eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services; Update: And now, a class-action lawsuit
Scroll down for updates…
So, this is “progress?” eHarmony, a Christian-targeted dating website, gets sued by a gay man demanding that the business match him up with a same-sex partner. The New Jersey Attorney General intervenes on behalf of the gay plaintiff and forces eHarmony to change its entire business model. To be clear: The company never refused to do business with anyone. Their great “sin” was not providing a specialized service that litigious gay people demanded they provide. This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. Sadly, eHarmony has settled . I wish they hadn’t, but I understand the decision given the chilling antics of the anti-Prop. 8 mob. The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users. Behold the submission:
Coming soon to EHarmony — Adam and Steve.
The Pasadena-based dating website, heavily promoted by Christian evangelical leaders when it was founded, has agreed in a civil rights settlement to give up its heterosexuals-only policy and offer same-sex matches.
EHarmony was started by psychologist Neil Clark Warren, who is known for his mild-mannered television and radio advertisements. It must not only implement the new policy by March 31 but also give the first 10,000 same-sex registrants a free six-month subscription.
“That was one of the things I asked for,” said Eric McKinley, 46, who complained to New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights after being turned down for a subscription in 2005.
The company said that Warren was not giving interviews on the settlement. But attorney Theodore Olson, who issued a statement on the company’s behalf, made clear that it did not agree to offer gay matches willingly. “Even though we believed that the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business,” Olson said, “we ultimately decided it was best to settle this case with the attorney general since litigation outcomes can be unpredictable.”
The settlement, which did not find that EHarmony broke any laws, calls for the company to either offer the gay matches on its current venue or create a new site for them. EHarmony has opted to create a site called Compatiblepartners.net.
Warren had said in past interviews that he didn’t want to feature same-sex services on EHarmony — which matches people based on long questionnaires concerning personality traits, relationship history and interests — because he felt he didn’t know enough about gay relationships.
eHarmony had been previously sued by a lesbian looking to force the company to match her up with another woman and by a married man who sought to force the company to hook him up in an adulterous relationship.
Perhaps heterosexual men and women should start filing lawsuits against gay dating websites and undermine their business. Coerced tolerance and diversity-by-fiat cut both ways.
***
GayPatriot West gives eHarmony’s capitulation thumbs down.
Update 4pm Eastern 11/20. Geez. Now, a California judge has approved a class-action lawsuit by gays against eHarmony. When it rains, it pours:
(onlinedatingmagazine.com – November 20, 2008) A California Superior Court judge has certified a class action lawsuit against eHarmony.com for discrimination against gays and lesbians in California. The news comes one day after eHarmony settled a case in the State of New Jersey where a gay man accused the company of discrimination. In that settlement, eHarmony agreed to open up a service that matches gays and lesbians.
That announcement had no affect in the California case, which is moving forward.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Document drop: Lib 9th circuit panel rules Proposition 8 unconstitutional
February 7, 2012 01:09 PM by Michelle Malkin
152 CommentsStop the hate campaign against law-abiding American businesses
February 2, 2011 04:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
244 CommentsCalif. judge overturns voter-approved Prop. 8 gay marriage ban
August 4, 2010 04:51 PM by Michelle Malkin
955 Comments
Dear Cindy & Meghan: Let’s talk about who’s really being silenced over Prop. 8
January 25, 2010 11:36 AM by Michelle Malkin
126 Comments
Supreme Court blocks Prop. 8 show trial plan
January 11, 2010 11:31 AM by Michelle Malkin
34 Comments
Climate of hate: More threats from the gay marriage mob
November 10, 2009 05:24 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 Comments
Left-wing thug of the day
November 5, 2009 01:18 PM by Michelle Malkin
78 CommentsMaine votes down gay marriage
November 4, 2009 01:25 AM by Michelle Malkin
759 Comments
Categories: Proposition 8
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dBabalu Blog
» Greece is BurningBetsys Page
» Cruising the WebPatterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitDaily Caller
» Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizationsAmSpecBlog
» Weekend Political Wrap-UpJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On Stupid
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. However, I’d guess they learned those acts of love by your example. I think Abraham Maslow had it right by putting physiological and safety needs at the base and self-actualization at the peak.
What’s the term for this logical fallacy?
Tall kids are “bullied and harrassed.” Short kids are “bullied and harrassed.” Fat kids are “bullied and harrassed.” Skinny kids are “bullied and harrassed.”
Smart kids are “bullied and harrassed.”
Dumb kids are “bullied and harrassed.” Rich kids are “bullied and harrassed.”
Poor kids are “bullied and harrassed.” Christian kids are “bullied and harrassed.” Wicccan kids are “bullied and harrassed.” Red-haired freckled kids are “bullied and harrassed.” Children with two opposite sex parents are “bullied and harrassed”, children with one parent are “bullied and harassed”, children with two same-sex parents are “bullied and harassed,” children with no parents are “bullied and harassed.”
Need I continue?
As a medical professional, I can tell you that a psychiatrist is probably the last kind of doc from whom I would seek wisdom or answers on the topic being discussed here.
There are stereotypes for a reason – and, while I’ve met some down-to-earth psychiatrists, I have found over the years that they do seem to be overrepresented in the “somewhat odd and flaky” category. (Sorry, folks – gotta call it as I see it.)
The old joke is still told:
A surgeon knows nothing and does everything;
An internist knows everything and does nothing;
A pathologist knows everything and does everything, but it’s too late;
A psychiatrist knows nothing and does nothing.
Believe me, 30+ years out of medical school, there is more than a little truth wrapped up in that joke.
If you don’t think that homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders because of PC-ness and political reasons; well, then, you might have optical proctitis, as we also learned way back then.
So, yeah, I’ll ask a psychiatrist for info on this topic…right after I ask the NEA to fix the disaster that is our public schools…and I’ll let y’all all know how everything worked out.
Oh!, that is so unPC of me!
That’s BEAUTIFUL!!!! And it hits the nail right on the head…however they are demanding that it is hit with a screwdriver.
I think we’re conflating sexuality with sexual acts. Yes, people can choose to perform a sexaul act, but the sexual act they choose is based on their sexuality. They don’t choose their sexuality.
Ah, yes, even MORE compassion and tolerance! “You’re parents and religious leaders are stupid!”
Blah, blah, blah.
Or in other words, I choose to have sex. The fact that I have sex only with women isn’t a choice for me.
Man, I need to watch my “your” and “you’re”…
Correction:
Ah, yes, even MORE compassion and tolerance! “Your parents and religious leaders are stupid!”
granite, today you are my hero.
Thank you.
I humbly do my best….
No, it is out of spite. You can cloak it in the shroud of “trying to get case law” all you want. But how is this a viable strategy? Bring a lawsuit you WANT to lose? Isn’t that what you are proposing? Check the law in any jurisdiction and see what they have to say about frivolous or bad faith claims.
False controversy in the sense of someone going onto a gay dating site and demanding being placed with a person of the opposite sex merely to have a pretext to sue the site.
Not false controversy in the sense that this is not a legitimate issue.
So if you were sexually attracted to little girls or farm animals, you’d be having sex with them?
salt:
If that is so, I’d count myself a successful father. I try to live that way every day.
I’m sorry but someone who feels the egotistical need to flaunt their educational background has officially lost the debate.
Believe me because I have pieces of paper!
If those pieces of paper are worthy of more than wiping, then you should be able to convey logical arguments without referring to them.
And as I said before, until people realize that this issue isn’t about bigotry and hatred, they will continue to lose this argument. Remember “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?
People who oppose gay marriage, for the most part, are not doing so out of some irrational hatred of homosexuals. Conservatives in general are very firm on the principle that government should not meddle with private lives. So ask yourself… is it possible that their stance on this issue just MIGHT be consistent with a stance AGAINST some governmental meddling?
Similarly, those who are in favor of gay marriageare not necessarily fascists… remember that it is not the legalization of gay marriage by itself that restricts freedom of religion any more than legal gun ownership is the cause of crime. This is something which comes with uncertain trappings (like subsequent lawsuits, or the cultural impacts on society), the costs and hazards of which can be debated to determine the risk of the whole package.
Identify what the source of that rationale is, rather than writing every opponent off as a bigot, and this debate might actually progress somewhere.
People should rightly be ashamed and opposed to the legal circus and total disregard for due process that has ensued.
My personal position on the matter is between me and my voting booth, but I am heartened to see SOME intelligent debate on the matter… Vic above who voted No on 8 because of a blanket opposition to governmental involvement in any religious institution (such as marriage) gets special recognition as the first No on 8 poster to actually present a plausible legal argument. FamilyMan also gets props for understanding the Natural Law underpinnings of the Constitution. Salt also gets Kudos for keeping it calm and logical.
If you could all keep it to the nitty gritty level of legal fact and refrain from mounting high-horses of moral absolutism on both sides, you’ll find that the debate can progress without sacrificing any of those particular morals you stand for.
Or in other words, they are intolerant of positions that seek to refuse them rights they feel that are entitled to.
You consider that to be intolerence? Hell, we’re all intolerent then. I’m intolerent of those who seek to control what I can and cannot say, and I refuse to be tolerent to their positions.
Sorry, but there is a right and a wrong. Hating people because of their sexual preference, denying them the same rights and opportunities as everyone else, thinking that they are perverted and sick is wrong. Period. Not debatable. 2+2 does not equal 5. If you do not agree, it’s because you’re either ignorant, which can be fixed by getting educated, or because you are evil, which can be fixed by defeating you – buy shouting you down and preventing you from spewing your crap. Hate speech is not free speech.
Got it? Learn to like it because you’re losing. Look at the demographics and the attitudes of people. They’re shifting. They have been since the 60s. We’re at a tipping point now.
I’m more hopeful and optimistic than ever that the changes we progressives seek are coming fast and furious. Soon we will have health care for all, tolerance for all, and economic justice for all. Open boarders. More cooperation between governments. And more respect for diversity.
I have fun coming here because it’s a reality distortion field. Here’s a clue: Most people don’t like Sarah Palin. They think she’s a joke. What you call RINOs are the only hope your party has, because the wing you represent is shrinking and can’t win.
Get out of your cocoons and see what’s really going on out there. Visit a University. Travel abroad. Take classes in other cultures. Read “The God Delusion”. Talk to gay people. Talk to people on welfare. Volunteer at a soup kitchen.
It’s a new world out there. A new deal. Embrace it. Change. Most of what you know is wrong. Accept it. That’s how we progress and move forward, by abandoning the old ways and learning new ones.
I vow NEVER to use any of these sites anyway.
Whatever happened to just meeting someone and connecting? Do i really need to take a psychological evaluation in order to find someone? Sure, I have not had a great deal of luck up to this point, though I thought I had, but can such a profile really tell what someone will be like in 10 years? Can he guarantee, or any other service for that matter, that the people taking said profile exam are being completely honest and putting down that they are generally happy and faithful and never cheat? No, they can’t.
If someone wants to get to know me, they know where to find me. I have a site and an e-mail.
And if this guy could not find his “One True Love” the normal route, his little law suit should have been laughed out of court the minute he even tried to file it. Since when is it a third party’s responsibility to find someone a date/mate anyway, let alone be forced to provide said service by a Court of Law? Should this not be the bigger picture we need look at?
All of a sudden, a private enterprise is being forced to find someone his “True Love”, whether it is a gay person or straight.
What WILL happen when this guy or any of the 10,000 that are being forced upon the business owner, does NOT find their “One True Love”? Will this end up back in court? Will he lose everything he owns as a result of what occurs when a “Poofter” is scorned?
Or maybe I am doing it wrong. Maybe I should get on the litigious bandwagon and make it someone else’s responsibility to make sure that tomorrow morning I am not waking up alone.
Well, at leats you are honest about your intolerance, as you demand tolerance from others.
And this is not a discussion about lost rights, Chops. No one has lost any rights in this debate, although one side is trying to claim a special right for themselves.
Stay with the topic.
Yes, there is a right and a wrong. And your ideas are wrong.
And that is not about rights. Gay people have the same exact rights that I do, Eagle. Nothing more and nothing less.
ha. Such a loaded question. Simply because you’re sexually attracted to someone(or some animal) doesn’t mean you have to have sex with them. I’m sexually attracted to plenty of females, but I choose not to have sex with some and others choose not to have sex with me. I don’t choose to be sexually attracted to them, however.
BWAHAAHHAAHAHAHA thanks for the laughs
you’re definately not a computer programmer…logic isn’t your strong suit!!
whats your MS’ in?? bending over?
Our exact point about gays. Thanks for admitting you are wrong.
Do you agree that every position should be tolerated?
What special right are they trying to claim?
You know, the more I think about this case, the more I think eHarmony shouldn’t have to change. From what I understand, their service uses different information to match the right people, and just because you can do that between a man and a woman doesn’t mean you can between a man and a man. I think the men’s clothing store analogy that someone made was correct. Matching straight couples is their business, and just because they can do one doesn’t mean they can do the other.
I think a court would agree with me on this one, and I think eHarmony probably thought it would win too, but that would mean going through messy litigation and a public relations mess where a lot of their existing clients would get turned off by their motives, which by their own admission was to keep gays out.
I agree, StanW. It’s as if the talking point states “refer to marriage as a ‘right’ which will appeal to the justice side of everyone’s frosted mini wheat.”
No one has a Constitutionally-guaranteed “right” to marry. Please, everyone, stop referring to it as a right.
If it were a right, people could go down to their local city hall right now and demand to be married–to someone, anyone. It’d be like that JG Wentworth commercial: “It’s my marriage right, and I want it now!”
yeah and you are wrong, about a great many things.
thats why YOU LOST SONNY BOY!! you gay fascists DEFINE hate speech
moron.
your little nazi tactics are helping us no end…thanks!!
yeah soon your savior will raise his wounded head and you’ll be able to get your nice little mark of obediance!!
everything you say is wrong. and you will find out to your horror!!
What are you talking about? You’re point is that simply because gays are attracted to other gays, they don’t have to have sex with them? Is that really your argument?
The right to change the definition of marriage to placate an insignifigant minority of the population.
RedState Skeptic: see my comment #2 to further cement your thoughts.
Businesses that are successful are adept at capitalizing on their core strengths, and outsourcing or leaving “other” pursuits to “others.” Many businesses fail because they try to be all things to all people.
That is true, however, we have the right to equal treatment under the eyes of the law. Allow one group of people to marry and not allowing the other group infringes of our right of equal treatment. The “right to marry” is a shorthand way to say that.
See? It works both ways.
Please, show me where in the Constitution YOU have a right not to be offended or dislike another’s point of view, and how that offense/dislike gives you the right to take away the First Amendment freedoms of the majority.
That’s not true. The right to equal treatment is the right they are fighting for. Marriage is a symptom of the desolution of that right.
Several gays – here and elsewhere – have said that civil unions (like they had in CA) already gave them those rights.
Equal treatment was met.
“Marriage” is just – as eaglehaslanded proved – a way to “drag our asses into the light” (read: force us to eschew our religious beliefs to appease the tyrranical minority).
Are you truly this obtuse. Just because you are sexually attracted to someone or something does not mean you should act on it, demand society call it normal, or insist you be able to marry it.
You are sexually attracted to women (as far as we know). The man next to you is sexually attracted to men. The man next to him is sexually attracted to sheep. They are not all normal. Yet only one of those abnormal sexual behaviours is worthy of special privilidges to you?
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
What right do gay people not have that the rest of us have?
So an opposite-worldview-holder is dispensing advice to those against whom he is opposed?
Why?
Hmmm….
Sounds more like an attempt to fortify his side’s position in the culture war; an attempt to create confusion, diversion, division, and weakness among traditionalists/conservatives – in other words, he’s afraid of something, big time, and is trying to undermine the cause of his fear.
On the other hand, if he comes to this blog and types inanities just for the hell of it…; well, then, it appears that he has way too much free time on his hands.
englishqueen01,
There is nothing illegal with thinking, feeling, or even saying that another group is bigoted and hateful. The opposition isn’t just thinking, feeling, and saying that gay marriage is wrong; they are acting to ensure that what they feel is wrong does not exist. It’s that action that is the intolerence.
So essentially you’re saying that it’s seperate, but equal?
Ah, so you’re finally ready to jump the shark. We’re going to go down the path of man-sheep relationships. I’ll just stop here.
You display the elitism that seems to be prevalent amongst many Progressives I have read and spoken to. Speaking for myself and I know there are many also on this site, we are not the Neanderthals you assume us to be. I’m of European descent, have traveled all over the world, have a college education, read copiously, donate a lot of time to programs to help the less fortunate, take my kids every year to a different country to expand their perspective, and on and on. This is not to brag, but to show that if anyone is guilty of close mindedness and bigotry, it is you. You don’t seem to be able to comprehend that people who are offended by the in-your-face tactics of the gay community to force us to accept that their life style is normal, are anything other than moronic Neanderthals who are homophobic bigots. You should look into a mirror each time you say those words.
My Queen,
I feel we have reached an impass with this one. We should turn our attention towards an argument that we have a better chance of resolving. We should all meet at the Pacific Ocean and scream “Stop Being So WET!!!”
Are gay couples and straight couples treated equally under the eyes of the law?
If not, then the gay couple’s right of equal treatment has not been fulfilled.
Yes, they are. Have you proof otherwise?
If you want to spend your life with someone who is of your same sex, then great. However, do not refer to it as marriage.
Call it a civil joint unification of loving dudes. It is not marriage, just as a south-sider who may love baseball is not a Cubs fan.
Now who’s being obtuse?
You are making the assumption that everyone agrees on what is “normal”. There is no such agreement. Anything that goes on between consenting parties is the closest I think to a universal norm. This is why the pedophile argument doesn’t work. There is no victim in a homosexual relationship that both parties want vs. the despicable act of having sex with a child.
We are talking about love between adults. Love is good when it brings happiness to the parties involved. If we can all agree on that, then we have defined normal.
The same damn thing can be said about folks like you. Liberals are free to think, feel, and say that religion is wrong, but they – through activist courts – are acting to ensure that religious freedom doesn’t exist. Again, see eaglehaslanded’s none-too-subtle threat to those of us with religious beliefs, which can be summed up as: “We will FORCE you to accept us, or we WILL take your kids.”
No laws were broken in the Prop. 8 vote. It was legally put on the ballot, legally voted upon, and passed.
Yes. Of course, you’ll just go through the whole “denying gay marriage = racism” shtick again. But that’s getting kind of old.
If this was about ensuring gay couples had the same legal protections in unions as straight couples, and civil unions did that – without offending or usurping the traditional marriage definition which expands across all cultures and religious beliefs – it gives them the equality they wanted, right?
Obviously, that’s not enough.
So you cannot provide for me one instance where straights have a right that gay people don’t have? How about a law that applies to straights and not to gays, or vice-versa?
Come on, MP, you made the claim. Either back it up with proof or apologize for lying.
what about pedophiles and their RIGHTS? and polygamists and their RIGHTS?? you BIGOT!!
LOL. Are you waiting for the rapture, too? Maybe the UFOs can come and get you.
Yep.
Sorry to say it yet again, but…irreconcilably, diametrically opposite worldviews.
What’s wrong with us traditionalists, that we don’t want to sing the words of the 60s-early 70s song and Coke commercial, “I’d like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony; I’d like…?”
The
postscreed that right4life picked apart back at #426 above sure sounded like it was written by an old flower child…or a flower child wanna-be.The government should not be in the business of telling people what they can and cannot call their relationship.
It’s like a South-sider who may be a cubs fan having to call himself “A baseball fan” because Cubs fan don’t feel that south-side fans of the Cubs are normal.
And so it is YOU who gets to decide what the definition of “Hate Speech” is? It is YOu that gets to decide who gets to be heard and who doesn’t? Who gets to be “shouted down” and who gets to be allowed to speak his peace?
And this is what you truly believe, yet you do not see nor understand the pure, unadulterated hypocrisy and hate-filled bigotry of yoru own beliefs and speech?
Let me ask you this, little boy,
Just WHO the HELL do YOU THINK YOU ARE?
I find you to be unbelievably offensive, ignorant, uninformed, and beligerant. You are comparing what is a sexual preferrence to the race and color of a person’s skin, along with the hundreds of years of TRUE oppression and death that went along with it. There is no comparison. There is no equality there. It is nothing more than pure stupidity, greed and childish reasoning that offends an entire race.
I can choose to have sex with another man. I CANNOT choose to change the color of my skin, the heritage that made that skin and my upbringing, background etc., nor the history that placed me where I am today.
this is NOT about hate. People are not saying that men and women should be the definition of what marriage is because they hate people. That has been the very definition of what marriage is since the first caveman clubbed the first cavewoman and drug her off to the cave. It is the Homosexual Community that is crapping all over this definition and is filled with hatred and bigotry towards anyone who wishes to see that definition remain.
No one is saying that gays cannot get married. Marriage, contrary to popular belief, is not just a piece of paper handed out to you from some government official, though it is the Liberals who have created that definition when they removed marriage from the Chuches and put it into the hands and realms of government.
Marriage is SPIRITUAL. It is the promise and commitment you feel towards the other person. the promise you make to them to be with them and them alone forever, forsaking all others, being with them forever, no matter what the problems or benefits are. It is a promise made that is forever.
What this is about, what it all boils down to is MONEY. See, NO ONE, not government, not people, not the neighborhood stray dog and cat, can EVER deny someone that right.
What you are fighting for is that people ACCEPT what you are and what you do.
This crosses a line. The line is between acceptance and tolerance.
We can tolerate it. We can tolerate the “Homosexual Lifestyle” till the cows come home.
But no one, NO ONE has the right to force ANYONE to ACCEPT that which they find morally repugnant, and THAT is PRECISELY what this is about…forcing the vast majority of the population OF THE PLANET to accept and condone something that they DO NOT agree with or want to condone.
And THAT, little poo-butt, is something I don;t expect anyone from your Gestapo-like belief system of forcing people to do things against their morals and bend to your will, could or would EVER understand.
give me a straigh equivalent of NAMBLA.
pedophilia ‘rights’ are where gay ‘rights’ were 40 years ago…and we all know what is coming next…
In Pennsyvania, two gay men or gay women cannot get a marriage license together. In Pennsylvania, a straight man and a straight women can get a marriage liscence together.
yes I am. just as you are waiting for your savior…with his mark…which you will gladly accept.
ever see invasion of the body snatchers??
you sure sound like a pod person!
I asked you for a law or right that applied to one gropup and not the other. The law you mentioned are perfectly consistent. Shall I illustrate…
“In Pennsyvania, two gaystraight men or gaystraight women cannot get a marriage license together. In Pennsylvania, a straightgay man and a straightgay women can get a marriage liscence together.”
See, reverse the sexual preferences and the law is the say. Consistent and unchanging.
Gays and straights have the same rights and restrictions.
PERIOD!!!
thank GOD!!!
So, which is it, eaglehaslanded?
Either this:
OR this:
Of course, we already know your view – you’re going to *make* us (or our kids) agree that “love” is good when it brings people happiness.
But I don’t agree. Love is good when it is done in service to another, selflessly, and fully accepting of everything about that partner for life. This includes fertility, and having children (or the possibility to have children, in the case of heterosexual couples with fertility issues).
It is not about what makes people happy for the next two years, or five years, or ten.
And – especially in male same-sex relationships – the male pre-disposition to screw around and run is heightened, making for unstable relationships not suited for monogamous marriage.
Yes, and so is “traditional marriage”, but simply because it’s old doesn’t make it any less true in your eyes.
Please tell me how your previous description doesn’t suggest that you support seperate, but equal institutions. You support the rights given in civil unions, and you feel that they are equal to the rights given in marriage. However, you also support the seperation of the two. That, by defintion, is seperate, but equal.
Do you or do you not support seperate, but equal institutions in marriage.
Since the strikethrough didn;t work, let’s try this again…
“In Pennsyvania, two straight men or straight women cannot get a marriage license together. In Pennsylvania, a gay man and a gay women can get a marriage liscence together.”
and we’re going to keep working to defeat you pro-gay nazis!!
and we’re going to rub each victory in your face!!!
LOSERS!!!
LOL! Oh, the irony.
Everything was so clear cut to you in several previous posts. Oracular pronouncements on the future and a sanctimonious rant about all things progressive.
Now we’re back to moral relativity? My, aren’t we flexible.
In Pennsylvania, A stright gay man and a straight gay woman can get a marriage liscense?
Your statement is so ridiculous, you leave the realm of making sense to get it across.
But to address what I THINK you’re trying to say, I ask you this question?
Is our equal rights protection being voided if the government requires that all voters must own land?
Are you in therapy or on medication? You need to be.
Get some help.
Can you argue otherwise?
It was a formatting error I corrected a minute later, MP.
In all 50 states, a legally blind person, a 12-year-old, and an illegal alien cannot get a driver’s license.
Why? Because the states have a right to set parameters for who can and can’t be licensed to operate a motorvehicle. For the benefit of society and the safety of other drivers.
The state – and countless other nations and religious and secular ideologies – have the same right to license couples to marry in a way that best benefits society.
That, my friend, is heterosexual, traditional marriage.
(And if you think that’s a bad metaphor, well, if you can use the Cubs, don’t criticize…)
Well, I don’t think Cubs fans are normal, but that’s another topic entirely…
Perhaps it’s not the government that should “stop telling people what they can and can’t call a relationship” (clever substitution here–no one is saying they’re not in a relationship…stay on target, blue leader) but rather the homosexual minority that should “stop telling heterosexual couples what they can and can’t call marriage.”
The gay mob are the instigators here. They are the ones attempting to force their narrow view on the overwhelming majority. They are the ones who could end this horrific waste of time and resources by agreeing to call the “civil union of loving lads” or “civil union of loving ladies” what it is: a “cullage.”
There, made up a word: cullage. Problem solved. Now, put a measure on the ballot to provide equal rights–real rights from the Constitution–for those who choose to get “culled” just as those who get married.
Just stop calling it something that it is not: marriage.
No farm animals? Lawsuit time…
don’t need any help to make you look stupid….not that its very hard
Follow up to 469: …and I’ll vote for it. Because, unlike the loudmouthed, close-minded, vicious, vitriolic, rage-filled anti-traditional marriage mob, I am open-minded and fair.
chapoutier, you’re usually much sharper than this. You must not have slept last night. Or, you really don’t know the definition of spite.
Of course I’d want to win my lawsuit. Regardless, the case law wouldn’t be valuable if I failed to optimally litigate. Frivolous?? HA! Please. Good luck with that.
I love when this is brought up, because then, by you or anyone else using this brand of “logic”, all the Polyamorous people need to be granted their “right” to marry just as many people as they want. Then there are those who commit incest and wish to marry their brother, sister, cousin etc.
Just exactly where do you think that line that defines who is going to have their rights removed from need be drawn anyway?
There is NO WAY, using YOUR LOGIC, that you can even answer this question, because you will be denying people their “rights” under the law.
So…tell me…where is that line drawn, then explain why that group deserves it more than any of the others you deem unworthy.
I am not expecting an answer. this is one of those questions that the supporters of gay marriage generally skip and conviniently ignore or decry as being “That’s not the same thing”.
Hypocrites.
That’s a chilling statement. Historically, the greatest injustices that this country has seen were done in an attempt to “best benefit society”.
So you feel that any law is legal as long as it is deemed to “best benefit society”, regardless of the rights of the individuals such law effects? I say “regardless”, because your definition of the job of the State never mentions the rights of the invididuals of the State
Yes. I’ve noticed. WHENEVER they want to dis something or register their utter contempt for something, they ALWAYS say, “That is SO GAY.”
I know for a fact that they have never, ever heard me say ANYTHING disparaging or hateful about gay people — not in their entire lives. So I presume that they must have somehow learned this from your people. I hope you’ll understand if I don’t offer you my thanks for transforming our culture with your political correctness.
Yes. Thankfully. My kind are going to a place where there is no war, no famine, no disease, no pain or suffering, and no more death. And your kind…?
(*in my best Jed Clampett voice*) Well doggies — now that sure is right nice. Here’s what I carry. (shows Stanford Ph.D.) Not only that, but I have a talking dog. Collie?
My collie says:
Well said and proof that we can agree on the logic of this regardless of political affiliation. We probably don’t agree on much politically, but I value folks like you and chap that can stick to reason rather than the “Conform or die” mantra we seem to be getting from others.
Stan,
Is our equal rights protection being voided if the government requires that all voters must own land?
Still waiting on your response to #461, AND for you to provide an example of a law or right that applies to either straights or gays, but does not apply to the other.
The courts have already said no. What’s your point in bringing up this non sequiter argument?
Conversely, you do agree that by restricting marriage to one man and one woman, we are in fact setting the line. In other words, there is no “natural” marriage, and marriage is a man-made concept that has been set at a particular position, currently one man and one woman in the United States.
mpChops: all voters ought to at least own a pulse. Give ACORN a call on that one.
I wasn’t aware that the land-ownership clause is still in effect in this nation. I believe it’s been replaced with “a physical address.”
Again, thank goodness for ACORN, who are able to provide addresses for those who have none, and pulses for those whose pulses are underrepresented.
This is just wrong. A private company wants to serve a certain type of customer with a particular type of interest. They should not be forced into a business they don’t want to be in. This is wrong. This is clubbing someone into submission. THIS IS NOT FREEDOM. This is not America.
This homosexual person could have started “Gay Harmony”. It’s not like they were prohibited from doing so. I wish this had gone to trial instead, but I realize that’s not a sure thing, either. But freedom of association is under attack here.
Of course there are reasonable limits, but – in the case of marriage – encouraging men and women to join in unions for life, raise children, and support one another financially *is* of best benefit to the state.
It is also the best (for finances and health) for men and women, for the development of children, and to continue a civilization in future generations.
So, in this case, it is of best benefit to society to support and encourage traditional marriage.
Of course, liberal folks have worked to undermine that institution through feminism (“marriage is oppressive”) and easy divorce (“don’t work at your marriage”), and by glorifying the trappings (i.e., big expensive weddings) while ignoring the substance of successful marriages (the biggest component being a strong, committed faith life).
It’s pretty ironic that you, upset with the rights of individuals who voted in favor of Prop. 8, should lecture me on what “best benefits society” and who it will affect.
In my book, overturning Prop. 8 affects the 52% of Californians who voted for the measure
The situation you wrote is this situation that the courts already ruled on is equvilent, in that regard. The argument given was that since anyone could theoretically own land, anyone had the ability to vote.
You argue that since anyone, theoretically, can marry someone of the opposite sex, no one is being treated differently.
why just one man and one woman? why not multiples? why not children? why not relatives?
you’re being very closed-minded and bigoted here.
Sorry, cut it off…
In my book, overturning Prop. 8 affects the 52% of Californians who voted for the measure is denying their rights as participants in the democratic process, is it not?
I already suggested eSodomy upthread. I thought it was kind of catchy.
Still awaiting your proof that there are laws or rights that apply to one group and not the other.
Dance around it all you like, but your argument is worthless. Equal Protection does not apply here at all!
That doesn’t even make sense…but way to ignore the question.
post 405:”They don’t choose their sexuality.”
We control our sexuality. If i had sex at every urge, i would be a rapist. we control our innate urges: it is called self control.
Just checking in to se if eaglehaslanded has provided PROOF that gayness is inborn.
NOPE. I GUESS NOT.
Well back to work
proof boy
proof!!!!!!!!!
So wait….you WANT all sites, including eHarmony to be forced to offer services to gay and straight clientele?
Because that is the only logical conclusion from you bringing suit against a gay matching site.
Whatever, this is getting tiresome.
As to the merits of this case, dumb dumb dumb. I don’t know squat about eHarmony’s methods, but I am willing to take them at their word that it was developed by studying only hetero relationships. Age is a protected class too, but we don’t make pediatricians see elderly patients because that is not their area of expertise.
Please note I am limiting my holding in this case to narrow areas where one can show a compelling interest for limiting ones provision of service to a defined class. This doesn’t apply to Tom’s Hardware Store down the street who just doesn’t like gays.
Don;t hold your breath, FM.
I am still trying to get mpChops to prove something he said.
Being a Liberal means never having to say you’re sorry, or offer any proof no matter how often you are asked.
Chap:
I understand two wrongs don’t make a right, but how is this different from the lawsuits being filed by gays?
I have no idea as to whether or not the person who brought the complaint against eHarmony felt legitimately aggrieved, but in any case see 493 above for my thoughts as to the merits.
Suggested name for the new site:
eHarmingmen
We get the point, Rick Santorum.
Stan, you’re making an intellectually dishonest argument. You’re saying that since a gay couple can have two straight marriages, they are being treated under the eyes of the law. That makes no sense.
I gave you an example of that very logic that the courts struck down. How are the two situations different?
Can anyone here answer my question?
What are the specific distinctions between a CIVIL UNION and a MARRIAGE?