NV judge: If gays can marry, straights will decide not to, and the human race will die


A federal trial court ruled that Nevada can limit marriage to opposite-sex couples in a ruling made public hours before the Supreme Court is due to consider whether it will hear any of several cases addressing same-sex couples’ marriage rights.Judge Robert C. Jones, a George W. Bush appointee, found that the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws does not “[prohibit] the People of the State of Nevada from maintaining statutes that reserve the institution of civil marriage to one-man–one-woman relationships.”

You know what.  If your decision whether to marry your high school sweetheart hinges on whether Kevin and Steve down the block can get married too, then maybe you shouldn’t be getting married in the first place.

Here’s some of his ruling, the entire thing is at the bottom of this post:

“Should that institution [civil marriage] 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,7 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.”

gay marriage

Gay marriage via Shutterstock

And don’t forget sun spots. I understand gay people cause sun spots too.

Right before that quote, Judge Robert Jones, who’s a Mormon (see discussion about this further down), seems to suggest that if gays are permitted to marry, the entire human race could end (though, let’s face it, it would end FABULOUSLY). Let me dissect his deep philosophical analysis:

Human beings are created through the conjugation of one man and one woman.

Conjugation?  I think he means he likes to use “Hooked on Phonics” as foreplay. (Those wacky Mormons.)

The percentage of human beings conceived through non-traditional methods is minuscule, and adoption, the form of child-rearing in which same-sex couples may typically participate together, is not an alternative means of creating children, but rather a social backstop for when traditional biological families fail. The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women. The institution developed in our society, its predecessor societies, and by nearly all societies on Earth throughout history to solidify, standardize, and legalize the relationship between a man, a woman, and their offspring, is civil marriage between one man and one woman. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190,211 (1888) (“It is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would beneither civilization nor progress.”).

Actually, to be precise, the institution developed in our society, its predecessor societies, and by nearly all societies on Earth throughout history to solidify, standardize, and legalize the relationship between a man, a woman, and their offspring, is civil marriage between two people of the same race, and even better, the same nationality and/or ethnicity.  And I don’t recall white people leaving the institution of marriage because blacks were permitted to marry their women, and vice versa.

And let me go back to the fact that Judge Jones is a Mormon, because it’s relevant.  The institution developed in Mormon society to solidify, standardize, and legalize the relationship between a man, a woman, and their offspring, was polygamous marriage.

Now, you could certainly argue that forcing the Mormons to change their definition of marriage, to limit marriage to only the conjugation, as he likes to put it, of one man and one woman, rather than one man and a whole slew of women, minimized and lessened marriage in the eyes of Mormons.  And thus, Mormons would have stopped getting married and stopped procreating because it just wasn’t the very very special thing it used to be.

Yet, I don’t recall a dearth of births among Mormons over the past hundred years, do you?

I just find it interesting that a Mormon judge is arguing about millennia of marriage tradition when in fact, that tradition, in his own faith, in which he has served as a bishop, changed in the last 100 years, and no one’s worse for the wear, and he knows it.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

  • Holy cow a group of people with a sense of humor, smart and not so wrapped into some hate filled train of thought that I can’t follow what the hell they are saying. Pleased to know you all, now move on we need you elsewhere.

  • I called this judge, all I could get was the answering machine, how ever I did leave my name, my address, and my phone number and told him it was my personal opinion, that his head was so far up his azz, that every thing he says is just PLAIN CRAP, alas I have not heard back from him. I can only think that he is a coward, or that what I said was the truth and he could not refute it.

  • Yes, yes, by all means, cut off your balls and don’t breed, that will teach them queers a lesson! I wholeheartedly support anyone willing to take this action. It will clean up the gene pool quite nicely.

  • If they want to “strengthen” marriage, how about a law that abolishes divorce? Let’s see how these one-man-one-woman people react to that. Or one that restricts a person to one marriage per lifetime? Another surefire “winner”. Don’t comment, I know these things are stupid and would have the opposite effect. But it would be hysterical to have their fingerprints on the gun that killed “traditional” marriage.

  • Oh Geezus!

    If there is a fear of the population dying out from allowing same sex marriage then I think it is only fair to take the right of a man and woman to marry if one or the other or both are infertile. For God’s sake.. Who cares?

  • ariesmatt

    You can add computers to that list. Thank you Alan Touring, bless his tortured soul.

  • Butch1

    It sounds like this judge has become delusional and cannot perform his duties. Therefore, he must be removed from the bench or at least be forced to recuse himself every time a case comes before him involving a gay person.

  • Papa Bear

    Actually, what Judge Robert C. Jones seems to be saying is: “I’m only married to a woman because I couldn’t marry a guy. If that option opens up, I don’t understand why ANYone would marry the opposite sex…”
    /smark (yes, I said “smark” — I’ve got a code in my hed)

  • Mike_in_the_Tundra

    I can only marvel at your lack of knowledge of gay people. Your lack of knowledge of human reproduction is rather startling as well. We’re all anatomically correct. We have everything we need to make babies. That’s your biology lesson. As for your knowledge of gay people, sometimes I find the number of gay men and lesbians who were married to be somewhat staggering. Many of them had children with their ex-spouse. Many of us who were never married to someone of the opposite gender still have had intercourse with someone of the opposite gender. Adoption, artificial insemination, or turkey basters aren’t the only means available for us to become parents. The concept of gay parents is no more folly than the concept of teenage parents or late in life parents, or wealthy parents or poor parents, or Christian parents, Jewish parents, Muslim parents, or agnostic parents. They are all just parents. You knew all this, didn’t you? You were just choosing to ignore the facts.

  • rulesreason

    I assume you highlighted

    “The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women.”

    because it’s an absolutely true statement. Two men cannot produce a child. Two women cannot produce a child. Biological fact.

    The concept of gay “parents”, just like “same sex marriage” is semantic folly.

  • Good point. That’s probably why Mitch McConnell looks like Darwin’s Galapagos turtle.

  • rovibo

    Divorces have been destroying the institution of marriage but this cuckoo judge fail to mention it … LMAO


  • He is out of here, caphilldcne.

  • caphilldcne

    Figs are effin morons? Well, obviously they aren’t conscious but they are very tasty.

  • Steve Evans

    F*gs are effin morons

  • Steven Evans

    You heterosexually-impeded animals are sure tolerant of different viewpoints…

  • Steven Evans

    You f*gs are all pretty intolerant.

  • Nickname

    Adoption sure is a backstop for when tradional families fail. If they HAD succeeded, the poor child would have never been abandoned. Don’t blame the (gay) band-aid, please blame the (heterosexual) problem.

  • Sweetie

    The former PM of Australia, John Howard, made the same claim and the people of that country didn’t boot him from office for incompetence. These idiots are not only common, they hold some of the highest offices in the world. It really shows how intelligent the human being is capable of being, doesn’t it?

  • A reader in Colorado

    OTOH, why not a year long all US women no sex strike over contraception being banned, if such a thing were to occur? Bwaaahahahahahahaha.

    I bet you all could hold out longer than they could ;)

    And the resulting no-sex-whatsoever appearances of America’s straight men worsening over the course of an entire year on TV would be truly, truly awe inspiring in the Roman Candle sense. Entertaining, even for me. The crack ups and freak outs would be twenty year classics.

  • A reader in Colorado

    I probably shouldn’t say this, because I know some religious right moron will seize on it.

    But, in one sense, I disagree, but contextually.

    Governments worldwide, with the cooperation and approval of their citizenry, could affect world overpopulation.

    I would argue in effect, that the very thing that has not happened, but that the religious right has feared, though not exactly, could help overpopulation: Namely, actively promoting tolerance of homosexuality. (The religious right would frame this as promoting homosexuality and I’m not so sure I care to quibble on the semantics of it. What I want is so close to promoting homosexuality that I am just not sure I want to engage in the mind numbing idiocy of arguing about it.).

    In essence I’m arguing for the government and people to celebrate, promote as acceptable, and have active tolerance campaigns for gay couples, out of an explicit desire to reduce population pressures. Not to say people SHOULD try to be gay who aren’t inclined, but active efforts to ensure gay relationships are universally tolerated and celebrated.

    Just letting people be gay people is good enough for me, but not good enough for overpopulation. But it could be.

    There are many countries in the world with a male imbalance. More guys than girls. China. And there are countries where the population needs to decline, to make way for immigration.

    There are worse things than saying, all those excess guys, percentage wise should be in bed together, rather than trying to kill each other over the remaining girls (countries with a big sex imbalance tend to have more violence over this sort of thing).

    Approval can’t turn a gay person straight or a straight person gay, but social support of pre-existing proclivities might make some difference. At least, gays being able to have relationships with each other without the stigma reduces the imbalance and then the violence automatically.

  • Jafafa Hots

    Well, he understands that you probably love your head wife, but the lower wives are often acquired through bartering with your brothers for some of his female kids. Helps to have extra hands to do chores and more breeding, plus take some of the strain of that most important wifely chore off your head wife (since women aren’t meant to enjoy it anyway…) so she can run the household. It’s a different kind of love that you have for your lesser wives.

  • Sally

    That’s kind of like telling blacks in the 1880’s that, hey you might have been discriminated against and been a slave, but that’s all in the past. Never mind that gang in the white hoods with the rope…they want to be your friends. And hanging isn’t so bad…once there are big trucks, your great great great grandson will face a far worse death.

  • JeffreyRO55

    Exactly, Max Sped. So why is Nevada calling marriage rights for gays “domestic partnerships”?? Isn’t that creating a separate but equal situation, forbidden by the US Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection???

  • Sally

    Ah, but since Mitt’s son has three boys via IVF (did they abort the females) Mitt is now ready to BAN it along with abortion, contraception, and the right to think.

  • JeffreyRO55

    It’s called “homophobia,” and committed homophobes everywhere assume everyone is as bigoted as they are. When you assume that marriage becomes less, not more, attractive to straight couples if gay people can do it, you are a homophobe. And yet he easily could have looked at Massachusetts and seen no decline in straight marriage even as gay marriage is legal. These religionist conservatives are the scum of the earth sometimes.

  • Sally

    If the GOP is successful in banning contraception, THAT will bring down the American population. No way will women agree to be yearly brood mares. I’d live with my best friend before I’d ever marry a man.

  • JeffreyRO55

    The judge erred grievously in trying to tie the state’s interest in marriage to procreation. That’s a conservative/religious talking point, sure, but it fails legally: the US Supreme Court has already ruled that states cannot monitor procreation, in their decisions striking down laws against abortion and birth control. Nevada doesn’t get to defy federal judicial decisions, even if you have Mormon judges. Ironically In fact, marriage doesn’t impact procreation: a straight couple is neither more nor less fertile if they are married. And denying marriage licenses to gay couples, similarly, does not make straight couples more or less fertile, or more or less inclined to have babies.

    The judge issued a decision based, in part, on rationalizing a religious concept, that marriage and procreation are tied together. Epic fail.

  • JeffreyRO55

    My cat just had a litter of six and I’m pretty sure she didn’t get married before she procreated. If she didn’t need marriage in order to procreate (and even if she did, how does the boy cats getting married stop her from marrying and procreating? It makes absolutely no sense, outside of conservatardland!).

  • samizdat

    Oh, to be sure, he does indeed use language readily comprehensible to the average citizen, but the problem–as you note–is the utterly knuckleheaded arguments he uses. That is what is driving me crazy. I’ve only got a high school education, but even I can see through to the transparently bigoted sophistry of his argument. And trying to imagine what goes on inside his head as he gets there…somebody give me an aspirin.

  • A reader in Colorado
  • A reader in Colorado

    Somehow I think they won’t carry through on their threat. After all, Republican men who like rent boys still need their Beards.

  • But who gets to wear the gorgeous wedding gown?

  • “because gay sex is so great everyone” It is true that the GLTBQ communities are far more experienced in matters of sensuality and sex than most repressed little Republican judges.

  • “don’t want to associate with anything of which gays are a part,”–like fashion, architecture, education, literature, Broadway, music, sports, family life, medicine and so on.

  • OK by me—-that’s one way to eliminate future Republican breeders.

  • Judge Jones, himself, is a perfect example for why some hetro couples should not marry and breed. It seems that Neanderthal recessive genes are mostly passed down through Republicans.

  • Stev84

    A lot of marriage equality and DOMA decisions have pretty simply language. Really the only part that drifted entirely into legalese was the standing side track of the Prop 8 case.

  • dirtyboy6

    Nature doesn’t need societal laws for species propagation. Just look at, oh, any species that exists or has existed on earth, mammal or otherwise.

    I think that point alone should render moot anything this bafflingly stupid judge has so far asserted as a reason against gay marriage rights.

  • Indigo

    Gay is good, that’s a fact, but I don’t think we’re that good.

  • HolyMoly

    Better yet, if gay marriage is not legalized nationwide, gay men can steal women away from their hetero boyfriends and marry them. And keep doing so until the nation relents and legalizes gay marriage.

    Not my idea…I saw a YouTube clip somewhere (maybe this site?) about that. Pretty funny, but doable!

  • HolyMoly

    “Gay domino theory.” I like that phrasing. And that is the judge’s line of argument.

    That’s the Fantasyland worldview, where domino theories actually come to fruition. Very recent history offers a real-world example that domino theories are little more than a figment of troubled imaginations.

    I’m referring to the Communist domino theory, particularly in Southeast Asia. According to them, the dominoes should all have fallen and we’d be flying the hammer and sickle in Washington by now. But the reality of the matter is that Vietnam and China are now Communist, and — big shock — they have Most Favored Nation trading status with the U.S. And, by the way, the U.S. still is not Communist.

    So it seems that if gay marriage became universally accepted and sanctioned by law, then many married gay couples will receive Preferred Customer solicitations from one credit card company after another, one department store after another. And, by the way, us heteros will continue to be hetero (and married, and have children).

  • OldeDaveNJ

    One of the weirdest things is how clearly expressed his arguments are, using laypeople’s language. Sometimes judicial decisions are so wrapped in legalese it takes some effort to figure out what is being said. In this case, in point after point, he made arguments that are easy to understand and totally out of touch with reality. I thought the 2006 NY Court of Appeals decision in Hernandez was transparently dumb … basically arguing that gays haven’t suffered enough yet and saying that same-gender couples should continue to be discriminated against so that SSM opponents won’t be made to feel like bigots … but this is even worse.

  • HolyMoly

    The judge didn’t make any “points.” He spouted a bunch of theocratic tripe, and used his position as a judge, where he is tasked with ruling on the law and Constitution, regardless of his personal opinion, and not nonsensical and unprovable hypotheses. His emotional concerns are not a part of his job description either.

    That the human race would simply vanish due to the existence of gay marriage is what one would call a “slippery slope” argument. It’s a logical fallacy and therefore is not legitimate in any debate or discussion on any topic. It’s not a “point.” He’s merely throwing a hypothetical out there that has never occurred and never will, even if gay marriage did become universal.

    But for what it’s worth, I did respond to one of his (what you call) “points” by showing one way in which his thought process is woefully deficient. There are plenty of other ways to demonstrate the inanity of his arguments as well. Here’s his “point”:

    The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women.

    His use of the word “traditional” in this statement is incorrect, as is the slippery slope argument he’s trying to bolster with nonsense.

    Please be more specific about which points you wish to be addressed by enumerating them! I’m sure myself and/or others would be more than happy to address them — and shoot them down.

  • Stev84

    “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

  • cslib

    So, by his reasoning the ruling of Griswold v. Connecticut should be overturned because the state has a vested interest in the perpetuation and contraceptives interfere. Of course I forgot I was talking about Republican of course he believes that he also believes in legitimate rape and the magic uterus that shuts down any pregnancy from rape.

  • Stev84

    The Bible doesn’t mention telephones, so the judge didn’t consider that

  • HolyMoly

    Newsflash for the “judge”: Procreation is not “traditional”…it’s biological. So is the natural desire to survive as an individual and as a species. If the entire human population was gay, the human population would still continue to grow. There’s this thing known as “artificial insemination” that I’ve been told works pretty well. Some might even do it the “traditional” way, to borrow the pseudo-judge’s phrase, because it wouldn’t be about the sex; it would be about creating a new life.

    And if strong family units are vital to the emotional development of children, as the fire-and-brimstone-breathing tele-ministers tell us, then they’d have absolutely nothing to worry about. Children would have a rather large extended family…two moms and two dads, tons of half- brothers and sisters, four times the usual number of grandparents; they’d have aunts, uncles, and cousins too numerous to be counted. And it would be my bet that these would all provide a very reliable support network, as these children would not have come into being for any reason other than that they were WANTED. There wouldn’t be any “mistakes.”

    And since the children are wanted, we come to the issue of abortion. Also one of the right’s big issues, abortion would be dramatically reduced down to rare instances, like life of the mother or rape (since rape is about power and dominance, it would still exist, unfortunately).

    Seems like a win-win situation for the thumpers and snake handlers, if you ask me. Actually, it wouldn’t be so bad for the human species as a whole, either.

  • samizdat

    This is quite possibly one of the most convoluted, roundabout, illogical and incompetent excuses for jurisprudence I’ve seen in my forty-nine years (well, by Monday, anyway) on this Earth. And I’ve read my share of Il Duce Scalia’s frothing drivel. What the Fuck is it with conservatives and their inability to make a cogent and reasonable argument from the bench? Truly, the quoted opinions stretch not only the boundaries of good sense, but the twisted mental gymnastics necessary to acquire his conclusions lead me to question the judge’s ability to carry out his duties. This is the kind of pablum one would have seen from some country judge eighty years ago. And this, this (!), is just a joke: “The institution developed in our society, its predecessor societies, and
    by nearly all societies on Earth throughout history to solidify,
    standardize, and legalize the relationship between a man, a woman, and
    their offspring, is civil marriage between one man and one woman.” Are you fucking kidding me? If the “societies” of which you speak weren’t explicitly non-paternalistic, most women were considered as property, and marriage as we know it today simply didn’t exist.

    Shit, this clown is not only worthy of a Federal judgeship, he should be removed in the quickest manner possible.

    FYI, judge, the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution you’ve been sworn to protect and defend is the only bloody criteria you should have been considering in your deliberations. Your personal feelings regarding marriage/civil unions do not enter into this equation. Especially since they seem to occupy the same time period of the quoted precedent (1888? Seriously?)

    I’ve been trying to wrap my head around this bonehead’s logic, and I simply cannot find any redeemable qualities in his words. Makes my brain hurt.

  • Greg

    He is an idiot

  • OldeDaveNJ

    … except for one minor detail … they are precluded from marrying anybody they might actually be able to fall in love and build a healthy, successful marriage with. Since the whole reason civil marriage benefits/protections exist is to promote the development of healthy, successful marriages … both for the health and well-being of the couples themselves, and that of any kids they might raise … it kind of rips the heart out of the whole reason behind civil marriage.

  • Skeptical Cicada

    And let’s remember, if the reason for banning gay couples from civil marriage is because straight bigots don’t want to associate with anything of which gays are a part, that “rationale” is nothing but catering to prejudice, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly said is not a constitutionally legitimate justification for discrimination.

  • Skeptical Cicada

    Which points would you like responded to? Be specific.

  • hollywoodstein

    The frightening thing is this man and hundreds like him sit in judgment of peoples lives everyday in this country. Who knows what other junk is upstairs in his dusty attic?

  • hollywoodstein

    (though, let’s face it, it would end fabulously), LOL!

  • silas1898

    That’s how it is in Mormon fantasyland.

  • silas1898

    Look who appointed him. Soulmates!

  • Sweetie

    Let’s also not forget that the former PM of Australia made the same claim. These idiots are not only common, they hold some of the highest offices in the world. It really shows how intelligent the human being is capable of being, doesn’t it?


  • Glock Diva

    Wow…what a moron. This reads more like a delusional inmate’s personal journal as opposed to something worthwhile for the public to read. Gee, let’s see what side of the the aisle you walk? Duh!

  • Sweetie


    (the appropriate bumper sticker)

  • Sweetie

    The human race’s chances would be vastly improved if everyone were to “become” gay.

    Gay people don’t have accidental pregnancies when they’re in same-sex marriages. They are quite a lot less likely to contribute to overpopulation.

  • Well, let’s follow this senility: Marriage is the only acceptable means of procreation. Therefore, procreation will not happen without marriage. If marriage expands to exclued procreation, then there will be no more procreation. It sounds like something the god Ronald Reagan would say in more lucid times, or when George W Schrub was more sober!

  • A reader in Colorado

    Please feel free to iterate and ask for direct responses to those points you think relevant. Thank you.

  • Skeptic

    Great job responding to a bunch of points the judge didn’t make and not responding to any of the points that he did make. Bravo.

  • Capracus

    I’m going to hold my breath so as not to be associated with homosexual respiration.

  • Naja pallida

    Sadly, we could allow every gay person who wanted to be married get married tomorrow, and it still wouldn’t help our overpopulation problem at all.

  • Mighty

    Yes because as we all know men and women never ever ever have sex outside of marriage. It just doesn’t happen and therefore the species will die. Yep that is totally the way it will happen. (sarcasm)
    The stupid is so bright it is burning my eyes!

  • HalPri

    Imagine claiming that black people shouldn’t be allowed to vote, because that will make white people treasure the right to vote less. Or, black people can’t eat at lunch counters, because that will devalue the institution of lunch.

    People on blogs can make moronic arguments like this. In court you usually have to have some evidence.

  • Indigo

    It’s a backwards compliment to the gay community that we are so attractive that they must use laws to keep us down because otherwise, everyone would be gay. Well, Mr. Judge Your Honour Sir, we like to think so but it ain’t necessarily so! In fact, Your Honour, that’s stupid!

  • Powkat

    Wait, you mean gay marriage is like legitimate birth control? Straight women can have all the sex they want and not get pregnant as long as they don’t get married? Yet another reason to support gay marriage.

  • He reckons his wife survived a loveless mariage so everyone else should too..

  • Well said. Some people need to be reminded of the obvious.

  • I think he’s worried about being forced to act on pre-existing desires. Because of course he’ll no longer have a choice once it’s legalised.. being a judge and all XD

  • Only the stupid ones will decide not to. And that can only be a good thing.

  • Should that institution…be expanded to include required female consent with the state’s imprimatur, as opposed to the long-standing tradition of dowry-matrimony agreements between the male heads of families, it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of fertile women would cease to surrender and submit to the civil institution as completely as they previously had and…

    (I know, a lot more changed, but the idea of female consent to marriage is relatively new, too, in historical terms.)

  • AdmNaismith

    The human race is in no danger of disappearing because of marriage equality. It is in danger of disappearing when the oceans rise and there no arable land to grow food, but then that’s happening because of overpopulation. So if the population is brought down, gay marriage would be SAVING the human race. See, equality is a good thing.

  • bayhuntr

    This judge gave an oath to his public office,but is following the oath he gave his church, His entire argument comes from Mormon talking points. He couldn’t care less about his public oath, look at Romney, same kind of person, lying for their church is not just allowed, but expected.

  • A reader in Colorado

    I’m sure your Catholic Prof was laughing at that one ;).

    We need fewer people, I’m sure he would agree. We just need more Catholics ;)

    (I have so much more fun playing a right winger.)

  • Gay Marriage: it’s a disaster of Biblical proportions! Old Testament, wrath of God stuff! Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…the dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria! [Oh, Brother, this Judge is off his damm rocker.]

  • UncleBucky

    I wrote that very argument in a biology paper in a Catholic college. Never heard back from the profe on that one. But I did say that if we needed to slake down the population growth and 10% are roughly gay (haha), and perhaps 5-10% of the people do not replicate, we have a good hold on population growith. I think had I voiced that in the 17th century, they would have boiled me in oil. I guess, like Pomponio Algerio.

  • Naja pallida

    Well, I guess his wife should just file for divorce now. Since he’s going to leave her the second he’s able to get some of that gay married.

  • A reader in Colorado

    I was allowing for the Low Tech scenario that would inevitably accompany The End of Days™ that would inevitably accompany the Rise of the Gay Menace.

    No telephones or IVF specialists when Jesus is coming back. I’m afraid we’ll have to rely on the lowly turkey baster. As long as the Risen Jesus approves.

  • I have come to the conclusion that these ignorant bigots and RWNJ’s are smoking mercury rolled in asbestos paper. This is the only explanation for their being such assholes. .

  • Or use those newfangled telephone devices to make an appointment with an IVF specialist.

  • Paul Browne


  • MyrddinWilt

    No the funny part is that I just gay married Judge Robert Jones to Mitt Romney.

    If the mormons can baptize people after death, why can’t I marry ’em while they are alive?

  • EdA

    I suppose one would have to be a Bush appointee, and a believer in the existence of the planet Kolob, not to see any logical fallacy in the belief that the existence of same-sex marriage will deter straight homophobes from having sex and/or that it will encourage them also to adopt birth control in truly staggering numbers.

  • As bad as that part was, there were so many other offensive statements in his decision.

    He actually acknowledged that the intent of the law was to discriminate against lesbian and gay people, and that that makes it okay.

    He also said it isn’t really discrimination because gay men can marry women and lesbians can marry men; that made me realize that we actually value our commitments and romantic relationships more than he does, apparently, since he thinks it’s fine for us to go marry straight people even if we don’t love them.

    He also said that gay people have ‘great political power’ and that if there’s been discrimination against us, it’s all in the past and was never really very bad to begin with.

    His decision was like a textbook example of anti-gay animus — no, it was homophobia, AP be damned — and it seemed to read like a set of NOM or Protect Marriage talking points; in fact, many of his arguments were the very ones Judge Walker heard from the Protect Marriage folks and so ably shot down. This decision is going to be savaged upon appeal at the Ninth Circuit.

  • AnitaMann

    Dogs will sleep with cats! Lambs will schtup lions!

  • I find this opinion of Robert Jones nothing short of amazing. He sets up a possibility that Ozzie and Harriet (to coin some names) might decide not to marry each other because Adam and Steve decided to get married to each other and uses that preposterous example of a mere possibility to support his granting of a motion for summary judgment and finds that would be deleterious to the continuance of the human race as though civil marriage were a a prerequisite to procreation. That’s simply ludicrous on its face. He cites a 19th century case, Maynard v Hill, in support of this preposterous position. Maynard was written by Justice Field who was one of the most ponderous and bloviating man ever to sit on the Court. Its genesis was the Territory of Oregon. The question presented to the court was the authority of the legislative assembly of Oregon to grant divorces by legislative enactment.. Field held in his opinion that authority to grant divorces “a vinculo matrimonii” had always been a legislative prerogative and since Congress when it created the territory of Oregon in 1848 did not expressly deny the power to the assembly that it had it. That was sort of a “we have always done it this way” argument. It is most interesting that the Court was not impressed by the argument of the cukolded wife that she had no notice that her wandering husband who had abandoned her in Ohio and that he had made no provision for her support or the support of their children. Field disposed of this argument simply by saying that because the legislature didn’t tell you it was going outlaw your previously legal conduct was not a defense to the validity of the legislative enactment. I also suspect that since all interested parties are chewing their nails off up their elbows waiting for SCOTUS to decide which if any of the Marriage Cases and/or DOMA cases it is going to hear if this order wasn’t really written by Judge Jones for an intended audience: the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy in deciding whether or not “grant cert” in any of those pending cases. This order is pure trash plain and simple.

  • drdick52

    Mmmmmm. He does know that you do not have to be married to have sex or babies, doesn’t he? This has to be the most bizarre rationale I have seen yet.

  • Gays are entitled to all the legal rights conferred by marriage the same as straights are.

  • A reader in Colorado

    Yes, well, and gay people can’t breed. We’re like a special species of jackalopes, and don’t know how to use turkey basters either.

  • The funny part: This planet doesn’t NEED more people. We need fewer.

  • A reader in Colorado

    I have to admit, the “we won’t have sex or have babies out of spite if gays get anything” theory is new to me. So, points for creativity.

  • OZ_in_OK

    This judge cites a ruling from 1888 as part of his rationale? Seriously?? This is ridiculous in the extreme. When this is appealed (and it will be) the Court of Appeals will laugh their asses off.

  • Or is worried people will find out about his existing decades-long erotic fascination with anal sex…

  • Shorter Judge Robert C. Jones: “I’m an anti-gay bigot and I believe enough heterosexuals are equally bigoted to the point where, out of animus and spite alone, they won’t breed for no other reason than because gay couples and their families are given civil legal protections.”

    I got news for ya, Judge Jones: Humans were breeding long before anybody came up with the stupid idea of letting priests and local chieftains and petty lords decide whether specific categories of marriages would be allowed. And judging from unmarried teen and adult sexual activity rates, that’s in no danger of changing now or forevermore.

    Gawd, what an effin’ moron…

  • Really? In the 21st century this is still an issue in a civilized country? Oh wait, civilized? Nevermind.

  • mirror

    There seems to be essentially zero legal reasoning here.

  • benb

    Should that institution… be expanded to include INTERRACIAL 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 …”

  • SkippyFlipjack

    Unsolicited two cents: I think the rich text formatting capabilities of the new site has made these longer posts less readable. There’s confusing indenting (caused in part by the first ad), multiple fonts, bold, underline, stock images, extensive block quotes and scribd inline documents, along with a slightly meandering argument. It feels like a lot of the posts have been like this recently, but I’m not sure if I’m reacting to the styling or the content.

  • A reader in Colorado

    No no no. Judge Jones has it wrong.

    The way this went in the past was like this:

    If gay marriage is allowed, then that is giving public approval to gays. If gay people get approval, then everyone will want to be gay, because gay sex is so great everyone wants gay sex and is just afraid to admit it. So if gays are approved of, that is approving of gay sex, and that just makes it so everyone will have and want only gay sex.

    When everyone is having gay sex and the children are turned gay because seeing gay people unattacked for being gay makes them gay, the only people getting married will be gay people, and the human race will only THEN die out, because everyone’s gay, the children are gay and the only straight ones remaining will be too few in numbers to replace the human population.

    Kinda like the falling gay domino theory. I do agree with this theory, at least inasmuch as I agree that gay sex is great.

    I don’t understand why these people can’t keep their story straight. So to speak.

  • This judge is a fucking idiot. I supposed he is worried that his wife with leave him for another women if gay marriage is allowed. Or is he worried that he will suddenly get a desire to receive anal sex.

© 2017 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS