Responsible? No need for you to be married, then.

This guy is a jack azz.

Most of the bills being given to the house right now are way over the top with no base in reality.

Maybe we should have a 3 strikes and you're out policy for time wasting bills.  You introduce 3 bills that get less than 25% support and you need to find a new job.

That is a great idea. I don't know much about this Paul D. Clement guy but I bet he would think twice.

Well, this guy is not a member of the House; rather, he is an attorney who has been hired by Republicans to defend DOMA. But your point is well taken.

I don't know - wouldn't you rather see them stay in congress where nothing gets done anyway, instead of clogging up the economy with their incompetence where things actually matter?

Great so they hired an attorney to fight a position they can't fight for them selfs....  nice.

Yep because gays are the only ones having sex out of wedlock.

*finding popcorn*

I had to read the article a couple times before I sort of understood what this idiot was arguing. I think he was saying that... um, something like, having unplanned children presents logistical problems, and these problems can be somewhat helped if the couple is married. Since same-sex couples do not have this set of specific logistical problems, they do not need to be married.

Or something like that, maybe.

Untrue, is all I'll say.

I'll admit it is downright entertaining trying to watch politicians wade into the whole gay marriage issue.

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong:

1. Being gay is not natural.  Real Americans always reject unnatural things like
   eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around
   tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.  People
   may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign
   a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still
   property, blacks still can't marry whites, inter-faith marriage is prohibited,
   and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of
   Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.  Gay couples, infertile
   couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages
   aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight
   children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion.  In a theocracy like ours, the
   values of one religion are imposed on the entire country.  That's why we
   have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.  That's
   why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social
    norms.  Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy,
    or longer life spans.

Man Tea, we are on a roll. This and your religion comment have me in total agreement. There may be hope for us after all.

(I wish there was a little peace smiley.)

I hope you don't mind, but I'm probably going to steal this because it's awesome.   

Ya, I read the first sentence and I was totally lost... I did not understand why BFD was posting this... Ya, that's a winner right there.

Basically spot on.  Would have loved to see the faces in the room when that idea was touted as "here's our best argument....."    They get some creativity points, frankly there was nowhere else for them to go (not that this is a winner)

And BFD, bravo my man!

Glad to see I wasn't the only one who was confused. I read it a couple times and still couldn't figure out the reasoning.

So after reading all that, I think he makes a really good argument in support of...better sex education and birth control.

I really liked this part...

And you're totally ruining for the rich, straight, white males with terrible hair that are used to running everything!!!!

My guess is that Paul Clement is making an argument that 
marriage between one man and one woman is protected as a distinct class
under the 14th Amendment.

That is of course true. 

1.  Ok, totally non substantive question, but I have to ask Don why you choose to set up your posts with that return, unless your typing on some weird machine... is teh rhythm intentional?

2.  I am not sure one can say that "marriage" is a "protected class" under the Constitution.  Religion, race, sexual preference, etc., are all characteristics (for lack of a better term) that are protected.  Marriage is a relationship, not a characteristic.  Apples and oranges, I think.  You'd have to be talking about the "characteristic" of being married, which begs the question whether one is married to one of the opposite sex or same sex.  Dollars to donuts you cannot find a citation to any Constitutional law saying the class of those married to one of the opposite sex is a protected class for 14th amendment jurisprudence.

ETA - actually sounds to me like he might be setting up the defensive argument that gays are not a protected class, not the opposite

Chris 

Read the text of the 14th.

The equal protection clause in the 14th specifically deals with states.  Even if we could ignore that, it would be grounds for overturning something like the Defense of Marriage Act, not for upholding it.

Several lawsuits have gone forward against the DOMA citing the due process clause in the 5th amendment, which affects the federal government, rather than the states.

nice! and if there's hope for us, there's hope for CoJ!