[Judge Jones' ruling is one of the clearest I have read in a long time, it explains that homosexuals are not prevented from marrying, they simply have to follow the same laws as everyone else. "Like heterosexual persons, they may not marry members of the same sex".]

A very poor argument. Presumably you agree that mixed race couples never faced discrimination prior to miscegenation, given that members of those relationships were free to marry people of the same race?

[Importantly, the argument that homosexuals have been denied rights like oppresses classes of individuals in the past, and on which Gerber, predictably focuses on above, is taken to bits in the judgement "Homosexuals have not historically been denied the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, or the right to own property".]

That citizens have not been discriminated against in some areas of law does not excuse discrimination against them in others. "Hey - we let you ride the bus. Now you're saying you want to be able to sit near the front?"

["The protection of the traditional institution of marriage, which is a conceivable basis for the distinction in this case, is a legitimate state interest"]

What marriage is being 'protected' from, or how marriage equality presents any meaningful 'threat' has never been explained. Perhaps you could be the first person to make a coherent argument as to how marriage equality impacts upon existing or future heterosexual marriages?

Thank you Sammy for your comment. Please read the whole judgement before you take the trouble of commenting. You will see that Nevada recognises domestic partnerships and accords to homosexual couples the same civil rights which married couples hold. So your observations are out of context because the judgement is not principally about a 'right' to marry, but whether the premises upon which homosexual demands for special rights are warranted.
I am curious, have you paused to consider why Gerber did not mention this judgement? It would be interesting to know what other people think of it.

Sorry Sammy, I neglected to reply to your question/proposition regarding me being the first person to explain in what ways the SSM would harm marriage. The Jones judgement explains it in his ruling. I have provided my point of view on other threads on this website, for instance here:
https://theconversation.edu.au/the-same-sex-marriage-implications-for-australia-from-the-us-election-and-abroad-10672
However, there are thousands of succinct and much better articulated arguments than I could write which are easily accessible on the net. Here's one to start you off in your search if you are indeed interested in learning what the other side in this debate has to say on the issue. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/gay_marriage_the_hidden_agenda.html Don't rely on websites such as the one we are on at the moment to provide a balanced view

Dania - you state "Don't rely on websites such as the one we are on at the moment to provide a balanced view"

Then you provide a link to American Thinker. Should we expect to find balance there?

Dania - Why would you expect that the author of this piece would include in discussion (of just a few hundred words) the Nevada case when they are largely discussing the Supreme Court, DOMA and proposition 8?

The Nevada case may in fact - as you suggest, be considered at some point, but in the Proposition 8 case this is unlikely as it will consider the constitutionality of the Californian legislation, and in the DOMA case, federal legislation.

You seem to ask for a lot of unrelated detail from an author with a word limit.

Commenters such as Dania Ng cry for greater balance, but then, by disguising their own ideological views in some sort of legal/rational framework, fail to provide that balance.

Many people in our society have strong views about the expression of sexuality - arising from their religion, family or culture - or all three. Each of us is free to live our lives to these values - extra-marital and same-sex sexual activity is by no means compulsory. Indeed, same-sex relationships still incur judgement and derision from many corners.

If someone holding these values wants to contribute honestly to the debate, they could say that their religion/ideology prevents them from seeing homosexuality as a legitimate human orientation, and that they see same-sex sexual activity as morally wrong. People can legitimately hold these views while living a productive life in Australian society.

There is no point, however, wasting comment inches in trying to dress up these ideological views in some sort of rational framework - they are not rational.

Many of us hold on to views, superstitions, fears and biases that are not rational, but are the product of our upbringing or culture. The error, however, is to try to defend them logically, when they do not proceed from logic.

Grendelus Malleolus "Then you provide a link to American Thinker. Should we expect to find balance there?" The point is that it is a differing view, and I would say vastly more balanced that those presented here on this topical issue. The other point is that some of us read both sides of the argument. The final point is that this here publication is the site I cited, as I noted, funded (unlike the site I cited) at least partially by public funds. It is consistently representing one side, and consistently pushes private interest views and activist groups, thus most likely infringing various communication laws in not representing views on important and current social issues impartially. So it is irrelevant whether the American Thinker is impartial (though, have you seen the bios of the editors and contributors?), the point is that we have to go to sites like it to gain an idea of opposing views. The editorial board at The Conversation, understanding full well that they are funded by universities (its URL indicates where it stands) have an obligation to ensure that it's publication provides alternative views, whatever its private stance on issues of significance. I know they have been contacted and queried about it, their response being that they can't find anyone who will write for them and articulate opposing views, which is of course a very hard to believe statement. If I was the chief editor, I would personally approach eminent scholars who have articulated the case against SSM, for instance. I very much doubt that this was done. So The Conversation has become a political communication instrument for homosexualist activists - and it uses public funds to do this?
Grendelus Malleolus "You seem to ask for a lot of unrelated detail from an author with a word limit" . No, I am asking for a balanced analysis. I have shown how it is not such a thing. Activism, by its very nature, exaggerates whatever its advantageous to it and leaves out whatever happens to throw doubt on its agenda.
Sue Ieraci "Many of us hold on to views, superstitions, fears and biases that are not rational, but are the product of our upbringing or culture. The error, however, is to try to defend them logically, when they do not proceed from logic". There is not one millimeter of column space dedicated to logic in your posting, Sue. All you use the space for is to simply attempt to represent fact-backed statements as ideology, superstition, culture. You may think that I am using some or all of the above to back as the only basis for what I have said. But this is clearly not the case because I have linked to nothing less than a court decision which contradict some of the points raised in Gerber's article. Apart from your own ideological perspective, what evidence do you base your arguments on, Sue? By the way, thank you for supporting tolerance of various perspectives regardless of differences, a stance I gladly agree with.

[ You will see that Nevada recognises domestic partnerships and accords to homosexual couples the same civil rights which married couples hold.]

The good old 'separate but equal' position? Would you be alright with separate drinking fountains for people of colour? I mean, they get access to water don't they?

[ ...regarding me being the first person to explain in what ways the SSM would harm marriage. The Jones judgement explains it in his ruling.]

Surely, if the argument that SSM will harm 'traditional' marriages is solid, you could provide us with a clear and concise summary? I've been following this argument for about a decade now, and no one has ever been able to offer anything more than the assertion that SSM will somehow disrupt 'the vibe' of heterosexual marriages. Rather than me wading through your previous posts on the topic, perhaps you would be prepared to cut-and-paste your argument here?

[ However, there are thousands of succinct and much better articulated arguments than I could write which are easily accessible on the net. Here's one to start you off in your search if you are indeed interested in learning what the other side in this debate has to say on the issue.]

Let me get this straight - you suggest that there are "thousands of succinct and much better articulated arguments" for how SSM damages 'traditional' marriages, and you direct us to that particular article in the American Thinker(sic)? If that's the best you have, I suggest you quit now.

Sammy Jankis .
"The good old 'separate but equal' position? Would you be alright with separate drinking fountains for people of colour? I mean, they get access to water don't they?"
and
"Surely, if the argument that SSM will harm 'traditional' marriages is solid, you could provide us with a clear and concise summary?"
etc., etc.
Your statements are self explanatory. If you can't be bothered to read the sources I have provided, or inform yourself, and you want individuals to 'summarise' their argument for you just as you please, you need to reconsider whether to give up, not I. So my shorty answer is: No, I will not do your work for you; no, I won't 'bite' in response to your demeaning and racist comments; no, I won't give up. And no, I won't give you any more of my time. Welcome to the spamming/jamming corps, your nonsensical and racist remarks fit remarkably well with what they stand for, Sammy.

Dania,

"American Thinker is impartial"

LOL

It is privately owned - and thus is subject to the direct influence of the owners. It is partisan - and explicately so, representing a conservative social and political view.

On their website they state: "American Thinker welcomes donations from our readers. Because we reserve the right to be partisan, we do not qualify for tax exempt nonprofit organization status. We made the decision early on that speaking our minds is more important than any tax benefit could be. Regrettably, your donation to American Thinker will not be tax deductible."

Grendelus Malleolus states, 'Dania, "American Thinker is impartial" LOL...'
Here's what I actually wrote: "So it is irrelevant whether the American Thinker is impartial..."
I rest my case. It's just so sad that there are so many examples of this sort of unethical individuals trolling here.

My apologies - my cut and paste should have included "it is irrelevant whether the American Thinker is impartial"

but my point stands - you imply that it is by stating "though, have you seen the bios of the editors and contributors?" and yes, I have.

In your original link you also implied that by going to American Thinker we would find balance.

Not so, we find a different opinon but reading both does not equal balance since the article above discusses the Supreme Court and the constitutional issues around DOMA and Proposition 8.

The American Thinker does not address constitutional issues at all but is essentially a setting out of a conservative position of the slippery slope and inevitable slide into chaos that will occur if homosexuals are allowed to legally marry.

They are not comparable works and reading one does not balance the other.

If you want a comparable, but less liberal discussion (a Republican blogger) - you might try this one for balance: http://crybelovedcountry.com/2012/11/scotus-and-gay-marriage/#more-3961

Grendelus Malleolus. No worries, we all make mistakes when copying and pasting. But I feel you're still misrepresenting me. I linked to the American Thinker website in response to Sammy Jankis' request to explain in what ways would SSM affect traditional marriage. The site was chosen at random from my resources, but I can provide others and indeed I have provided links to copious resources on this topic elsewhere. But we would digress too much if I begun repeating myself in this thread on a somewhat irrelevant point. The side comment I made about the bios of the editors was to highlight the fact that the publication is, by any standard, a better quality one among the ones arguing for the 'other' side. But if you'd rather discuss the efficacy and veracity of such arguments we can enter into a separate discussion on that. We could perhaps begin with comparing like with like - so comparing the opinions expressed on a professionally edited website like the American Thinker with entries on a personal blog (as the one you suggested) may not be the way to go?

Robin Bell "But in the abscence of a bill of rights, and only some vague religion based consitutional chatter as a guide, our High Court is far more maverick than the US Federal Courts" -- I couldn't put it better, Robin. I appreciate your comment, thank you very much.

[ If you can't be bothered to read the sources I have provided, or inform yourself, and you want individuals to 'summarise' their argument for you just as you please, you need to reconsider whether to give up, not I.]

Stop being lazy. Just tell me why you think SSM will damage existing heterosexual marriages.

[ I won't 'bite' in response to your demeaning and racist comments]

Which of my comments were racist?

Seriously, you'll have to do better than your American Thinker article. It's nothing more than the vague rhetoric of insidious "homosexual agendas", the preposterous suggestion that SSM is "devised to corrode the very core of a healthy society", the false dichotomy that what's proposed is the replacement of 'traditional' marriage with SSM, the laughable assertion that marriage is what allows the species the perpetuate (how SSM prevents heterosexuals from reproducing is never explained), and the standard lunar right labeling of their opponents as "socialist revolutionaries", "radical leftists", "gay militants" on a "Great March".

You link to this nonsense and then get upset when you're no taken seriously. How SSM actually impacts upon heterosexual marriages is never actually explained - it is merely asserted.