I don’t understand why a Mormon Judge couldn’t see gay marriage as a civil marriage and leave the judgmental attitude at the door of his church.

Thanks for quoting that entire sentence. His Honor appears to be saying that if same sex marriage is allowed, the legal protections of marriage will become less important to opposite sex couples. Marriage would be perceived to be disgraceful and shameful if same sex marriage is allowed, as opposed to honorable and noble as it is now.

Disturbed as I am by the judge’s ruling, I am more disturbed by his ignorance. He seems to be unaware that all of the ills he cites as a consequence of same sex marriage are, in fact, happening even without same sex marriage. Even without “redefinition”, opposite sex couples are opting out of marriage. Even in Nevada.

The law can provide for marriage, but cannot compel it. Regardless of the law, individuals will make their own decisions whether or not to marry.

I think his notation of “purely private ceremonies,” meaning ones without a marriage license, not ones without guests, is telling. He is correct on the facts about the increased difficulty of dissolving a relationship that is not licensed by the state. Most states actually do not provide for “common law marriage.”

However, the argument that the law provides protection to the individuals in the marriage is an argument in favor of same sex marriage. Should not the protection of the law apply equally?

On the other hand, the sentence is so convoluted it is difficult to decipher. Where’s my sixth grade sentence diagramming teacher when I need her?

It would not surprise me to learn that this judge was “influenced” by a personal matter, such as a close relative (sibling, child, grandchild, neice, nephew) choosing to have a “purely private ceremony” instead of a licensed marriage, and he’s still all upset about it. I bet that’s his “personal interest.”

Men have the right to marry women.

Women have the right to marry men.

However, as men and women are legal equals in our society,..

men don’t have the same right to marry men that women have.

Women don’t have the same right to marry women that men have.

Men and women don’t have the same rights.

“Should that institution be expanded to include same-sex couples with the state’s imprimatur, it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently, opting for purely private ceremonies, if any, whether religious or secular, but in any case without civil sanction, because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined, leading to an increased percentage of out-of-wedlock children, single-parent families, difficulties in property disputes after the dissolution of what amount to common law marriages in a state where such marriages are not recognized, or other unforeseen consequences.”

Riiiiiiight.

It’s just like how allowing gay bars to operate openly has caused straight-themed establishments (like Hooters, strip clubs, and “tittie bars”) to go out of business.

It’s just like how allowing gay porn has completely and utterly destroyed the heterosexual porn industry.

And it’s just like Lawrence v. Texas has caused straight people to stop wanting to have sex with each other.

It makes sense to me.

Indeed, so many predictions from the other side of the political aisle have come to pass that we may as well just pack it in.

Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has destroyed the United States military and has gotten American service members killed.

Instituting gay marriage has led to changes in public school curricula.

Instituting gay marriage has caused the courts to be flooded with litigation. You can’t even get a court date for your car accident or breach-of-contract case, with the courts so jammed with all of those gay lawsuits.

Mitt Romney won the 2012 presidential election with an Electoral College landslide of more than 330 electoral votes. The pre-election polls were wrong, biased, and “oversampling Democrats.”

With such amazing predictive abilities, how could we even think anything else?

Let’s see if that makes sense as a principle. For instance, you could use it to argue that if a country outlawed all churches except for, say, Methodist churches, then that wouldn’t be discrimination against Jews or Catholics or Baptists, because they’d still have the same right worship at a Methodist church as everyone else — the exact same rules would apply to everyone, regardless of their personal religious orientation.

You’re a genius.