Friday, November 30, 2012

Judge denies gay motion to overturn NV marriage law

This interesting account of legal reasoning from Judge Robert Jones in his decision to deny gay activists motion to redefine marriage:
Nevada is willing to gamble on a lot of things, but marriage isn't one of them. In federal court yesterday, Judge Robert Jones dealt a big setback to state activists hoping to redefine marriage. His opinion, which he issued just days after oral arguments, may be one of the most compelling yet on the question of "equality" for homosexual couples. The lead plaintiffs in the case are two lesbians, both grandmothers, who argued that Nevada's 10-year-old marriage amendment is discriminatory. Judge Jones emphatically disagreed in a 41-page masterpiece that thoroughly dismantled the Left's legal logic. Homosexuals aren't being denied the right to marry, Jones explained. They simply have to abide by the same criteria as everyone else.

"Like heterosexual persons, they may not marry members of the same sex." In fact, Jones wrote, "A homosexual man may marry anyone a heterosexual man may marry, and a homosexual woman may marry anyone a heterosexual woman may marry." In other words, this isn't about discrimination or equal protection. "Homosexuals have not historically been denied the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, or the right to own property," he pointed out. "The protection of the traditional institution of marriage, which is a conceivable basis for the distinction in this case, is a legitimate state interest," he said, adding that if the state recognized same-sex couples' marriages, heterosexuals might "cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently... because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined."

[Hat tip to E. Echeverria]


bbw chat line operator


omantic schmantic! leave the roses for when you're actually a couple. Focus on your interests, but be friendly. Over bearing attention will make a woman step back.
bbw chat line operator



historically very many homosexual men have married women as the judge recommends. result: unhappiness all round

Anonymous Bosch



I don't know that the judge is recommending" that homosexual men marry women. I rather think not. I think he is concerned with the questions of rights under law and simply indicating that heteros and homos have the same rights.

If a forty-year-old woman felt she couldn't be happy without marrying an eight-year-old boy, that wouldn't give her the right to marry him. She would be constrained by the law to resist her passions and master herself.

jhon alaster

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.



The emotional challenges faced by "homos" are great, but they are not wholly different from those that are faced by "heteros."

"Heteros" have to learn to master their libido in order to find peace in their souls. They can't be indulging their id at every whim of rutting and tupping. If they want stable marriages, they have to restrict their passions for their spouse alone, and can't be making their rounds with friends with "benefits" or flogging their own schlangs.

"Homos" will find that their condition is almost exactly identical to that of the unmarried single man or woman, who is bound by faith to complete chastity and celebacy for the sake not merely of cold legal obedience, but for the sake of finally finding peace and transparency in his own soul.

Like ANYONE, they will find that they like themselves much better if they are chaste and refrain from any sexual activity outside of marriage, including (autoerotic) sex with themselves.

Everyone CAN be happy.