Here is the latest piece of dishonesty by the New York Times. Key paragraphs:
On the merits of the case, the best supporters could come up with to justify the marriage ban was a tired, and thoroughly specious, assertion that treating gay people differently when it comes to marriage does not offend the Constitution because “sexual relationships between men and women naturally produce children.”
Arguing to uphold Judge Walker’s decision, Theodore Olson, who was solicitor general under President George W. Bush, kept trying to bring the panel back to the grievous harm inflicted on same-sex couples and their families by refusing to allow them to marry, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly said is the most fundamental relationship in life.
When the Supreme Court called marriage a fundamental relationship, it was, of course, referring to heterosexual marriage. It was not referring to marriage between a person and a thing; it was not referring to marriage between a person and a companion animal; it was not referring to marriage between an adult and a child; it was not referring to marriage between three or more persons; and it was emphatically not referring to marriage between two men or two women.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 