it. Why do you think Hitler was able to brainwash his own people and send 11 million Jews to the gas chambers in Auschwitz? Duh…Where have you been, Don’t insult my intelligence!

          • j smith

            Lanna — then why are you trying to insult our intelligence? And trying to brainwash our children with your Christian values? Hitler’s rules was to blame everything on an ethnic/religious group which was the Jewish population. Just because people don’t believe the same way you do, doesn’t mean they are communist. There are lots of reason gay people want to be married. One of them might be if one is gravely ill an the other one goes to the hospital and they can’t visit their partner because they are not immediate family. What is wrong with teaching children critical thinking skills, and allowing them to make their own choices? A redistribution of weath through Affordable Care act? Really? It was FDR that said many years ago we needed a national health care plan. He said who wants a country full of poor sick people? We are the last developed country in the world to have a national health care plan. We are so backwards. Even Thailand has a national health care plan. We are like the book animal farm where some animals are more equal than others. I worked next to people with 3 part time jobs and no health care. That’s sinful. And then whining that people are anti-christian just because the country is trying to move forward, and you are stuck in your old ways.

          • IzzyKiddnya

            There’ll be a blog (soon) called “LANNA-WATCH” which will feature some of His/Her most egregious or irrational rants…

            Stay tuned!

          • JackJustTheFacts

            Civil unions are all that are needed to support your concerns about the legal and civil rights of same-sex partnering. You are being disingenuous. The issue is why civil unions are not enough for the same-sex marriage movement? The answer was given quite completely and correctly by Daniel Greenfield’s excellent article on the cultural attack on social concepts by the radical left in the name of deconstructionism. http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-deconstruction-of-marriage.html Where he wrote:

            “Deconstruction is a war against definitions, borders and parameters. It is a war against defining things by criminalizing the limitation of definitions. With inclusivity as the mandate, exclusivity, in marriage, or any other realm, quickly meets with social disapproval and then
            becomes a hate crime. If the social good is achieved only through maximum inclusivity and infinite tolerance, then any form of exclusivity, from property to person to ideas, is a selfish act that refuses the collective impulse to make all things into a common property with no lasting meaning or value.” – Daniel Greenfield

          • BagLady

            never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame for what goes
            wrong, and keep telling the big lie over and over, if you repeat it
            frequently, people will sooner or later believe it.

            This applies to politicians of all persuasions, does it not?

          • IzzyKiddnya

            Hitler was the ULTIMATE anti-communist!
            Which side were you on during WW2?

          • Lanna

            Hitler was the destroyer of 11 million Jews, he also lied to his people in Germany, like Obama is doing now. I would like Front Page Magazine to know that Izzy is the little creep who has been stalking me on Disqus…I was notified by Disqus that he was following me. That’s the thing about Disqus there are complaints that any user can follow someone by the nature of the service, comment content is not being managed locally by sites implementing service, easily allowing users to misuse the system for harassment purposes. And I am going to put this everywhere Izzy!

          • IzzyKiddnya

            But you didn’t answer the question — where did your sympathies lie during WW2?
            With Stalin, the Communist, or Hitler, the Fascist?
            Or did you sit-it-out (emotionally)?
            Was that response an example of the “Deflection” you’re always whining about?
            Inquiring minds want to know!

            It’s a Holiday Eve — may the Deity of your choice shower you with Blessings!

            Happy Holidays!

            Sincerely,
            Izzy the Creep

          • Jim Duley

            Once you start throwing around “communist” this way, your readers dismiss your entire argument because the word means something entirely different than what you seem to think it does. There is nothing at all communist about Hitler (who hated communists). Just because communism is often atheist does not mean that they are equal. Most atheists are capitalists just like you and I. And promoting atheism or a faith that is not Christian is not anti-Christian..it is pro something else. The only anti-Christian attitude in your post is the belief that the rich have no obligation to provide for the poor. That is quite anti-Christian. You are free to live a wonderful Christian life in this country. There are no restrictions on your ability to do that. Obamacare, God-free public schools, atheist billboards, kosher delicatessens, legal abortion, mosques and gay marriage impose nothing that prevents absolute free Christian practice for you and your family. Please stop trying to impose your religion on those of us who would like the absolute freedom to practice our own religion or lack thereof.

          • Lanna

            Since Bad Government relies totally on persuasive lying, lets take a closer look at that phenomenon. One of the great liars of the last century, Adolf Hitler, taught that the bigger the lie, the more believable it was. During World War II the US governments office of strategic services, a precursor to today’s CIA, assessed Hitler’s methods: Never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe the big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. One of the most creative uses of lying, a key basic tactic for bending a population to your will is the creation of crisis. Just like the Cloward and Piven strategy inspired by left wing radical Saul Alinsky whose Methods Barack Obama adopted..which openly advocates the creation of crisis to destroy a capitalist society. This is how socialist progress is achieved through conflict and crisis, which is always resolved in the direction of greater socialism. Communism: A political doctrine based on revolutionary Marxist Socialism that was the official ideology of the USSR . A system of government in which One party controls state owned means of reproduction!

          • IzzyKiddnya

            Soon, there will be a blog called “LANNA-WATCH” which will feature some of His/Her most egregious or irrational rants…

            Stay tuned!

    • JeffreyRO55

      Banning same-sex marriage denies gay people the right to marry. Banning polygamy does not. Big difference.

      The argument is one of equal protection, not a right to marriage.

      • Judahlevi

        That makes no sense. It has nothing to do with “equal protection.”

        It is all about the “right to marry.”

        If it is equal protection, what about three people who wish to marry? Should they also be entitled to equal protection?

        • JeffreyRO55

          It is about the right to marry, of course. The legal basis for same-sex marriage is equal protection guarantees. There is no legal basis I know of for legalizing polygamy, which is uniformly prohibited for all citizens equally.

          • Judahlevi

            No, it is being denied for three people and OK for two people. It is not being uniformly prohibited since two people can marry. If three people love each other and wish to be married, how can you deny them that ‘right?’

          • JeffreyRO55

            Easily, and that’s why polygamy has been outlawed, and never effectively challenged, in court, either before or after legal same-sex marriage. Don’t you wonder why no state that has legal same-sex marriage hasn’t also legalized polygamy? Why do you think that is?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Actually polygamy just won a court victory based on gay rights

          • JeffreyRO55

            Where???

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Utah

          • Chavi Beck

            The Mormons had a polygamous society going in Utah before it was a US state. Then along came the USA and outlawed it. Talk about equal protection! Why shouldn’t they want it back?

          • Jim Duley

            It wasn’t that long ago when there was no such thing as a marriage license. Marriage licenses were invented by government — not to let people get married but to prevent certain people from getting married. Marriage licenses were invented to prevent marriages between people of different religions or races. They evolved to require people to take blood tests to prevent genetic diseases and to prevent underage marriage (“underage” being defined quite differently from place to place). At the time, marriage didn’t really provide that much in terms of legal rights. Today however, marriage provides all sorts of privileges and rights, such as the ability to pass property to your spouse tax-free during life and after death, to protect jointly owned property from creditors of one spouse, etc. once marriage was rested from the hands of religion and placed in the hands of the state, it was inevitable in a democracy that eventually everyone would want marriage to be treated equally and without regard to the preferences of one religion over another. There are major religious groups in this country who think that gay marriage is perfectly fine and want the right to perform marriage ceremonies. For the government to deny them the right to do that puts a preference on conservative Christianity over other religions. When people say they want government out of the marriage business they don’t realize that it means that same-sex marriage will become legal immediately everywhere since there are plenty of churches willing to do them now

          • nacho475

            there is no ‘right’ to marry. the only reason for the state to even be involved in marriage is for tax and property purposes. and of course to charge a fee to get married. they need their cut of course.

          • JeffreyRO55

            The US Supreme Court has already found that there is a right to marry. That ship has already sailed.

  • Derp

    Your article will go down in history as a lesson in intolerance and bigotry.

    • A Z

      Why do gays have tops & bottoms? Why do some gays talk under their voice as if they are afraid to speak? Is it because they were bullied as a kid?

      I saw a gay couple on the HGTV on a house hunting show. It was painful to listen to one of them. He just sounded as if he had been beaten all his life.

      Don;t worry science will catch up with religion and everything will be set straight.

      • BagLady

        You saw ONE self-conscious gay man on TV not happy being on camera and have drawn very strange conclusions. Do you know not a single shy heterosexual?

        I have always thought Putin gay. He just IS. I can tell. He must be very unhappy; using all his sexual energy body-building and grappling with nature. He could have his pick of any Russian wench he desired, but he doesn’t.

        • Drakken

          Putin isn’t afraid to be male, unlike the metrosexual we have in office here. Putin gets more azz than a toilet seat, that is a fact unlike your feelings, Thanks for playing shortbus.

          • Hass

            Ahahaha…

            Maaaaate.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I had no idea my blog post was that important. Thanks.

    • Kathy M

      Sorry, gays do not get the right to tell the rest of us how and what to think.

      • BagLady

        Thoughts are your prerogative. Voicing them to deny others the pleasures that you take for granted is not.

        • Drakken

          You forget we have the 1st Amendment and you sorry effing communist seek to have free speech for thee, but not to the rest of us because it hurts your poor precious feelings. Too effing bad if your feelings are hurt, you do not have the right not to be offended, no matter how much you try to make it so.

    • Drakken

      Need a tissue? Perhaps some self esteem therapy? Maybe your mom will give you a cookie and tell you how special you are? Perhaps you need a trophy because you showed up? You leftist really are all about I feel therefore I am as policy positions instead of the cold hard facts.

    • Derp

      Have you noticed how the right is losing to the left? Does that hurt your feelings? YOU’RE LOSING.

  • Mike

    Lol! Dan Greenfield wears makeup! Check out that picture. Foundation, eye cover, and blush, or what my mom would call “rouge.” Dude, I feel sorry for your failure of manhood.

    Oh, and your column is pathetic too. You are supposedly a journalist writing about a court decision, but you don’t know where the “rational basis” standard of review comes from and you don’t know how to look it up? Perhaps you should stick to looking beautiful and don’t trouble your pretty little head about.hard stuff like the law.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      It’s a picture of the Federal judge who ruled for gay marriage

      • Kathy M

        And he may also be a member of the gay mafia. Speaking of which, the pink glove brigade over at GLAAD may have bitten off a little more than they can chew with the Duck Dynasty controversy. Several networks have indicated that they will immediately take the show if A&E decides to take their marching orders from the gay gistapo.

        • Aurelius

          LOL!

          GLAAD has actually suggested that the cast member be “reeducated” by attending meetings with gays so that he can learn about their values and so on.

          Reeducation camps? Sound familiar? Who do these people think they are?

    • Drakken

      The only one getting emotional and irrational is you buttercup. Stick with the makeup, it would seem your good at it.

  • Aurelius

    Something is wrong when a lone judge can overrule not only the will of the people but also state law by judicial fiat.

    Apparently, the real rulers of the country are not duly elected by the people but rather appointed gangsters with law degrees.

    • IzzyKiddnya

      Perhaps the “Will of the People” intruded into an area where it had no legitimate concerns…

      What if the “will of the people” decided that EVERYONE had to marry — would that be OK in your eyes, as well?

  • Wild Jew Man

    Utah, having possibly the most deeply religious people in the nation, has been a target of various gay groups for years. This has been a concerted effort by the homosexualists and it seems they have finally found the right judge at the right time to further their nation-wide agenda of normalizing their lifestyle both legally and culturally.

    • BagLady

      My gay friends lead very normal family lives, unlike some of my disgusting heterosexual, dirty-old-men neighbours.

  • JeffreyRO55

    If you have to rely on blaming a judge because he was appointed by Obama, you have a pretty weak case, Mr. Greenfield. I know it drives religionists and homophobes crazy, but there is no rational reason to treat citizens differently, based on their sexual orientation.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Nor are they. That doesn’t mean that they are entitled to manufacture institutions and compel everyone to go along because of their sexual orientation.

      • JeffreyRO55

        No one is compelled to get same-sex married, when same-sex marriage is legal.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          They are being compelled to participate in a gay marriage.

          • JeffreyRO55

            No one is required to participate in a gay marriage, just as no one is required to participate in a straight marriage.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Courts have decided that they can compel wedding photographers to do so.

          • Hass

            “No one is required to participate in a gay marriage.”

            Really? So can you explain why the courts are forcing a Christian Cakemaker and a Christian Photographer whom state courts have “Ruled” that they “Must” participate in gay weddings or face fines and jail time?.

          • JeffreyRO55

            Sure. Some states have laws that forbid customer discrimination on the basis of religion, gender, race or sexual orientation. So businesses that serve the public can’t refuse to serve gays, Jews, blacks, women, men, Christians, Muslims, on any forbidden basis. It has nothing to do directly with same-sex marriage, but rather sexual orientation.

    • Judahlevi

      What if their sexual orientation is to pedophilia?

      Should we treat those “citizens” differently?

      What if their sexual orientation is to multiple partners (polygamy)?

      Should we treat those “citizens” differently?

      Do we have a legal and constitutional duty to cater to everyone’s sexual orientation? I think not.

      • JeffreyRO55

        Acting on feelings of pedophilia harms children. So there’s a rational public purpose for banning it. Taking multiple marriage partners is not a sexual orientation, it’s a desired legal/marital arrangement.

        No, we don’t have a duty to cater to everyone’s sexual orientation, but we can’t use sexual orientation to unconstitutionally deny a right.

        • Judahlevi

          There is no “constitutional” right to marry.

          • JeffreyRO55

            The US Supreme Court would strongly disagree with you, as their decisions in the area of marriage have decreed marriage a fundamental right, one that cannot be withheld from convicted murderers on death row. I think it will be a tough row to hoe for religio-homphobes to argue before that court that the country must let murderers marry, but that law-abiding gay couples raising children do not have a similar right to marry.

          • Judahlevi

            A person who disagrees with homosexual marriage is not a “homophobe.”

            Name-calling discounts any credibility you seem to want to have. As with many of your kind, you can insist to have the last word. I am done with you.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            There is no such thing as gay marriage and therefore there can be no right to it.

            Just because you invent an institution and call it marriage does not mean you have the same entitlements as marriage.

          • DGCJ

            Just as sure as I’m sitting here, SCOTUS will rule that there IS a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry. Accept it and move on. In fact, SCOTUS has ruled over 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right, and even convicted felons on death row can marry, despite having no ability to “consummate” the marriage. They cannot vote, but they can marry.

  • Kafir istani

    You are only a writer , yet you claim to know the law better than our federal court ? Why are you not a judge then / O because your thoughts is just that = your own and you have no say on federal law so who cares what you think .

    • brittman1

      Well said. This article is nothing but a string of long-discredited right wing talking points the GOP nutcase brigade accepts as “fact.”

  • brittman1

    What a silly, pointless and wildly inaccurate “argument,” Daniel. The judge didn’t “invent” anything; he followed the dictates last June’s Supreme Court ruling overturning DOMA.

    Secondly this “Obama judge” you refer to was recommended to the president by Sen. Orrin Hatch – you know, the REPUBLICAN from Utah. Why didn’t you refer to him as a “Hatch judge”, Daniel?

    According to your bio, Daniel, you’re a “journalism fellow” at some right wing think tank. Have you ever considered actually practicing journalism?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      So you think that the Constitution was meant to encompass gay marriage?

      • Hass

        Of course he does. What Libtard doesn’?

      • brittman1

        Yes, but far more importantly, so does the Supreme Court. This battle is over, Daniel. Your think tank may still rake in money from right wing contributors by pretending otherwise, but that’s a different issue.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Nothing is ever over. No tyranny lasts forever. And eventually you’ll have to deal with the people you’ve been stepping on when the wheel turns

          might want to keep that in mind

  • brittman1

    One more thing, Daniel. The battle over gay rights is over in this country and guess what, dude? You lost. Go find somebody else to slime. :)

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Ah the progressive vision of history in which things just “end”.

      • brittman1

        LOL. In other words you have no response to the substance of my comments. What a surprise.

        • Chavi Beck

          He doesn’t have to write personalized essays just for you, sweetie. Get in line with the rest of us and read the ones he does write. You might learn something of substance, maybe even something related to your uber-brilliant 5-second comment.

  • nightspore

    My suspicion is that if you had asked gays about gay marriage 50 years ago, they would have laughed at you. Now it’s become a burning issue.

    The real question in all of this is not whether gay marriage should be supported or tolerated. It’s this: after this issue has settled down, what will the next issue be? And the next issue? And so forth. When enough people understand this, maybe we can start dealing with the situation properly instead of constantly being led around by the nose.

  • Chavi Beck

    Uh, no, it’s the point of the First Amendment.

  • Goldrimmer

    could gay polygamist in utah adopt