Oppose equal treatment of homosexuals? Maybe you are gay....

[_Tchild]

What does it mean when you wish you were gay, but are not?

A lot of hedonistic sex, two incomes, six packs and bulging pecs, stylish hair, travel, fine cuisine. Gays have it ALL.

Damn DNA!

[_bcspace]

Feel free to articulate, at your leisure, what the rational basis is in law for prohibiting same-sex marriage.

It's only been two years since I've been on this board and invited you many times to do so, with no substantive response.

You haven't been paying attention especially because there is no rational basis in law for states to recognize gay marriages. Since you mention rational basis, perhaps you've heard of rational basis review used by the courts to evaluate the constitutionality of legislation? What about rational basis plus? In any case, the courts are really shy about creating additional suspect classes and for good reason.

The other way to go is welfare which is what state recognition of marriage is. Why can't I get welfare? For a variety of reasons none of which rises to the level of inappropriate discrimination under the law. Homosexuality is not discriminated against here because anyone is allowed to have one's marriage to the opposite sex recognized.

[_bcspace]

The OP has a scientific study and everything. I thought that bcspace was one to swallow it whole whenever research about gays comes out (decide for yourselves whether a double pun was intended).

While I generally enjoy Scientific American, it does have a known political bent (left) with regard to it's science on controversial issues. For example, Jeanna Bryner accepts the existence of homophobia and it's over broad interpretation, which a made up condition promulgated by the NAMBLA wing of the APA.

[_3sheets2thewind]

You haven't been paying attention especially because there is no rational basis in law for states to recognize gay marriages.

Hmmmmm....and the gold for mental gymnastic in SSM denial goes to Bcspace, perhaps you have not heard but Prop 8 was ruled unConstitional on rational basis.

But you will deny this.

[_Darth J]

Feel free to articulate, at your leisure, what the rational basis is in law for prohibiting same-sex marriage.

It's only been two years since I've been on this board and invited you many times to do so, with no substantive response.

You haven't been paying attention especially because there is no rational basis in law for states to recognize gay marriages. Since you mention rational basis, perhaps you've heard of rational basis review used by the courts to evaluate the constitutionality of legislation? What about rational basis plus? In any case, the courts are really shy about creating additional suspect classes and for good reason.

Oh, bcspace......

Everyone has lots of areas they aren't particularly knowledgeable about or conversant in. But not everyone thinks they can BS and hand wave with a bunch of jargon they don't understand and actually come up with something coherent or meaningful.

"Since you mention rational basis, perhaps you've heard of rational basis review used by the courts to evaluate the constitutionality of legislation?" Wait, let me see if I can do something like that! Here you go: "Since you mention math, perhaps you've heard of math used by people to calculate numerical values?"

"What about rational basis plus?" Nothing about it. That's not responsive to what I said. But hey, a cursory glance at Wikipedia probably said something about "rational basis plus," so if you mention that, maybe you'll seem like you even understand your own argument. Incidentally, you meant to say "heightened scrutiny," even though you didn't know you meant to say that, and even though it's still non-responsive. You also meant to say that in May this year, the 1st Circuit declined the Department of Justice's invitation to apply a heightened scrutiny standard to the Defense of Marriage Act, but the court still held that DOMA violates equal protection under the 5th Amendment.

Rational basis review is the least deferential standard in 14th Amendment jurisprudence. It is the standard of review when there is neither a fundamental right nor a suspect classification at issue. Rational basis review does not in any way involve creating a new suspect or quasi-suspect classification. Rational basis review of same-sex marriage statutes concedes that homosexuals are not a suspect class, and same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right (the U.S. Supreme Court has in fact established that marriage is a fundamental right, but it is not necessary to address that under a rational basis analysis). If I were implying that sexual orientation is a suspect classification (i.e., your irrelevant hand-waving about "additional suspect classes"), then I would have said something about strict scrutiny, not rational basis.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation may or may not be a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, but that question does not need to be addressed (or even raised) to decide whether prohibiting same-sex marriage violates constitutional equal protection guarantees. The U.S. Supreme Court was able to strike down a Colorado statute discriminating against homosexuals just fine under rational basis review without delving into suspect classification. The 9th Circuit was able to strike down Proposition 8 under a rational basis analysis, without holding that homosexuality is a suspect classification. Federal courts have held that the Defense of Marriage Act violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under a rational basis standard. E.g., Massachusetts v. Dept. of Health and Human Services. There is no need to find a substantive due process right to same-sex marriage. There is no need to find that sexual orientation is a suspect or quasi-suspect classification. Under the least deferential standard of judicial review, there is no valid legal basis for denying same-sex couples the same right to marry each other that opposite sex couples have.

The 14th Amendment issue in same-sex marriage is whether there is a rational basis for states to deny equal protection to same-sex couples when there is not, in any jurisdiction anywhere in the United States, anything about the legal relationship called "marriage" that requires the parties to be of the opposite sex. NOTHING. Marriage is a domestic partnership---period, full stop. That's all it is. "Marriage is between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman" is circular reasoning. Since circular reasoning is not rational, it does not provide a rational basis for denying equal protection to same-sex couples.

The other way to go is welfare which is what state recognition of marriage is. Why can't I get welfare? For a variety of reasons none of which rises to the level of inappropriate discrimination under the law. Homosexuality is not discriminated against here because anyone is allowed to have one's marriage to the opposite sex recognized.

There was this one time when I said that what you posted meant so much less than nothing that it ripped the space-time continuum. You're doing it again. Why do you think frantically babbling nonsense impresses anyone?

Oh, never mind. I already know why you do it.

[_Morley]

<snip>

Outstanding.

[_DarkHelmet]

Interesting study

"Sometimes people are threatened by gays and lesbians because they are fearing their own impulses, in a sense they 'doth protest too much,'" Ryan told LiveScience."

It makes sense. I think the things that bothers me in other people are things that I feel like I overcame. If I can do it, why can't they? The biggest fitness fanatics I know are people who used to be overweight. People who have been healthy their whole lives don't seem as fanatical about fitness as those who have overcome their own health issues. I think people who are pre-occupied with homophobic thoughts are people who feel they have overcome their own homosexual urges. That's my theory, and of course I could be wrong.

[_Jaybear]

To be fair, many of those who oppose equality for gays, are just self righteous douchebags, who harbor a delusion that they are serving God.

Take Bob Crockett, for example. According to this site, http://extras.sltrib.com/prop8/index.asp?search=%22robert+crockett%22&submit=Submit he ponied up $5,100 to deprive the gay couple that lives down the street a marriage license.

I don't believe he is secretly gay, or homophobic. I am sure that he get along just fine with his gay colleagues and clients.
I seriously doubt he would have donated money to pass prop 8, had he not been called to do so by the brethren in SLC.