same sex marriage

[Big Blocker]

I dont care about religion, I thought I was clear on that. Anything that religion touches generally turns to shit. We are talking about marriage as a LEGAL term.

Your argument implies there is no overlap between the two concepts, and that they must be completely distinct. this is not accurate - the religious view of marriage informs the state's civil definition of it.

This is not the least bit strange or limited to this issue. The penal code is full of similar elements that involve the same kind of overlapping concepts. Thou shalt not kill, for example, corresponds to laws against murder.

I know binary thinking is very appealing to people who want simple solutions, but the real world is a bit more complex than that.

[Big Blocker]

I prefer the term "ignorant bigot", but since semantics is at the heart of your argument, I won't split hairs.

The value to society is in the commitment to a familial unit. There are studies showing that having a monogamous significant other increases positive choices in life, and thus more positive outcomes. Therein is the benefit to our society. It really is in our best interest to encourage all types of relationships in which the partners are forced to think beyond just themselves regardless of individual makeup.




I am not advocating a single-sex race, which is what this argument appears to imply. I am merely pointing out the benefits of having two independent human beings take vows to act as one and all the positive decisions that that state of mind creates. To deny that is to ignore basic human psychology.

To your credit you offer arguments why as a policy matter the government should consider granting some kind of legal status to gay unions, but you really did not counter Blue's argument that society finds value in straight unions. I agree with his point that given the differences between men and women, along with the point i made earlier that children raised in a family benefit from having role models from both sexes, that society DOES have a rational basis for valuing marriage as between a man and a woman.

Your arguments are plausible, although imo they do not come near requring society to accept gay marriage as equal to straight marriage. Perhaps some middle ground will adequately cover your points, such as recognized civil unions and that sort of thing.

But the main point regarding your arguments is that they really are not ones that lead to constitutionally required results of forcing the acceptance of gay marriage on equal protection grounds, instead being ones that a legislature perhaps should consider, but should not be required to accept.

[Big Blocker]

Those goodies come regardless of marital status.

The marital benefits are extended regardless of child-bearing.

I know you're too smart to not see this, which leads me to believe you're flailing here...and badly.


Even implying that when two atheists get married in this country, it harkens back to what some puny self-important tribe in the desert was espousing 5000 years ago really shows the lack of any good counter argument you have to present.

Quite obviously you are ignoring the child tax credit, which DOES give a benefit to couples having children that childless couples do not receive.

[Big Blocker]

My wife and I have been married for six years. We don't have children, nor do we wish or intend to. Given you have shown evidence that marriage is "expected to fulfill the commandment to have children", does that mean that we are now also banned from using the word "marriage" and should henceforth only refer to our lifelong commitment to each other as a "civil union" or other state-determined terminology?

This has been answered before. There is nothing irrational about the state creating the institution of marriage as available to couples wishing to enter into it who, for the most part if not in every case, in fact do have children and proceed to raise them. Your point is a red herring.

[fenwyr]

of course you prefer it, because you can only counter your opposition by turning your opposition into an easily defeatable caricature rather than deal with the reality of them. it would be one thing if you called me simply a bigot, but logic isn't at the heart of your criticism and it isn't sensational enough, and doesn't evoke the emotion you are being driven by. so, you had to throw in ignorant, despite the fact that my position doesn't reflect any sort of lack of knowledge at all, unless you are going to claim that believing in a right and wrong of human sexuality equates to ignorant. I'd like t o hear your argument in that regards if that is where you are going with it.

no, you are actually ignoring human psychology. you talk familial units, but ignore the fact that boys and girls growing up need the parent of their same sex for guidance in experiences that the opposite sex does not have, thus cannot provide. no man, gay or straight, can relate to the experience of a teenage girl, and likewise for a woman and a teenage boy. you're going to tell me a father can relate to his daughter during her period and menstrual cramps? sorry, doesn't work that way. and that is just the most simple example.

at many points in our lives, boys need the guidance only a father can provide, and vice versa for a girl, and a same sex couple cannot provide that. you talk about familial units and psychology, but how can you do so and ignore something so basic to each. hence why a straight, monogamous relationship provides more value than a homosexual one. I know, I just said something very mean, that someone's relationship has more value than another couple's relationship. what an ignorant bigot I am because not all things are equal, and just because someone does something it doesn't mean that something must be right. does the whole world need orange slices and Capri Sun?

So you are basically saying that I should have been taken away from my single mother and placed with a married hetero couple.

[JetBlue]

There is actual ignorance, and then there is willful ignorance. I chose to use the term as it applies to the latter. Play with semantics all you want, but not being able to understand that a cohesive couple makes better decisions as they pertain to their own well-being, and as a result, society at large, is willful ignorance at its best.
there is no ignorance at all in this matter, because I'm not ignoring anything. and there is nothing about my argument that is dependent upon semantics. seems you just found a new word and are eager to use it, even though it doesn't apply. I'm not attempting to confuse your argument by using a different word. your argument, on the other hand, is ignorant willfully, because you simply only want to acknowledge the elements that defend your position but completely ignore the additional elements that dispute it.

Regardless of the child issue, which is another debate entirely, we have been speaking of the legal union between two consenting adults and its perceived benefits and detriments. Your stance that "you are right and they are wrong" is just about one of the most base arguments one can make. Why not actually address the issue and tell me exactly what detriment it is to the greater functioning of society if that union is between two people of the same sex?

There is no need for you to creatively interpret my argument as I have stated it pretty plainly...and nowhere in there did I say anything about raising children, so throw that stack of straw away and try again. Allowing same-sex couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples has no societal drawbacks, save for ignorant bigoted whining, and all the advantages as I have previously stated. It is psychological fact that people in a committed relationship make less selfish decisions and are more apt to consider the full weight of the consequences of their actions. This in turn fosters a better society in which to live.

It's unfortunate that your delicate sensibilities don't allow you to see that, but as we move forward in time and the world collective starts to look outside of its boxes, you will see that ancient superstitions and the need to feel better about yourself by putting down those around who are different are what is truly detrimental to the evolution of our species.
no, the children become relevant when you claim same sex couples are equal to straight couples in value. they aren't, because they don't create the complete familial experience. adding children doesn't make my argument a straw man, it simply applies your argument to a broader situation. seems ignorance is causing confusion on your part about what that is. simply because you don't want to accept that doesn't make the argument a straw man, because I am not reframing your argument in a biased way. I presented an additional element, children, that revealed they aren't. it is ignorant or dishonest to ignore that. you see, your argument is actually bigger than you want to acknowledge because to do so would force you to admit its flaws.

[JetBlue]

So you are basically saying that I should have been taken away from my single mother and placed with a married hetero couple.

see, this is a straw man. perhaps you should start thinking logically about what I said, and nowhere did I advocate taking children away as part of the issue. well done. we are talking about value, and there is no doubt that married couples provide a more complete experience than a single parent, and are thus provide more value. perhaps if you weren't so emotional you could see that simple premise.

[Big Blocker]

There is actual ignorance, and then there is willful ignorance. I chose to use the term as it applies to the latter. Play with semantics all you want, but not being able to understand that a cohesive couple makes better decisions as they pertain to their own well-being, and as a result, society at large, is willful ignorance at its best.

Regardless of the child issue, which is another debate entirely, we have been speaking of the legal union between two consenting adults and its perceived benefits and detriments. Your stance that "you are right and they are wrong" is just about one of the most base arguments one can make. Why not actually address the issue and tell me exactly what detriment it is to the greater functioning of society if that union is between two people of the same sex?

There is no need for you to creatively interpret my argument as I have stated it pretty plainly...and nowhere in there did I say anything about raising children, so throw that stack of straw away and try again. Allowing same-sex couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples has no societal drawbacks, save for ignorant bigoted whining, and all the advantages as I have previously stated. It is psychological fact that people in a committed relationship make less selfish decisions and are more apt to consider the full weight of the consequences of their actions. This in turn fosters a better society in which to live.

It's unfortunate that your delicate sensibilities don't allow you to see that, but as we move forward in time and the world collective starts to look outside of its boxes, you will see that ancient superstitions and the need to feel better about yourself by putting down those around who are different are what is truly detrimental to the evolution of our species.

We have been having a mostly civil discussion here for the last couple of days, and your relatively harsh and aggressive tone tempts me to wonder why seeem to take this issue so personally. But we can proceed on the merits despite that temptation.

Again, that there is a purported benefit to society of recognizing committed gay relationships may in fact be the case, but that does not require society to label such arrangements with the same term and equal treatment as straight marriages. Nor does consideration of such a benefit, even if it exists, require a constitutionally imposed outcome contrary to the laws adopted by the legislature. You are making a policy argument, which is fine, but only takes you so far.

Your next point alleges that there are no drawbacks to allowing the same benefits to gay unions as to straight marriages. This is defective in two respects. First of all it is factually incorrect. If society with a rational basis (as I believe Blue's argument provides) determines that straight marriages have benefits to society that are (even if minimally) not found in gay unions, then whatever benefits given to gay unions will, by definition, have less beneficial effect to society as a whole.

But the second objetion is more significant. The benefits you describe have a cost that either increases as benefits are extended to gay unions, adding to the overall cost of extending such benefit, or the amount of benefit extended each straight marriage must be lessened in order to avoid raising the overall cost of such extension.

Other than these two obvious counter arguments, there is also the fact, although this is concededly a more general and diffuse point, that society wants to label straight relationships with the term marriage to honor it with a level of veneration that it does not choose to accord gay unions. Again, I think it has a rational basis for doing so which is defeated if the term is used to apply to gay unions which society does not think should be equally venerated.

Regarding your more general point, by focusing on the supposed benefits of having gays in committed unions, you completely ignore the value to society of having children born and raised into families headed by members of both sexes. You may disagree all you want that there is any such benefit. I think that there is should be obvious, and this has been previously described by Blue, and it is not to your credit that you ignore his point. It should be obvious that a child of the sex opposite to his same sex parents will lack something at some point, and this is not an insignificant point.

The bottom line is society has the right to see straight marriages as superior unions for the important societal purpose of raising children. This is a conclusion that does not require bigotry to reach it. Your bleating about bigotry is not helpful to your argument, and does not defeat this point.

[Big Blocker]

no, the children become relevant when you claim same sex couples are equal to straight couples in value. they aren't, because they don't create the complete familial experience. adding children doesn't make my argument a straw man, it simply applies your argument to a broader situation. seems ignorance is causing confusion on your part about what that is. simply because you don't want to accept that doesn't make the argument a straw man, because I am not reframing your argument in a biased way. I presented an additional element, children, that revealed they aren't. it is ignorant or dishonest to ignore that. you see, your argument is actually bigger than you want to acknowledge because to do so would force you to admit its flaws.

Exactly.

He wants to argue the benefits to society of strengthened gay unions. The issue is not limited to the strength of couple's relationships. Society has an interest in how children are raised. Adding that element provides the rational basis for distinguishing between straight marriages and gay unions, which is why as a rhetorical device he ignores it.

[Hobbes3259]

I'm just going to suggest that Hobbes probably does think this way.


That's because you're an idiot.

Look...let's be very clear what this is about.

This is not about the right of two people to live together, commingle funds, file taxes and leave property and have hospital visitation.

Wherever Civil Unions enforcing the same rights are broached, it's rejected by the parties that claim to value those rights.


This is about an extreme left position, that seeks to take a very specific term, with
deep spiritual connotations to a large majority of this countries citizens, and in their eyes pervert it.

Period.

And it's wrong and deeply offensive to any right thinking person.


I am as conservative as you get. You know that.

I fully support the rights of any two people to live together in misery as they see fit, and enjoy the same privleges and heartaches that commitment entails.


But this is not that, this is a nasty, almost evil argument over SEMANTICS.

The enlightened left refers to it as 'the right to self define'.

As long as it's pursued in this context it will always fail, and the ones that will suffer are the people who just want to be together and be left alone.

More victims of the intellectual lefts intransigence.




And given you impart that thought because of my fairly rightward leanings, that makes you a bigot as well.

And someone whose bigotry precludes him from understanding clearly the Libertarian/Conservative spectrum.

[fenwyr]

Your argument implies there is no overlap between the two concepts, and that they must be completely distinct. this is not accurate - the religious view of marriage informs the state's civil definition of it.

This is not the least bit strange or limited to this issue. The penal code is full of similar elements that involve the same kind of overlapping concepts. Thou shalt not kill, for example, corresponds to laws against murder.

I know binary thinking is very appealing to people who want simple solutions, but the real world is a bit more complex than that.

Separation of church and state. We do not need religion to tell us that murder is wrong. I'm sorry if you were raised to think otherwise.

[fenwyr]

This has been answered before. There is nothing irrational about the state creating the institution of marriage as available to couples wishing to enter into it who, for the most part if not in every case, in fact do have children and proceed to raise them. Your point is a red herring.

No, it's really not. Some of us get married because we love each other, and for no other reason. I'd wager 99% of married couple didn't get married just to have children.

[fenwyr]

see, this is a straw man. perhaps you should start thinking logically about what I said, and nowhere did I advocate taking children away as part of the issue. well done. we are talking about value, and there is no doubt that married couples provide a more complete experience than a single parent, and are thus provide more value. perhaps if you weren't so emotional you could see that simple premise.

Actually, I am the one being logical. None of your arguments have even sniffed the concept.

[fenwyr]

there is no ignorance at all in this matter, because I'm not ignoring anything. and there is nothing about my argument that is dependent upon semantics. seems you just found a new word and are eager to use it, even though it doesn't apply. I'm not attempting to confuse your argument by using a different word. your argument, on the other hand, is ignorant willfully, because you simply only want to acknowledge the elements that defend your position but completely ignore the additional elements that dispute it.

no, the children become relevant when you claim same sex couples are equal to straight couples in value. they aren't, because they don't create the complete familial experience. adding children doesn't make my argument a straw man, it simply applies your argument to a broader situation. seems ignorance is causing confusion on your part about what that is. simply because you don't want to accept that doesn't make the argument a straw man, because I am not reframing your argument in a biased way. I presented an additional element, children, that revealed they aren't. it is ignorant or dishonest to ignore that. you see, your argument is actually bigger than you want to acknowledge because to do so would force you to admit its flaws.

Were your parents divorced when you were very young? If not, you really just need to stop trying to understand.

[kbgreen]

Were your parents divorced when you were very young? If not, you really just need to stop trying to understand.

He is not saying that you cannot grow up and be normal or successful being from a single parent home (or a same sex couple home) just that the odds are better if you do.

I, like you came from a split home and see his point, it would have easier if my parents raised me together because there are several things about life that I had to learn through hard knocks instead of learning them through watching my dad.

[Big Blocker]

Separation of church and state. We do not need religion to tell us that murder is wrong. I'm sorry if you were raised to think otherwise.

YOu don't understand the concept of separation of church and state. That concept does not require ignorance about religion or ignoring religious considerations when laws are adopted.

[Big Blocker]

No, it's really not. Some of us get married because we love each other, and for no other reason. I'd wager 99% of married couple didn't get married just to have children.

Again, what some couples do doesn;t mean that most couples have children, and society is entitled to create the institution before children enter the picture knowing that most will. I wonder what you think your point is.

[fenwyr]

YOu don't understand the concept of separation of church and state. That concept does not require ignorance about religion or ignoring religious considerations when laws are adopted.

No, you don't understand. While an openly atheist politician will never be president during my lifetime, unfortunately, the entire concept of freedom of religion makes it imperative that religion not impact law. It may not have worked out that way, but that was clearly the intent.

[Hobbes3259]

No, you don't understand. While an openly atheist politician will never be president during my lifetime, unfortunately, the entire concept of freedom of religion makes it imperative that religion not impact law. It may not have worked out that way, but that was clearly the intent.

Big Blocker is correct.

You misunderstand the premise....

Freedom FROM Religion was never contemplated.

Federal Coercion of Religion was verboten.

[fenwyr]

Again, what some couples do doesn;t mean that most couples have children, and society is entitled to create the institution before children enter the picture knowing that most will. I wonder what you think your point is.

Considering your post makes almost 0 sense, I'm not sure what your point is.

Marriage is a bond between 2 people that want to spend their lives together. That is the long and short of it.

Children are not a direct result of that, as unmarried couples have children all the time, and married couples choose not to have children all the time. Those unmarried couples get the same tax credits that married couples do for those children. In the eyes of the law, children have nothing to do with marriage. If you want to dispute that, have at it.

[fenwyr]

Big Blocker is correct.

You misunderstand the premise....

Freedom FROM Religion was never contemplated.

Federal Coercion of Religion was verboten.

Are you really not getting the irony here BB?

[GBA]

No, you don't understand. While an openly atheist politician will never be president during my lifetime, unfortunately, the entire concept of freedom of religion makes it imperative that religion not impact law. It may not have worked out that way, but that was clearly the intent.

No, that's not how it works at all, nor was that how it was "intended" to work. Freedom of religion is exactly that.. people are free to practice their religion without their customs being infringed upon and without government persecution. THAT'S IT.

This is a democratic society.. the decision of the majority influences law and social norms. People's beliefs dictate their decisions, ergo religion influences law. It is unavoidable. The freedom of religion simply ensures the sphere of influence of a particular religion will not become so large as to ostracize and infringe the religious rights of others.

[Sundayjack]

I have a couple questions that got a lot of play in the Prop 8 case by experts on both sides:

If marriage was instituted and has traditionally existed as a man-woman relationship, does allowing same sex marriage change the fundamental nature of that relationship? That is to say - if you take an Oldsmobile and repair it with Buick parts, do you still have an Oldsmobile? Or do you have something else?
Sort of a metaphysical look at the issue, but that leads to a different issue and a bigger question:
Since gay marriage is a relatively new concept to society, we don't really have a lot of data on the effects of gay marriage on society. Is it rational or not to maintain the tradition as presently defined simply because we don't know what would happen in the abstract?

[fenwyr]

No, that's not how it works at all, nor was that how it was "intended" to work. Freedom of religion is exactly that.. people are free to practice their religion without their customs being infringed upon and without government persecution. THAT'S IT.

This is a democratic society.. the decision of the majority influences law and social norms. People's beliefs dictate their decisions, ergo religion influences law. It is unavoidable. The freedom of religion simply ensures the sphere of influence of a particular religion will not become so large as to ostracize and infringe the religious rights of others.

Well my god (To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.) tells me marriage should be about love between two people.

I wish I could live long enough for the mass awakening.

Any law influenced by religion should be stricken from the books. Laws should be based on logic and common sense, unhindered by mythology.

[fenwyr]

I have a couple questions that got a lot of play in the Prop 8 case by experts on both sides:

If marriage was instituted and has traditionally existed as a man-woman relationship, does allowing same sex marriage change the fundamental nature of that relationship? That is to say - if you take an Oldsmobile and repair it with Buick parts, do you still have an Oldsmobile? Or do you have something else?
Sort of a metaphysical look at the issue, but that leads to a different issue and a bigger question:
Since gay marriage is a relatively new concept to society, we don't really have a lot of data on the effects of gay marriage on society. Is it rational or not to maintain the tradition as presently defined simply because we don't know what would happen in the abstract?

While I like the thoughtiness those give me, I think they distract from the basic point.

We always tend to over complicate things.

[Johnny English]

we are talking about value, and there is no doubt that married couples provide a more complete experience than a single parent,

OK, I can accept that. So, if we accept that all of the heterosexual married couples that are going to have children have them, be that through natural course or adoption, then we're still left with a surfeit of children. What do you want to do with them? You think the state is a better carer than a committed, loving same sex couple?

Also, you seem to be stuck on this idea that if same sex couples can't marry they'll see the error of their ways and find themselves a nice member of the opposite gender to cuddle up and have puppies with.

[Sundayjack]

While I like the thoughtiness those give me, I think they distract from the basic point.

We always tend to over complicate things.

But those are the questions - among others - that are being played out right now. And when gays are allowed to get "married" or have "civil unions" it seems that it will revolve around those questions.

[Johnny English]

But those are the questions - among others - that are being played out right now. And when gays are allowed to get "married" or have "civil unions" it seems that it will revolve around those questions.

I'm not sure the first question is reasonable. Your original Oldsmobile is unaffected, you're actually just asking Oldsmobile to make a coupe as well as a sedan. An addition to the Oldsmobile line doesn't affect the suitability of the original model to do the job for which you bought it.

[fenwyr]

But those are the questions - among others - that are being played out right now. And when gays are allowed to get "married" or have "civil unions" it seems that it will revolve around those questions.

I know you are a well read, thoughtful guy. But do you disagree that we, not just as Americans, but as a species tend to over complicate things?

[kbgreen]

Well my god (To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.) tells me marriage should be about love between two people.

I wish I could live long enough for the mass awakening.

Any law influenced by religion should be stricken from the books. Laws should be based on logic and common sense, unhindered by mythology.

That's just foolish!

First, there is alot of crossover between religious ideals and commom sense.

Second, most religions help create a moral, charitable, safer, kinder, selfless society. If that has influanced our laws then we are better for it.

Just because you do not believe in something does not mean it has not helped make the society you live in better.

[Sundayjack]

I know you are a well read, thoughtful guy. But do you disagree that we, not just as Americans, but as a species tend to over complicate things?

Yeah, maybe, but this is a discussion thread and those are points on the front lines of the battlefield on this issue. If we want to keep things REALLY simple, I'd point out that 52% of California voters voted not to expand their definition of marriage to include gay relationships. If people want to overcome that very simple and plain fact, they have to engage in complicated discussion.

[Hobbes3259]

Are you really not getting the irony here BB?

He and I agree on most of this discussion (including the fact that the crux of the issue, is VERBIAGE, not considerations), and the Irony of that has not been lost on either of us.

[JetBlue]

Actually, I am the one being logical. None of your arguments have even sniffed the concept.

no, your straw man challenge, by definition, is illogical. I detailed that out. the fact that you haven't defined what is illogical about my post, simply declared it so, reveals you can't and aren't interested in logical discourse. if you were, you wouldn't have been dishonest in your dispute of my position which had nothing to do with what you attempted to make it.

[JetBlue]

Were your parents divorced when you were very young? If not, you really just need to stop trying to understand.

poor, poor fenwyr.

[JetBlue]

OK, I can accept that. So, if we accept that all of the heterosexual married couples that are going to have children have them, be that through natural course or adoption, then we're still left with a surfeit of children. What do you want to do with them? You think the state is a better carer than a committed, loving same sex couple?

Also, you seem to be stuck on this idea that if same sex couples can't marry they'll see the error of their ways and find themselves a nice member of the opposite gender to cuddle up and have puppies with.

no, my argument in no way expanded into the idea that homosexuals shouldn't have children, it was simply that if they do they inherently are at a shortcoming in their ability as a pair to rear a child in many respects, not that they are incapable of being loving, caring and even good parents. thus, by that mere fact a straight couple provides more value when at its best than a gay couple. and if the argument for gay marriage is that they are equally as valuable as a straight marriage, than that argument is flawed and that consideration for homosexual marriage is very, very weak.

and my argument in no way even attempts to claim that homosexuals will choose to behave like straight people if the option of gay marriage isn't available. if that were the case, homosexuality would have ceased to be an issue long ago because nobody would be practicing it because what you proposed would have already taken place.

[fozzi58]

Lots of valid points on both sides of the argument.

I think the original discussion was based on the language of the law and calling a homosexual civil union a "marriage". I understand the "society is concerned about the childrens' well being" concept but I think that argument skews the underlying concerns and the original issue.

As JE as mentioned repeatedly, as well as others, whats to say a homosexual couple can raise a child better or worse than a hetero one? What's to say of all the children living in single parent homes? These are valid points but skew the issue because of a lack of data, a lack of experience, and much too little history to see what type of effects this will have on society.

I think its a wash in the end. There are serial killers from single parent homes and there are multimillion dollar CEO's from single parent homes. The same could be said about any group. The situations and opportunities presented to children in ANY home or living condition will have a far greater affect on their future than the sexual preference of a their parent(s).

Lets get back to the original problem - calling a homosexual civil union a "marriage".....




Well my god (To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.) tells me marriage should be about love between two people.

I wish I could live long enough for the mass awakening.

Any law influenced by religion should be stricken from the books. Laws should be based on logic and common sense, unhindered by mythology.

Hey - TFSM is my god too!

[fozzi58]

My goodness - I just realized we have to kill off all flamingo's...

[Hobbes3259]

Yeah, maybe, but this is a discussion thread and those are points on the front lines of the battlefield on this issue. If we want to keep things REALLY simple, I'd point out that 52% of California voters voted not to expand their definition of marriage to include gay relationships. If people want to overcome that very simple and plain fact, they have to engage in complicated discussion.

31 states. Including Cali,Wisconsin, and maine.

[GBA]

Well my god (To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.) tells me marriage should be about love between two people.

And if the majority share that view, then that will be the way it is.

I wish I could live long enough for the mass awakening.

Any law influenced by religion should be stricken from the books. Laws should be based on logic and common sense, unhindered by mythology.

Do you realize how preposterous that is? I'm all for striking down laws that people collectively feel are not applicable or conflict with modern sensibilities, but religion has been so intertwined in our history and in the past civilizations that we have borrowed laws from, that that whole idea is ridiculous.

And you really think a belief in something greater ourselves - something magnificent that should be revered - is incompatible with reason and morality? Mythological figures are just the personification of that greater force or forces. People throughout history have gravitated towards some form of religion or another and it is human nature to personify things that are important to us. Just because we don't fully understand something doesn't mean there isn't a reason behind it.. or a benefit to it.

And it's easy to paint religion with a broad brush, but there are thousands of them and not all of them lost their purpose or been high-jacked by profiteers. The history of corrupted religions is ugly, but no more so than that of atheism.

On the subject of high-jacking.. what's this thread about again?

[Johnny English]

no, my argument in no way expanded into the idea that homosexuals shouldn't have children, it was simply that if they do they inherently are at a shortcoming in their ability as a pair to rear a child in many respects, not that they are incapable of being loving, caring and even good parents. thus, by that mere fact a straight couple provides more value when at its best than a gay couple. and if the argument for gay marriage is that they are equally as valuable as a straight marriage, than that argument is flawed and that consideration for homosexual marriage is very, very weak.

No it's not, why do you have to compare the two? No-one's asking you to enter into a same sex marriage; again I'm back to my point which no-one has actually yet answered, which is why it makes a blind bit of difference to anyone?

Apart from Gunther, who's apparently so caught up in Catholic guilt over his excessive masturbation that he can't think straight, we appear to have largely agreed on this thread that procreation is not essential to marriage, and that same sex couples should and do have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. I don't see what the issue is after that. Why are you trying to associate a value to a particular type of marriage? Is a childless marriage worth less than one with children? Is a marriage featuring divorcees worth less than a pair of first timers? What about divorcees with children compared to childless first timers, who's worth more there?

Some gay people want to get married for the same reasons that some straight people do, because they love each other and want to make that lifelong commitment to each other. Some of them want to do it under the eyes of their god, some want to do it on a beach, some want to do it in the Elvis Chapel and some want to do it while freefalling from 15,000 feet. Who are you to question those choices?

[Sundayjack]

31 states. Including Cali,Wisconsin, and maine.

Right, and so the issue is whether or not the Supreme Court will find that being gay deserves protected status akin to a person's race, or perhaps their gender. P.S. - No court has done that yet. Not even the San Francisco court.

If you want gay marriage, put it on the ballot and let the people vote. If it doesn't pass, then you can't have gay marriage - but you can have something else; just not something called "marriage." Then, when you can get enough people who want to change it to reflect contemporary mores, take another vote. That's the Scalia position in a nutshell.

[MadBacker Prime]

Women should be able to marry but not men.

For far too long women have been oppressed it is now their turn to shine. (first)


Only lipstick lesbians at that, the others are too manish. And I don't mean a Indian reporter.

[MBGreen]

Women should be able to marry but not men.

For far too long women have been oppressed it is now their turn to shine. (first)


Only lipstick lesbians at that, the others are too manish. And I don't mean a Indian reporter.

you don't like observing female truckers mate in their natural habitat?

[JetBlue]

No it's not, why do you have to compare the two? No-one's asking you to enter into a same sex marriage; again I'm back to my point which no-one has actually yet answered, which is why it makes a blind bit of difference to anyone?
I mentioned that in one of my initial pots in this current discussion that it matters to people who believe in sexual morality, for whatever reason they choose, and as such believe that the society they live in, and have an option to influence, reflect that morality. unfortunately, that means judgment will get passed on behavior. some people find that mean, others believe there may actually be absolutes in this world in regards to our behaviors.

considering your question is about caring, the legality of allowing that preference to influence the allowance of such is another discussion.



Apart from Gunther, who's apparently so caught up in Catholic guilt over his excessive masturbation that he can't think straight, we appear to have largely agreed on this thread that procreation is not essential to marriage, and that same sex couples should and do have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. I don't see what the issue is after that. Why are you trying to associate a value to a particular type of marriage? Is a childless marriage worth less than one with children? Is a marriage featuring divorcees worth less than a pair of first timers? What about divorcees with children compared to childless first timers, who's worth more there?
the value is inherent in the totality of what the union provides. just because that value doesn't apply to all marriages (childless marriages), it still has applicability, and thus the value is real and relevant.


Some gay people want to get married for the same reasons that some straight people do, because they love each other and want to make that lifelong commitment to each other. Some of them want to do it under the eyes of their god, some want to do it on a beach, some want to do it in the Elvis Chapel and some want to do it while freefalling from 15,000 feet. Who are you to question those choices?
here is the problem with your argument -- the idea that nobody has a right to decide whether behavior is acceptable or not, or should be promoted. the only logical repercussion of that is that no behavior should be off limits. that's ludicrous and childish. children believe that we should all be able to do as we please, but as we mature we see the value of standards. I'm not questioning their decisions, I simply have a position in regards to it.

[Big Blocker]

He and I agree on most of this discussion (including the fact that the crux of the issue, is VERBIAGE, not considerations), and the Irony of that has not been lost on either of us.

Although this is a digression, it remains sufficiently related to the main subject, so I will talk about it here.

WHile on this issue Hobbes and I are in general agreement, I think we arrive at it from different directions. He can speak to his own manner of arriving at that same place, but mine is to my mind entirely in keeping with my generally progressive views. How can that be when so many so called progressives support gay marriage?

I think the answer to that question derives from the fact that the Democratic Party has developed its constituency as in large part those who support and of course those who directly benefit from expansion of civil rights laws, meaning minorities. And I am certainly fine with where that all started, since civil rights should have been expanded to prevent discrimination against the current roster of protected classes.

Having said that I have always been leery of the classification of homosexuals as a protected class at least insofar as the specific subject matter concerns BEHAVIOR as opposed to having class based features, such as color, gender, age, etc...

Why is that a concern?

Because in not ascribing to a libertarian point of view, but accepting the need for government and the proper regulation of private behavior for the common good (within limits, of course, that imo do not apply to this discussion), I respect the general legitimacy of the state to adopt measures, laws, that benefit society as a whole. That follows from the fact that at least in theory and generally, if not at all times, this is a democracy derived from the consent of the governed, its citizens, and that such laws reflect taht consent and the will of the people.

When those citizens otherwise follow the rules and through their elected representatives, or in the case of Prop 8 the ballot directly, adopt a law according to the law, I think that law deserves respect and should not be overturned for the benefit of a few, without good reason. Beyond that I applaud efforts to pass and enforce laws that that majority can assert is to the benefit of society as a whole. And on the whole, not currently being able to think of a contrary example, those laws also regulate BEHAVIOR. This is in fact the legitimate purpose of government.

In short, society has a right to regulate behavior, unlike passing laws detrimental to groups of people based on their having certain features.

So, I think the laws defining marriage as between man and woman have a rational basis, serve a valid purpose and were properly adopted. Those seeking to overturn this situation I think have, or should have, a heavy burdern in doing so. I find the arguments raised against these laws insufficient and unpersuasive.

PARTICULARLY unpersuasive are inapplicable analogies made for really rhetorical and pedantic purposes between the "right" to gay marriage and previous civil rights struggles. All such arguments fail, as have been addressed before. That being the case, the support of many progressives for gay marriage appears to me to be based upon some combination of interest group politics (the Dems are the minority/interest group party, so if you are a Dem you support the claims of those who have succeeded in labelling themselves deserving minorities) and a misunderstanding of what is actually involved here. The former reason is probably the main reason most Dem elected officials support gay marriage, but I am not bound by that sort of calculation.

So I am perfectly comfortable with being on the same side of this issue as Hobbes, despite almost always otherwise disagreeing with him.

[Johnny English]

here is the problem with your argument -- the idea that nobody has a right to decide whether behavior is acceptable or not, or should be promoted. the only logical repercussion of that is that no behavior should be off limits. that's ludicrous and childish. children believe that we should all be able to do as we please, but as we mature we see the value of standards. I'm not questioning their decisions, I simply have a position in regards to it.

Nobody has a right to decide whether behaviour is acceptable or not when it has no impact upon others. You or anyone else has yet to make a case for same sex marriage having a negative impact upon anyone else in society, and therefore legislation has no place in outlawing it.

For example, if I choose to walk through my local shopping mall wearing nothing but nipple tassles and a cardboard tube to cover my erect manhood, I will quite rightly be arrested. However, legislation does not exist to prevent me dressing accordingly in my home, because the impact of such behaviour upon society in that scenario is non-existent.

Now, tell me without reverting to anachronistic religious dogma why two gay people marrying has a negative impact upon society.

[Big Blocker]

I mentioned that in one of my initial pots in this current discussion that it matters to people who believe in sexual morality, for whatever reason they choose, and as such believe that the society they live in, and have an option to influence, reflect that morality. unfortunately, that means judgment will get passed on behavior. some people find that mean, others believe there may actually be absolutes in this world in regards to our behaviors.

considering your question is about caring, the legality of allowing that preference to influence the allowance of such is another discussion.



the value is inherent in the totality of what the union provides. just because that value doesn't apply to all marriages (childless marriages), it still has applicability, and thus the value is real and relevant.


here is the problem with your argument -- the idea that nobody has a right to decide whether behavior is acceptable or not, or should be promoted. the only logical repercussion of that is that no behavior should be off limits. that's ludicrous and childish. children believe that we should all be able to do as we please, but as we mature we see the value of standards. I'm not questioning their decisions, I simply have a position in regards to it.

This is an example of how progressives can get themselves into trouble on an issue like this.

Say a merchant sells tainted products, injuring some people who buy the product unaware of the taint. Should not the state have the right to prohibit this sort of activity? And how in doing so should the state go about deciding whether such behavior is acceptable or not?

Say a sufficient number of people agree, and their elected officials so vote, to encourage a form of behavior seen as socially beneficial. In doing so the conclusion is also made that such encouragement will be most effective if directed at certain groups who engage in behavior associated in some way with that objective, as compared to those who do not engage in such behavior. Can the state not discern in what manner its encouragement should best be directed?

Clearly the progressive position on these three questions should require an affirmative answer to all of them. Yet in support of gay marriage some progressives make arguments so silly as those Blue quotes above.

Or to take another recent example how about the New York Times approving that court decision in Massachusetts that was based on a states rights 10th Amendment argument?

Efforts of these sorts by progressives too in thrall to the gay agenda that lead them to deviate from sound progressive principles should be condemned, not encouraged.

[Big Blocker]

Nobody has a right to decide whether behaviour is acceptable or not when it has no impact upon others. You or anyone else has yet to make a case for same sex marriage having a negative impact upon anyone else in society, and therefore legislation has no place in outlawing it.

For example, if I choose to walk through my local shopping mall wearing nothing but nipple tassles and a cardboard tube to cover my erect manhood, I will quite rightly be arrested. However, legislation does not exist to prevent me dressing accordingly in my home, because the impact of such behaviour upon society in that scenario is non-existent.

Now, tell me without reverting to anachronistic religious dogma why two gay people marrying has a negative impact upon society.

Arguing for same sex marriage based upon a private freedoms argument is insufficient. The question is not freedom to engage in private activity. the question instead concerns whether the state should be forced to issue official approval venerating the PUBLIC expression of such behavior. Different animal.

[Big Blocker]

"Now, tell me without reverting to anachronistic religious dogma why two gay people marrying has a negative impact upon society. "

This is again not the real question. Two gay people cannot marry in the sense we are talking about unless the state agrees to or is forced to approve of such alliance, and to call it marriage. And yes, if society has concluded that whatever support, approvals, veneration, subsidies, that should and will go along with marriage should be limited to straight couples marrying, and for reasons that have in fact been explained to you, then in fact a great deal of damage takes place if the state is forced to extend that to behavior it does not in fact think should be so supported.

[Gunther]

Nobody has a right to decide whether behaviour is acceptable or not when it has no impact upon others. You or anyone else has yet to make a case for same sex marriage having a negative impact upon anyone else in society, and therefore legislation has no place in outlawing it.

For example, if I choose to walk through my local shopping mall wearing nothing but nipple tassles and a cardboard tube to cover my erect manhood, I will quite rightly be arrested. However, legislation does not exist to prevent me dressing accordingly in my home, because the impact of such behaviour upon society in that scenario is non-existent.

Now, tell me without reverting to anachronistic religious dogma why two gay people marrying has a negative impact upon society.


What benefit does it have for society?

[Johnny English]

What harm does it do? The state's role is not to legislate to only allow things that it deems positive - that way lies Big Brother - but to legislate to only prevent things that are deemed negative. The burden of proof should lie with you to show the negative, otherwise the legislation is surely fundamentally flawed.

[Sundayjack]

You all might appreciate that one of the pieces of evidence offered against gay marriage was a study that showed how two-thirds of all women who identify as "lesbians" slept with both men and women during the study period. And, as evidence goes, I just think that's AWESOME!

[Johnny English]

Arguing for same sex marriage based upon a private freedoms argument is insufficient. The question is not freedom to engage in private activity. the question instead concerns whether the state should be forced to issue official approval venerating the PUBLIC expression of such behavior. Different animal.

No, you're wrong. Not legislating against something doesn't show tacit approval, it merely shows that there is no legislative disapproval. No-one's asking for the rainbow flag to sit behind the bench alongside the Stars and Stripes.

[GBA]

No, you're wrong. Not legislating against something doesn't show tacit approval, it merely shows that there is no legislative disapproval. No-one's asking for the rainbow flag to sit behind the bench alongside the Stars and Stripes.

How is he wrong? A marriage certificate issued by the state is an official, legal document of recognition and approval.

There is no position of indifference here. There are people who disapprove of gay marriage so no deliberate legal action made to dissolve or counter laws that reflect that disapproval could be considered neutral on the issue.

[Big Blocker]

No, you're wrong. Not legislating against something doesn't show tacit approval, it merely shows that there is no legislative disapproval. No-one's asking for the rainbow flag to sit behind the bench alongside the Stars and Stripes.

I am not the least bit wrong. What is at issue here is whether the state should be forced to treat gay marriage the same as straight marriage. Presently the state wants to differentiate, and imo there are clear policy grounds for such differentiation. Those grounds will be countered if the state is forced to treat them the same. How is that not an injury to the powers and goals of the state?

I shouild add that you may disagree with the state's position that such differentiation is appropriate, or similarly that no damage in your view will result. Your position is actually based on a disagreement with the state's assessment. But the state once again is entitled to see such a difference and to follow policy accordingly.

[JetBlue]

Nobody has a right to decide whether behaviour is acceptable or not when it has no impact upon others. You or anyone else has yet to make a case for same sex marriage having a negative impact upon anyone else in society, and therefore legislation has no place in outlawing it.

For example, if I choose to walk through my local shopping mall wearing nothing but nipple tassles and a cardboard tube to cover my erect manhood, I will quite rightly be arrested. However, legislation does not exist to prevent me dressing accordingly in my home, because the impact of such behaviour upon society in that scenario is non-existent.

Now, tell me without reverting to anachronistic religious dogma why two gay people marrying has a negative impact upon society.
except this gay marriage isn't a private issue, it is a public issue and is seeking to have their choices accepted and part of public life. so, the what you do in your home example simply isn't comparable by your own differentiation of public and private activities.

the logical comparison would be if we were arguing whether gay sex should be allowed, something that happens behind closed doors. but we aren't.

[Mambo9]

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

[brothermoose]

Quite obviously you are ignoring the child tax credit, which DOES give a benefit to couples having children that childless couples do not receive.

Parents qualify for the child tax credit regardless of marital status.

26 U.S.C. Sec. 24
(a) Allowance of credit
There shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year with respect to each qualifying child of the taxpayer for which the taxpayer is allowed a deduction under section 151 an amount equal to $1,000.To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

That is my whole point. The benefits the government extends to parents are ostensibly independent from the benefits extended to married couples.

Therefore I am left to conclude that the government favors marriage with benefits for a reason other than as it directly relates to having children. I am all for one of you guys, especially the legally inclined, to come up with the reason for the government giving preference to married couples regardless of reproductive status, because it obviously has nothing to do with children.

A menopausal couple gets them. Barren couples get them. Couples that simply choose not to have children get them. The government obviously favors legally committed relationships. I am left to conclude that it must be for the psychological benefits I have mentioned throughout the thread. People that care about other people...care about other people. It's just the way it is.

[brothermoose]

there is no ignorance at all in this matter, because I'm not ignoring anything. and there is nothing about my argument that is dependent upon semantics. seems you just found a new word and are eager to use it, even though it doesn't apply. I'm not attempting to confuse your argument by using a different word. your argument, on the other hand, is ignorant willfully, because you simply only want to acknowledge the elements that defend your position but completely ignore the additional elements that dispute it.

no, the children become relevant when you claim same sex couples are equal to straight couples in value. they aren't, because they don't create the complete familial experience. adding children doesn't make my argument a straw man, it simply applies your argument to a broader situation. seems ignorance is causing confusion on your part about what that is. simply because you don't want to accept that doesn't make the argument a straw man, because I am not reframing your argument in a biased way. I presented an additional element, children, that revealed they aren't. it is ignorant or dishonest to ignore that. you see, your argument is actually bigger than you want to acknowledge because to do so would force you to admit its flaws.

Governmentally speaking (and that is what we are speaking of), the current policies make no distinction between child-rearing married couples, and married couples who do not for whatever reason.

Sure, we can speak on the value of couples as they pertain to producing and/or raising children, and how you feel that affects society at large. But as far as the government laws are concerned, that is irrelevant, and so has no place in this particular discussion.

What benefit does a non-reproducing heterosexual couple have over a homosexual couple in the eyes of the government (politically, not ideologically)?

The flaws that you speak on exist in the ideological discussion you appear intent on having, but are very much not pertinent to a discussion of legal equality.

[The Lord]

I have a question: Do any of you believe that the large majority of people who are against gay marriage have reasons for it that are anything but religious?

There is little to argue here, in my opinion. So far no one has even attempted to prove that gay marriage does any harm to society. If the exists to protect the members of society, it follows that gay marriage should be perfectly within that law.

Changing laws in the US to allow gay marriage would not be tacit approval of gay marriage, not condoning it, simply acknowledging that it is not against the law.

[Big Blocker]

Parents qualify for the child tax credit regardless of marital status.

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

That is my whole point. The benefits the government extends to parents are ostensibly independent from the benefits extended to married couples.

Therefore I am left to conclude that the government favors marriage with benefits for a reason other than as it directly relates to having children. I am all for one of you guys, especially the legally inclined, to come up with the reason for the government giving preference to married couples regardless of reproductive status, because it obviously has nothing to do with children.

A menopausal couple gets them. Barren couples get them. Couples that simply choose not to have children get them. The government obviously favors legally committed relationships. I am left to conclude that it must be for the psychological benefits I have mentioned throughout the thread. People that care about other people...care about other people. It's just the way it is.

I either don't understand what point you think you are making or cannot believe you don't see the flaw in your own reasoning.

The fact that the child credit is available to unmarried couples does not mean, quite obviously, that married couples who have children get BOTH the subsidies and supports available to all married couples AND the credit available to all parents. Who in total gets the most benefits? Married couples with children.

How again does this result not show that the state supports married couples with children? I don't follow you.

[Big Blocker]

Governmentally speaking (and that is what we are speaking of), the current policies make no distinction between child-rearing married couples, and married couples who do not for whatever reason.

Sure, we can speak on the value of couples as they pertain to producing and/or raising children, and how you feel that affects society at large. But as far as the government laws are concerned, that is irrelevant, and so has no place in this particular discussion.

What benefit does a non-reproducing heterosexual couple have over a homosexual couple in the eyes of the government (politically, not ideologically)?

The flaws that you speak on exist in the ideological discussion you appear intent on having, but are very much not pertinent to a discussion of legal equality.

Agsin, married couples with children get both the child credit and benefits associated with marriage. You are factually incorrect.

The question of benefit provided by a non-reproducing heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple is wrongly poised since it assumes a static situation. THe vast majority of straight couples who marry and have children do so in that order. So, for a time they are childless. Is it stupid or irrational for the state to allow them to be considered married BEFORE they actually have children? Of course it isn't.

And most straight couples do have children. The fact that some don't is irrelevant when the population is viewed as a whole. In other words, there is a benefit in your analysis you are leaving out, and that is the POTENTIAL benefit that would and will be realized if they do in fact eventually have children. That some percentage never will does not undermine the purpose and goal of allowing couples to be married prior to their having children. I again don't understand why you think your point is persuasive to any extent.

Again, the rational basis here is society's determination that children are better raised when born to and raised by a couple consisting of a man and a woman. Encouragement in that direction is expressed by valuing the relationship with the term marriage and along with that come certain benefits and supports. This is clear, imo. I am not sure what point you are making that counters this analysis.

[Sundayjack]

I have a question: Do any of you believe that the large majority of people who are against gay marriage have reasons for it that are anything but religious?

There is little to argue here, in my opinion. So far no one has even attempted to prove that gay marriage does any harm to society. If the exists to protect the members of society, it follows that gay marriage should be perfectly within that law.

Changing laws in the US to allow gay marriage would not be tacit approval of gay marriage, not condoning it, simply acknowledging that it is not against the law.

But that turns the discussion on its head. Why does anyone need a reason? (beyond which, I can think of several non-religious reasons).

The scope of the argument should be (from gay marriage proponents): Give a real-live reason why the traditional definition of marriage should be changed. Because it discriminates? Fine, but that just doesn't cut it. People are allowed to have preferences. 52% of the California voters expressed a preference. They don't need to write a reason next to their vote.

[Big Blocker]

I have a question: Do any of you believe that the large majority of people who are against gay marriage have reasons for it that are anything but religious?

There is little to argue here, in my opinion. So far no one has even attempted to prove that gay marriage does any harm to society. If the exists to protect the members of society, it follows that gay marriage should be perfectly within that law.

Changing laws in the US to allow gay marriage would not be tacit approval of gay marriage, not condoning it, simply acknowledging that it is not against the law.

You have not read many posts on this thread in order to make this factually incorrect statement. Harm to society has in fact been identified above.

Past post also show that yours is a false distinction between religious and other concerns. For example I am against murder for both religious and civil/social reasons. No need to draw a distinction between them, or assume that only civil/social reasons are valid.

[brothermoose]

I either don't understand what point you think you are making or cannot believe you don't see the flaw in your own reasoning.

The fact that the child credit is available to unmarried couples does not mean, quite obviously, that married couples who have children get BOTH the subsidies and supports available to all married couples AND the credit available to all parents. Who in total gets the most benefits? Married couples with children.

The fact that couples with children get government incentives means that the government favors people who have children. This is flected in the tax laws.

The fact that married couples get government incentives means that the government favors people who make lifetime legal cohabitation agreements. This is also reflected in the tax laws, among other policies.

These two incentives are mutually exclusive. One not need qualify for one to qualify for the other.

Currently, we are speaking on the topic of benefits extended to those people who fit under the second category, which exists regardless of ability or inclination to produce children, therefore, child-rearing is irrelevant to this particular discussion.

How again does this result not show that the state supports married couples with children? I don't follow you.

Yes, the state does support married couples.

Yes, the state does support people with children.

If you happen to fit under both categories, then by extension, you qualify for two types of incentives. Two being more than one means that yes, you have more benefits overall. This does not, however, devalue the coupling incentive, as it is able to stand on its own. This is the basis for my argument.

What benefit do non-reproducing heterosexual couples, regardless of the reason for lack of children, present that homosexual couples don't that they should receive benefits while their homosexual counterparts are left without such benefits? This is clearly a case of inequality, and should (and I believe will) be remedied in the future.

I could honestly care less what a legal homosexual union is called. But until those legal unions receive the same benefits as "married" couples, there exists an inequality in our current system.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

That is to say - if you take an Oldsmobile and repair it with Buick parts, do you still have an Oldsmobile? Or do you have something else?

A better analogy would be if I call a Buick an Oldsmobile, does that change your Oldsmobile?

People are allowed to have preferences.

Unless they prefer to marry someone of the same sex right?

[fenwyr]

poor, poor fenwyr.

Not looking for pity, I turned out fine. I found your assumption that 2 parents are better for the child than 1 incredibly insulting.

[fenwyr]

And if the majority share that view, then that will be the way it is.



Do you realize how preposterous that is? I'm all for striking down laws that people collectively feel are not applicable or conflict with modern sensibilities, but religion has been so intertwined in our history and in the past civilizations that we have borrowed laws from, that that whole idea is ridiculous.

And you really think a belief in something greater ourselves - something magnificent that should be revered - is incompatible with reason and morality? Mythological figures are just the personification of that greater force or forces. People throughout history have gravitated towards some form of religion or another and it is human nature to personify things that are important to us. Just because we don't fully understand something doesn't mean there isn't a reason behind it.. or a benefit to it.

And it's easy to paint religion with a broad brush, but there are thousands of them and not all of them lost their purpose or been high-jacked by profiteers. The history of corrupted religions is ugly, but no more so than that of atheism.

On the subject of high-jacking.. what's this thread about again?

What would Odin do?

[fenwyr]

Meh, I'm done. Moose & English (no homo) 1 - Bible thumping homophobes 0

[Sundayjack]

A better analogy would be if I call a Buick an Oldsmobile, does that change your Oldsmobile?


Unless they prefer to marry someone of the same sex right?

You're looking for the law to be all things to all people? Nirvana is two doors down. Fat chicks want men made of bacon. The law can't help them.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

You're looking for the law to be all things to all people?

When it's something that doesn't impact anyone who doesn't chose to do it in any way, I don't think asking the law to NOT prohibit it is asking too much.

[Sundayjack]

When it's something that doesn't impact anyone who doesn't chose to do it in any way, I don't think asking the law to NOT prohibit it is asking too much.

Seems that a majority of America disagrees. Work to change that by plurality vote and you'll be King of the Gay People. A hero for life. Until then, the law correctly remains inflexible.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

Just because a majority of people are fucking morons doesn't make the law "correctly inflexible."

[Sundayjack]

Just because a majority of people are fucking morons doesn't make the law "correctly inflexible."

Of course it does. What Constitution did YOU study?! Just because we think we hold the truth doesn't mean that we actually do.

[BadgerOnLSD]

52% of the California voters driven by a Utah-based Mormon campaign plus a large showing of black social-conservative Democrats expressed a preference. They don't need to write a reason next to their vote.
FYP

A vote is a vote, but I'm just saying...

[Hobbes3259]

Unless they prefer to marry someone of the same sex right?

Which, according to the definition of the word as currently understood is quite impossible.


It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a 1 pound coconut.

[wildthing2022000]

Which, according to the definition of the word as currently understood is quite impossible.


It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a 1 pound coconut.

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union

[Big Blocker]

The fact that couples with children get government incentives means that the government favors people who have children. This is flected in the tax laws.

The fact that married couples get government incentives means that the government favors people who make lifetime legal cohabitation agreements. This is also reflected in the tax laws, among other policies.

These two incentives are mutually exclusive. One not need qualify for one to qualify for the other.

Currently, we are speaking on the topic of benefits extended to those people who fit under the second category, which exists regardless of ability or inclination to produce children, therefore, child-rearing is irrelevant to this particular discussion.



Yes, the state does support married couples.

Yes, the state does support people with children.

If you happen to fit under both categories, then by extension, you qualify for two types of incentives. Two being more than one means that yes, you have more benefits overall. This does not, however, devalue the coupling incentive, as it is able to stand on its own. This is the basis for my argument.

What benefit do non-reproducing heterosexual couples, regardless of the reason for lack of children, present that homosexual couples don't that they should receive benefits while their homosexual counterparts are left without such benefits? This is clearly a case of inequality, and should (and I believe will) be remedied in the future.

I could honestly care less what a legal homosexual union is called. But until those legal unions receive the same benefits as "married" couples, there exists an inequality in our current system.

You agree that straight couples who have children obtain the most support in subsidies. That such support comes from more than one source does not change that fact. End of analysis.

And I already answered the question about non-reproducing straight couples. Most eventually do have children, and therefore present society with a POTENTIAL benefit that gay couples do not. That's enough. That's all society needs. That some within that group never have children is really beside the point.

Your argument ignores that some support of gay couples can be given without equating them with straight marriages. I am not necessarily averse to such an approach. But in case you haven't checked, the gay movement wants more than that.

[Big Blocker]

When it's something that doesn't impact anyone who doesn't chose to do it in any way, I don't think asking the law to NOT prohibit it is asking too much.

Objection. Assuming facts not in evidence.

Several posta above HAVE identified a harm and an impact. Your assertion means nothing as it depends on something that is not the case.

[Sundayjack]

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union

[Big Blocker]

Just because a majority of people are fucking morons doesn't make the law "correctly inflexible."

Not a big fan of democracy, huh?

Well, I am not too happy with it sometimes, either, but what's the alternative? Say that only homosexuals can vote?

"fucking morons" = people who disagree with devil

[BadgerOnLSD]

"fucking morons" = people who believe in the Devil
Gee, a lot of posts in this thread sure need fixing.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

Several posta above HAVE identified a harm and an impact.

No, they haven't. Opponents of equal marriage consistently refuse to answer the direct question of how two people of the same sex getting married affects their marriage in any way. Please, answer it. No one in this thread has yet.

[Sundayjack]

No, they haven't. Opponents of equal marriage consistently refuse to answer the direct question of how two people of the same sex getting married affects their marriage in any way. Please, answer it. No one in this thread has yet.

A specious question. Why is that the issue? Why can't it just be that people prefer to keep a traditional version of "marriage" as they know it? It's not the job of people in favor of a maintaining a long-held tradition to justify why they don't want to change it. It will change in the natural course. No need to hasten that along by shifting the burden.

[Johnny English]

A specious question. Why is that the issue? Why can't it just be that people prefer to keep a traditional version of "marriage" as they know it? It's not the job of people in favor of a maintaining a long-held tradition to justify why they don't want to change it. It will change in the natural course. No need to hasten that along by shifting the burden.

Nothing's changing, though. Back to your analogy of yesterday, if you own a Cutlass and your neighbour replaces his Pacer with a Cutlass, does that fundamentally change the capability, features and appropriateness for task of your Cutlass? Was your Cutlass only good because you had one and he didn't?

[devilonthetownhallroof]

A specious question. Why is that the issue? Why can't it just be that people prefer to keep a traditional version of "marriage" as they know it? It's not the job of people in favor of a maintaining a long-held tradition to justify why they don't want to change it. It will change in the natural course. No need to hasten that along by shifting the burden.

Another refusal to answer a simple question.

[Sundayjack]

Nothing's changing, though. Back to your analogy of yesterday, if you own a Cutlass and your neighbour replaces his Pacer with a Cutlass, does that fundamentally change the capability, features and appropriateness for task of your Cutlass? Was your Cutlass only good because you had one and he didn't?

But it is changing. If we believe the polls, if the the next generation presses the issue and votes for it, gay marriage is inevitable, and everyone will soon be happy and gay. I think that's what most people in this thread are saying. The current voting generation is still hesitant, and regardless of their reason, they ought not have to justify it. That's not good enough for the gay marriage movement. So, to hasten it along, the debate has been couched in terms of how the law "excludes same-sex marriage." That's flawed. Marriage is what it is. It excludes all sorts of marriages - marriage to a minor, polygamous marriages, terminable marriages, marriages between family members. It's only couched in terms of excluding same-sex couples because those are the impatient people of the moment. 50 years from now, the polygamy movement may be screaming about how they've been "excluded from marriage." I'd say the same thing to them - gather up your votes and change the law.

[Sundayjack]

Another refusal to answer a simple question.

It really is a stupid question. I was treating you like an adult and trying to explain why in gentle terms.

[GBA]

Nothing's changing, though. Back to your analogy of yesterday, if you own a Cutlass and your neighbour replaces his Pacer with a Cutlass, does that fundamentally change the capability, features and appropriateness for task of your Cutlass? Was your Cutlass only good because you had one and he didn't?

I thought the analogy he made had something to do with swapping car parts..

How about - if your neighbor has a Pacer and you have Cutlass, would it make sense to for him to call his car a Cutlass? Assuming you're respectful of him and his car, would you, the proud owner of a Cutlass, still be ok with that? It does have a similar purpose and some of the same features, after all, doesn't it?

[fenwyr]

I thought the analogy he made had something to do with swapping car parts..

How about - if your neighbor has a Pacer and you have Cutlass, would it make sense to for him to call his car a Cutlass? Assuming you're respectful of him and his car, would you, the proud owner of a Cutlass, still be ok with that? It does have a similar purpose and some of the same features, after all, doesn't it?

You actually make the point of this with your question.

I couldn't care less if he called it a BMW. How does that change my car?

[Johnny English]

But it is changing. If we believe the polls, if the the next generation presses the issue and votes for it, gay marriage is inevitable, and everyone will soon be happy and gay. I think that's what most people in this thread are saying. The current voting generation is still hesitant, and regardless of their reason, they ought not have to justify it. That's not good enough for the gay marriage movement. So, to hasten it along, the debate has been couched in terms of how the law "excludes same-sex marriage." That's flawed. Marriage is what it is. It excludes all sorts of marriages - marriage to a minor, polygamous marriages, terminable marriages, marriages between family members. It's only couched in terms of excluding same-sex couples because those are the impatient people of the moment. 50 years from now, the polygamy movement may be screaming about how they've been "excluded from marriage." I'd say the same thing to them - gather up your votes and change the law.

Yeah, I hear what you say but I don't see why everyone should move at the pace of the bigots who aren't dying quick enough. If there were a legitimate argument against gay marriage then I'd have more sympathy, but your position basically amounts to "as long as there enough people who don't want the status quo to change, then status quo should be preserved irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the status quo". I don't and won't accept that position no matter how true it might be; it isn't right and it isn't fair.

[Johnny English]

I thought the analogy he made had something to do with swapping car parts..

How about - if your neighbor has a Pacer and you have Cutlass, would it make sense to for him to call his car a Cutlass? Assuming you're respectful of him and his car, would you, the proud owner of a Cutlass, still be ok with that? It does have a similar purpose and some of the same features, after all, doesn't it?

Actually, that's exactly right as an analogy. And yes, I'd be absolutely fine with him renaming his car a Cutlass. It doesn't change a single thing about my car.

[brothermoose]

You agree that straight couples who have children obtain the most support in subsidies. That such support comes from more than one source does not change that fact. End of analysis.

And I already answered the question about non-reproducing straight couples. Most eventually do have children, and therefore present society with a POTENTIAL benefit that gay couples do not. That's enough. That's all society needs. That some within that group never have children is really beside the point.

Your argument ignores that some support of gay couples can be given without equating them with straight marriages. I am not necessarily averse to such an approach. But in case you haven't checked, the gay movement wants more than that.

Oh well, reasonable blocker was fun to discuss things with...you wanna go back to being difficult, so be it. Man I miss the TT forum.

We are speaking on the laws as they pertain to marriage...NOT as they pertain to having children. I have shown that they are mutually exclusive, legally speaking. Why you continue to lump them together to make your point is beyond me.

Most is not all. A pair of 75 year olds, who will NEVER have children receive the same benefits as a potential parental pair at the age of 20. THAT is equality. There is no reason those 75 year olds should receive more benefits from their union in the eyes of the government than a same sex couple. Period. End of story.

"Equal Rights...and justice..."

-Bob Marley

[Sundayjack]

Yeah, I hear what you say but I don't see why everyone should move at the pace of the bigots who aren't dying quick enough. If there were a legitimate argument against gay marriage then I'd have more sympathy, but your position basically amounts to "as long as there enough people who don't want the status quo to change, then status quo should be preserved irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the status quo". I don't and won't accept that position no matter how true it might be; it isn't right and it isn't fair.
Yes, that's a pretty fair characterization of my position. Which isn't to say that I wouldn't vote for gay marriage if it were on the ballot in my state. My state allows gay marriage, and I would have much preferred it if the issue were passed through a democratic process, but the decision of the Massachusetts court was actually pretty sound.

In this debate, though, "bigot" is a forced term. It doesn't fit. If it did, millions of people over 5000 years of history could fairly be called "bigots" for not stopping to consider how someday a woman might want to marry another woman. Courts have rejected the concept of bigotry in this debate, and that's really what's important. It flips the debate on its head.

[Sundayjack]

Actually, that's exactly right as an analogy. And yes, I'd be absolutely fine with him renaming his car a Cutlass. It doesn't change a single thing about my car.

:) Seems the car analogy has had too much play.

I brought it up because that was one of the big arguments among experts in the California gay marriage case. Not about cars, but about the essence of marriage.

[Big Blocker]

You actually make the point of this with your question.

I couldn't care less if he called it a BMW. How does that change my car?

Because if he and others like it go on the market and resell their Pacers to people who think they are Cutlasses, then they devalue the name in the marketplace.

[Big Blocker]

No, they haven't. Opponents of equal marriage consistently refuse to answer the direct question of how two people of the same sex getting married affects their marriage in any way. Please, answer it. No one in this thread has yet.

The question is not how MY marriage is affected. It is how society would be affected. Your question is not relevant.

The proper concern is whether it is good social policy to change the millenia long definition of marriage. To answer that one looks at society as a whole, not some small part of it.

Having said that, changes to society as a whole certainly can and will affect people and situations within society.

Let's focus on how your question is stupid - I pay X dollars in taxes. You decide you are not going to pay anything, and come up with some fraudulent scheme to avoid doing so. I still owe the same amount of money. Why should I care you pay nothing?

Because obviously if IN SOCIETY AS A WHOLE people get away with tax avoidance, those who pay taxes do in fact suffer.

Your question is irrelevant and immature.

[Johnny English]

Because if he and others like it go on the market and resell their Pacers to people who think they are Cutlasses, then they devalue the name in the marketplace.

OK, change the word Pacer in the (now exceptionally tortured!) analogy to Impala, or Town Car, or 911, or whatever the hell you like. Now it's not devaluing it, now they're actually making your Cutlass more valuable. The success of your statement all depends on whether you view same sex relationships as being more or less valuable than heterosexual relationships.

[Johnny English]

The question is not how MY marriage is affected. It is how society would be affected. Your question is not relevant.

The proper concern is whether it is good social policy to change the millenia long definition of marriage. To answer that one looks at society as a whole, not some small part of it.

Having said that, changes to society as a whole certainly can and will affect people and situations within society.

Let's focus on how your question is stupid - I pay X dollars in taxes. You decide you are not going to pay anything, and come up with some fraudulent scheme to avoid doing so. I still owe the same amount of money. Why should I care you pay nothing?

Because obviously if IN SOCIETY AS A WHOLE people get away with tax avoidance, those who pay taxes do in fact suffer.

Your question is irrelevant and immature.

No, it isn't. You've just made several true statements that carefully say absolutely nothing in response to the question. No-one's arguing that changes to social constructs can and do have an impact upon society. Now tell us how allowing same sex marriage has a negative impact.

[Sundayjack]

No, it isn't. You've just made several true statements that carefully say absolutely nothing in response to the question. No-one's arguing that changes to social constructs can and do have an impact upon society. Now tell us how allowing same sex marriage has a negative impact.

But that wasn't the question. The question was: "How two people of the same sex getting married affects their (gay marriage opponents) marriage in any way?"

That question has nothing to do with nothing. There are other reasons to oppose gay marriage that have nothing to do with how it would affect an individual's own marriage.

[Big Blocker]

Oh well, reasonable blocker was fun to discuss things with...you wanna go back to being difficult, so be it. Man I miss the TT forum.

We are speaking on the laws as they pertain to marriage...NOT as they pertain to having children. I have shown that they are mutually exclusive, legally speaking. Why you continue to lump them together to make your point is beyond me.

Most is not all. A pair of 75 year olds, who will NEVER have children receive the same benefits as a potential parental pair at the age of 20. THAT is equality. There is no reason those 75 year olds should receive more benefits from their union in the eyes of the government than a same sex couple. Period. End of story.

"Equal Rights...and justice..."

-Bob Marley

There was nothing about my quoted post that called for your opening response. You certainly did not identify why it did.

You did not show the laws that apply to marriage and raising children are mutually exclusive. To be mutually exclusive the law would have to say that one cannot benefit from both circumstances. You effectively conceded, since it is obviously the case you had no choice, that straight couples who have children benefit on both counts.

More to the point it is ridiculous to talk about social policy regarding marriage if you insist that child raising cannot be considered. Why should that follow?

Again, most straight couples who as of the time they get married are childless have the potential to bear children, and most of them actually at some point do. this being the general case, why should society limit some of the supports available to couples who in the end do not have children?

I think the answer is obvious, that any such test would too involve the government in private situations and the assessment thereof. Some sort of bureaucracy would be necessary to draw the disctinctions you imply would have to be made. No such approach is necessary regarding the simple requirement that marriage be only between a man and a woman.

[kbgreen]

OK, change the word Pacer in the (now exceptionally tortured!) analogy to Impala, or Town Car, or 911, or whatever the hell you like. Now it's not devaluing it, now they're actually making your Cutlass more valuable. The success of your statement all depends on whether you view same sex relationships as being more or less valuable than heterosexual relationships.

No, now your just confusing the marketplace as to what a cutlass or pacer or marriage is.

That is one of my main points don't change the definition of marriage. A marriage is man and women any other union should have it's own word. It is not lessoning it, just defining it so society can know what it is.

[Johnny English]

Is it nearly September 9th?

[Big Blocker]

OK, change the word Pacer in the (now exceptionally tortured!) analogy to Impala, or Town Car, or 911, or whatever the hell you like. Now it's not devaluing it, now they're actually making your Cutlass more valuable. The success of your statement all depends on whether you view same sex relationships as being more or less valuable than heterosexual relationships.

Make no mistake about it, I do think straight relationships DO have more value, and we went over that yesterday. I think children benefit from having role models of both sexes in their homes, since when they enter the world they will be dealing with people of both sexes. That's enough. That's all I need, to conclude such relationships are better.

Anyway the car analogy has been overdrawn, but I will say if someone calls an Impala a Cutlass it devalues the Cutlass even if the Impala is better since it adds confusion, but you see here how the analogy is losing utility.

[MadBacker Prime]

No, now your just confusing the marketplace as to what a cutlass or pacer or marriage is.

That is one of my main points don't change the definition of marriage. A marriage is man and women any other union should have it's own word. It is not lessoning it, just defining it so society can know what it is.


Definitions of marriage on the Web:

the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"

two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"

the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"

a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"


I don't care either way to be honest but these definitions say nothing of a union between man and woman.

These do but doesn't count them out.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union

[Big Blocker]

But that wasn't the question. The question was: "How two people of the same sex getting married affects their (gay marriage opponents) marriage in any way?"

That question has nothing to do with nothing. There are other reasons to oppose gay marriage that have nothing to do with how it would affect an individual's own marriage.

These guys can't even tell when they are not asking the same question.

[Johnny English]

You haven't answered either, despite both of them having been asked several times for several days.

Enough of my life has now been spent on this thread.

[kbgreen]

Definitions of marriage on the Web:

the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"

two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"

the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"

a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"


I don't care either way to be honest but these definitions say nothing of a union between man and woman.

These do but doesn't count them out.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union

We had this discussion about the definition before in another thread. The dictionarys changed a while ago to not specifing who has to be in the union.

For this discussion however we have been using the traditional definition of between a man and a women and that is what I was refering to.

[Sundayjack]

You haven't answered either, despite both of them having been asked several times for several days.

Enough of my life has now been spent on this thread.

I'm not married. Does that bring an end to an irrelevant question?

[Big Blocker]

You haven't answered either, despite both of them having been asked several times for several days.

Enough of my life has now been spent on this thread.

Both questions have been answered. You just don't like the answers.

devil's question was answered insofar as he was shown his question is not relevant. You unwittingly agreed with this answer by restating his to be something very different, since you concede his question was not the right one.

Your question also has been answered. Society benefits from encouraging the birth and raising of children in families headed by a man and a woman, because children born into such settings usually are born to their natural parents and will have a role model from both sexes, facilitating their later entry into society as a whole.

You may not like this answer, or may disagree with it, but it is a lie that the question has not been answered.

[Johnny English]

Both questions have been answered. You just don't like the answers.

devil's question was answered insofar as he was shown his question is not relevant. You unwittingly agreed with this answer by restating his to be something very different, since you concede his question was not the right one.

Your question also has been answered. Society benefits from encouraging the birth and raising of children in families headed by a man and a woman, because children born into such settings usually are born to their natural parents and will have a role model from both sexes, facilitating their later entry into society as a whole.

You may not like this answer, or may disagree with it, but it is a lie that the question has not been answered.

His question was entirely appropriate given the statements made earlier on the thread (for example, see Hobbes' statements), and your answer to my question is just plain wrong - as you have already been told - due to the fact that straight couples who choose not to have children are allowed to use the term "marriage". Also, I didn't ask you to tell me why straight marriage is good for society, I asked you to tell me why gay marriage is bad and you simply haven't done that.

I really am done with this now.

[JetBlue]

His question was entirely appropriate given the statements made earlier on the thread (for example, see Hobbes' statements), and your answer to my question is just plain wrong - as you have already been told - due to the fact that straight couples who choose not to have children are allowed to use the term "marriage". Also, I didn't ask you to tell me why straight marriage is good for society, I asked you to tell me why gay marriage is bad and you simply haven't done that.

I really am done with this now.
I have a question for you if you don't mind coming back into the discussion. several times in our discourse you mentioned how you don't understand how anyone could care what other people do that doesn't directly affect them. doesn't the same hold true, why would you care whether two people can get married if it doesn't directly effect you? both are the same thing, simply manifested through a different position -- concern for what a third party can or can't do despite it not directly effecting yourself.

you can argue that directly effects freedoms, but that isn't any more valid than directly effecting morality, you simply deem one more important than the other. now, since your position was about a third parties concern about others behavior, the country's legal concepts are independent of that and a different discussion.

[Big Blocker]

His question was entirely appropriate given the statements made earlier on the thread (for example, see Hobbes' statements), and your answer to my question is just plain wrong - as you have already been told - due to the fact that straight couples who choose not to have children are allowed to use the term "marriage". Also, I didn't ask you to tell me why straight marriage is good for society, I asked you to tell me why gay marriage is bad and you simply haven't done that.

I really am done with this now.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. You argue disinegenuously. As I said you mischaracterized devil's question because you knew it was irrelevant. And I did answer that most straight couples have children, and there are good reasons why the potential to have them is enough basis for society to recognize the importance of marriage for that reason. You just don't like the answer, but it was answered, and you are lying to say it wasn;t.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

But that wasn't the question. The question was: "How two people of the same sex getting married affects their (gay marriage opponents) marriage in any way?"

That question has nothing to do with nothing. There are other reasons to oppose gay marriage that have nothing to do with how it would affect an individual's own marriage.

The problem is the argument on the opposing side is being framed in at least 3 very different ways: The outright "same sex couples are less valuable" bigot position, the "I pretend to support it as long as I can call it something to devalue it" undercover bigot position, and the "I haven't really stated my position, I'm more concerned with the process" position.

My question has nothing to do with YOUR framing of the argument, but it has everything to do with the framing used by people like Hobbes and kbgreen who state that they could support civil unions with identical rights as long as the word marriage isn't used. So for them, the question of why it matters what they call it if they concede that the rights should be the same is completely appropriate, seeing as they directly stated that allowing same sex couples to use the word is offensive to their "sacrament" of marriage. I am simply asking how so, and so far no one has even attempted an answer.

As I said, for YOUR framing, which I admit may not even be opposition seeing as you said you wouldn't rule out voting for it, the question really doesn't matter, I admit.

[Hobbes3259]

the "I pretend to support it as long as I can call it something to devalue it" undercover bigot position

My question has nothing to do with YOUR framing of the argument, but it has everything to do with the framing used by people like Hobbes and kbgreen who state that they could support civil unions with identical rights as long as the word marriage isn't used. So for them, the question of why it matters what they call it if they concede that the rights should be the same is completely appropriate, seeing as they directly stated that allowing same sex couples to use the word is offensive to their "sacrament" of marriage. I am simply asking how so, and so far no one has even attempted an answer.


If it has to be explained to you, the reason is because you're outrightly bigoted against the religious people for whom that is a sacrament.

The simple fact of the matter is the argument on the left at it's core, revolves around the verbiage, not the considerations.


And it's not 'can support', it's 'do support'. I also feel otoh that there is no reason, in granting those considerations to stick the thumb in the eye of the majority of people that hold the religious implications of marriage in that context. (and do not even try to argue that, Gay Marriage has been voted down in 31 states. Clearly thats a fair majority.) And as long as those pursuing the considerations insist on insulting that large segment of society, they deserve to lose the argument.

P.S. junior, we didn't invent the framing, that is the argument being pushed by the 'intellectual' left. They seek to deliberately offend a majority of the country, rather than take their rights and be done with it.


I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!

[wildthing2022000]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. You argue disinegenuously. As I said you mischaracterized devil's question because you knew it was irrelevant. And I did answer that most straight couples have children, and there are good reasons why the potential to have them is enough basis for society to recognize the importance of marriage for that reason. You just don't like the answer, but it was answered, and you are lying to say it wasn;t.

Is adoption out of the question or surrogate mothers/sperm bank? With advancements in science, gay people could produce biological children so having children isn't exactly a reason to prevent gay people from marrying and using the word marriage.

[JetBlue]

Is adoption out of the question or surrogate mothers/sperm bank? With advancements in science, gay people could produce biological children so having children isn't exactly a reason to prevent gay people from marrying and using the word marriage.
of course gay people can reproduce. but same sex couples can't reproduce together. and until science figures out how to artificially create an egg out of a male's DNA so his male partner can impregnate it with his genetic sperm, or create artificial sperm from a woman's DNA to impregnate her female partner's egg, gay couples won't be able to reproduce in the same way that straight couples can -- within their sexual orientation with their partners.

of course, that isn't criteria to prevent marriage, I just think your example didn't paint the picture you were claiming it did. of course a gay human that is not sterile or infertile can reproduce, that was never an issue, but they require someone of the opposite sex to do so, which hardly validates a claim of equality of ability between straight and homosexual human's abilities to reproduce.

[Hobbes3259]

His question was entirely appropriate given the statements made earlier on the thread (for example, see Hobbes' statements), and your answer to my question is just plain wrong - as you have already been told - due to the fact that straight couples who choose not to have children are allowed to use the term "marriage".

I really am done with this now.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but because that's been the definition for more than 5 millenia? (m+w=marriage)


DOTHR: Exactly! So, logically...,
JE: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.
DOTHR: And therefore--?
JE: A witch!

[devilonthetownhallroof]

If it has to be explained to you, the reason is because you're outrightly bigoted against the religious people for whom that is a sacrament.

No, I understand this completely and have said several times that I have no problem with any church that doesn't want to perform same sex marriages refusing to do so.

However, the government has no religion, and we are talking about the legal aspect of marriage, not the religious aspect. It is important not to infringe on a religion (for example forcing churches to perform same sex weddings), but merely "offending" religious people should be of absolutely no concern.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!

Just like if I went around claiming I was the son of god because my mother cheated on my father and needed a way to explain the pregnancy I'd be put away?

[Sundayjack]

Please. This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who.

[kbgreen]

The problem is the argument on the opposing side is being framed in at least 3 very different ways: The outright "same sex couples are less valuable" bigot position, the "I pretend to support it as long as I can call it something to devalue it" undercover bigot position, and the "I haven't really stated my position, I'm more concerned with the process" position.

My question has nothing to do with YOUR framing of the argument, but it has everything to do with the framing used by people like Hobbes and kbgreen who state that they could support civil unions with identical rights as long as the word marriage isn't used. So for them, the question of why it matters what they call it if they concede that the rights should be the same is completely appropriate, seeing as they directly stated that allowing same sex couples to use the word is offensive to their "sacrament" of marriage. I am simply asking how so, and so far no one has even attempted an answer.

As I said, for YOUR framing, which I admit may not even be opposition seeing as you said you wouldn't rule out voting for it, the question really doesn't matter, I admit.

I think the car example explains it best. why confuse everyone as to what it is. It is not a traditional marriage so what harm is it in having a different name. One name means a union between a man and women and the other word means a union between same sex couples.

Hobbes and Big Blocker do a very good job pointing out that the gay comunity is using the name as an "stick in the eye" to those who feel marriage is sacred. Why don't you have an issue with that but do with me because I just want a different name for it?

And for the record I do not think a different name de-values anything why does it have to? As has been pointed out a marriage is what the couple make of it. So would a civil union or whatever the same sex union is called.

[Hobbes3259]

I think the car example explains it best. why confuse everyone as to what it is. It is not a traditional marriage so what harm is it in having a different name. One name means a union between a man and women and the other word means a union between same sex couples.

Hobbes and Big Blocker do a very good job pointing out that the gay comunity is using the name as an "stick in the eye" to those who feel marriage is sacred. Why don't you have an issue with that but do with me because I just want a different name for it?

And for the record I do not think a different name de-values anything why does it have to? As has been pointed out a marriage is what the couple make of it. So would a civil union or whatever the same sex union is called.

Bigot. :wink:


Marriage =Civil Union with religious implications.
Civil Union = Marriage, no religious implications.


To make it fair, any ceremony performed in a civil setting should be referred to as the latter, regardless of the makeup of the couple.

Mayor,Ship Captain,Elvis...whatever...

[Talisman]

Bigot. :wink:


Marriage =Civil Union with religious implications.
Civil Union = Marriage, no religious implications.


To make it fair, any ceremony performed in a civil setting should be referred to as the latter, regardless of the makeup of the couple.

Mayor,Ship Captain,Elvis...whatever...

I could get down with that. Makes the most sense to me.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

To make it fair, any ceremony performed in a civil setting should be referred to as the latter, regardless of the makeup of the couple.

Mayor,Ship Captain,Elvis...whatever...

Almost what I want. I want the government to refer to EVERY union as a civil union. Leave marriage to the church.

[GBA]

Almost what I want. I want the government to refer to EVERY union as a civil union. Leave marriage to the church.

If that's what you want, why are you so adamant in supporting gay marriage?

[devilonthetownhallroof]

If that's what you want, why are you so adamant in supporting gay marriage?

The bottom line is I don't care what word the government uses, as long as it's the same word and devoid of religious meaning. Since the government continues to call it marriage, that's what it should be called for everyone.

[kbgreen]

The bottom line is I don't care what word the government uses, as long as it's the same word and devoid of religious meaning. Since the government continues to call it marriage, that's what it should be called for everyone.

you athiests are messed up! I actually like the final outcome in this option but only because it keeps and honors the word marriage. Eventually, only those that the title marraige means something to will pursue it.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

you athiests are messed up! I actually like the final outcome in this option but only because it keeps and honors the word marriage. Eventually, only those that the title marraige means something to will pursue it.

How exactly is it messed up to want the government to not apply religious meaning to a contract/tax break?

[Sundayjack]

Sooooooo, after months of waiting, a Federal Court in California is finally returning a verdict in the gay marriage trial.

Tomorrow, midday, all of San Francisco will either be rejoicing or rioting. Or, wait, do gays riot?

A federal judge in San Francisco will decide Wednesday whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry. (To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.)
August 3, 2010 | 5:03 pm

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who presided over a trial earlier this year on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, will release his long-awaited ruling Wednesday on whether the 2008 ballot initiative violates the U.S. Constitution, a court spokeswoman said. [Updated, 5:50 p.m.: His ruling is expected to be released between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m.]

Walker, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, heard myriad witnesses testify about the history of marriage, the nature of homosexuality and the degree of power gays and lesbians possess in the political system during the 2 1/2-week trial in January.

Most of the testimony favored marriage rights for homosexuals. Walker’s decision is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A Los Angeles-based group funding the litigation hired former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative, and noted litigator David Boies, who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore, to represent two couples who are challenging Proposition 8.

The California Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 that gays and lesbians were entitled to marry under the state Constitution in an historic ruling in May 2008. Voters passed Proposition 8 six months later, amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Walker will decide whether California’s ban on same-sex marriage violates equal protection and due process rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

-- Maura Dolan in San Francisco

[RevisOfNazareth]

lol if they want to get married, fuck em. theyll realize fast what modern day slavery means:

wife (or manbitch), kids (adopted), 40+hour work week, mortgage, car payments, education bills for confused kids, you all know how it is.

morons should stay as uncommitted as possible.

[Johnny English]

They don't riot, they just picket good furniture stores.

[kbgreen]

How exactly is it messed up to want the government to not apply religious meaning to a contract/tax break?

Sorry, it took so long I just noticed this reply.

It's messed up because to me it comes accross like you do not care about gay marriage (or if you do only a little) but are just trying to lesson the influence of the church where ever possible.

[Sundayjack]

They don't riot, they just picket good furniture stores.

Delaying my trip to Mitchell Gold. Gay furniture stores must be a double whammy.

[Big Blocker]

The case will be appealed no matter what.

[Sundayjack]

The case will be appealed no matter what.

No der.

It was filed so that it WOULD be appealed. The whole idea is to get it in front of the Supreme Court on the theory that Justice Kennedy is persuadable because of his lengthy discussion in the Texas anal sex case.

[Big Blocker]

No der.

It was filed so that it WOULD be appealed. The whole idea is to get it in front of the Supreme Court on the theory that Justice Kennedy is persuadable because of his lengthy discussion in the Texas anal sex case.

The Texas case imo is not sufficient precedent to rule there is a constitutional right to gay marriage. that case concerned a criminal statute, as I recall. Saying something should not be against the law does not mean it is deserving of government approval. There is a difference.

[Sundayjack]

The Texas case imo is not sufficient precedent to rule there is a constitutional right to gay marriage. that case concerned a criminal statute, as I recall. Saying something should not be against the law does not mean it is deserving of government approval. There is a difference.

Don't tell it to me, tell it to Justice Kennedy. He went to great lengths to discuss the history of homosexuality, leading people to believe that he only needs a properly framed case to go the next step to define a new right for gayness as a protected status.

[Big Blocker]

Don't tell it to me, tell it to Justice Kennedy. He went to great lengths to discuss the history of homosexuality, leading people to believe that he only needs a properly framed case to go the next step to define a new right for gayness as a protected status.

What that would require, imo, is to conclude that the question is one of status as opposed to behavior, meaning homosexuality is an immutable condition rather than behavior. And not only that, imo - I think you also have to go the next step and say that the only way to adequately protect people with that immutable condition is to say they must have an equal right to engage in the behavior at issue, that being marriage, in a way that brings in that immutable condition.

Analogies to existing forms of protected class status are imo quite limited, since most do concern immutable conditions without question. Race, national origin, sex, age are all clearly immutable conditions.

Protected class conditions that at least in some or most cases concern behavior are the practice of religion, and disabiity is a mixed case of immutable conditions and behavior. (Behavior in that it is precisely the disabled person's inability to "behave" as the non-disabled do that makes them disabled, but immutable as well since one cannot be considered disabled under the law if the condition is not immutable.)

But, the Supreme Court's precedents, including recent ones such as the Oregon peyote case, show that it is constitutional for the government to plaec limits on behavior even if it is manifestly and undisputably done in the exercise of religion. In other words there remains a distinction between discrimination (that is illegal) where based on immutable characteristics and discrimination (not illegal) that is based on behavior.

Recognition of this distinction is as I understand it leading some who support the gay agenda to argue the issue is in fact one of immutable characteristics and not behavior.

I think that argument is pure and simple horse manure.

[Sundayjack]

What that would require, imo, is to conclude that the question is one of status as opposed to behavior, meaning homosexuality is an immutable condition rather than behavior. And not only that, imo - I think you also have to go the next step and say that the only way to adequately protect people with that immutable condition is to say they must have an equal right to engage in the behavior at issue, that being marriage, in a way that brings in that immutable condition.

Analogies to existing forms of protected class status are imo quite limited, since most do concern immutable conditions without question. Race, national origin, sex, age are all clearly immutable conditions.

Protected class conditions that at least in some or most cases concern behavior are the practice of religion, and disabiity is a mixed case of immutable conditions and behavior. (Behavior in that it is precisely the disabled person's inability to "behave" as the non-disabled do that makes them disabled, but immutable as well since one cannot be considered disabled under the law if the condition is not immutable.)

But, the Supreme Court's precedents, including recent ones such as the Oregon peyote case, show that it is constitutional for the government to plaec limits on behavior even if it is manifestly and undisputably done in the exercise of religion. In other words there remains a distinction between discrimination (that is illegal) where based on immutable characteristics and discrimination (not illegal) that is based on behavior.

Recognition of this distinction is as I understand it leading some who support the gay agenda to argue the issue is in fact one of immutable characteristics and not behavior.

I think that argument is pure and simple horse manure.
I can't disagree with much of that, if any at all.

I watched a good chunk of the Prop 8 case. When the Supreme Court barred cameras from the court room, someone decided to take the transcript and do a reenactment of the entire friggin case. To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily. I point this out because the points you make are some of the same points that the plaintiffs were trying to make at trial. The defense, for its part, didn't offer much by way of evidence. They essentially said, "The burden's on them to prove being gay has protected status, and at best they're evidence is speculative."

When this case goes up for appeal, the 9th Circuit has already addressed the issues you pose in a case called "Hi-Tech Gays" (no joke). I'll see if I can find it. Interesting read, if you're into this sort of thing.


ETA: From High Tech Gays (To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.)

It is apparent that while the Supreme Court has identified that legislative classifications based on race, alienage, or national origin are subject to strict scrutiny and that classifications based upon gender or illegitimacy call for a heightened standard, the Court has never held homosexuality to a heightened standard of review.

To be a "suspect" or "quasi-suspect" class, homosexuals must 1) have suffered a history of discrimination; 2) exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group; and 3) show that they are a minority or politically powerless, or alternatively show that the statutory classification at issue burdens a fundamental right. Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 602-03, 107 S.Ct. 3008, 3018, 97 L.Ed.2d 485 (1987) (due to a lack of these characteristics, the statutory classifications of the Federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program were subject to only a rational basis review) (citing Lyng v. Castillo, 477 U.S. 635, 638, 106 S.Ct. 2727, 2729, 91 L.Ed.2d 527 (1986) (due to a lack of these characteristics, the statutory classifications of the Federal Food Stamp Program were subject to only a rational basis review)).

While we do agree that homosexuals have suffered a history of discrimination, we do not believe that they meet the other criteria. Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic; it is behavioral and hence is fundamentally different from traits such as race, gender, or alienage, which define already existing suspect and quasi-suspect classes. Accord Woodward, 871 F.2d at 1076. The behavior or conduct of such already recognized classes is irrelevant to their identification. Id.

Moreover, legislatures have addressed and continue to address the discrimination suffered by homosexuals on account of their sexual orientation through the passage of anti-discrimination legislation.10 Thus, homosexuals are not without political power; they have the ability to and do "attract the attention of the lawmakers," as evidenced by such legislation. See Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 445, 105 S.Ct. at 3257. Accord Ben-Shalom, 881 F.2d at 466. Lastly, as previously noted, homosexual conduct is not a fundamental right. Hardwick, 478 U.S. at 194, 106 S.Ct. at 2846.

Our review compels us to agree with the other circuits that have ruled on this issue and to hold that homosexuals do not constitute a suspect or quasi-suspect class entitled to greater than rational basis scrutiny under the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

[Big Blocker]

I can't disagree with much of that, if any at all.

I watched a good chunk of the Prop 8 case. When the Supreme Court barred cameras from the court room, someone decided to take the transcript and do a reenactment of the entire friggin case. To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily. I point this out because the points you make are some of the same points that the plaintiffs were trying to make at trial. The defense, for its part, didn't offer much by way of evidence. They essentially said, "The burden's on them to prove being gay has protected status, and at best they're evidence is speculative."

When this case goes up for appeal, the 9th Circuit has already addressed the issues you pose in a case called "Hi-Tech Gays" (no joke). I'll see if I can find it. Interesting read, if you're into this sort of thing.


ETA: From High Tech Gays (To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.)

Jack,

I would not go so far as to say that homosexuality is clearly NOT immutable, at least for some. While there are people who are hetero and then homo, and vice versa, at different times of their lives, or are bisexual throughout, I understand some are homosexual all their lives.

But that does not change that what it is that we are talking about is behavior.

David Boies, one of the lead lawyers in this case, is one of the best lawyers in recent memory. I don't doubt that he believes in his case. I also don't doubt that he recognizes the importance of the immutable characteristic/behavior distinction. And has and will attempt to muddy this distinction to help his case.

But what should not and cannot be sacrificed at the alter of the gay agenda is the principle that behavior is a fit subject for the law to address.

In other words, I think that arguing not to mention concluding that homsexuality concerns immutable characteristics and NOT behavior, or perhaps the more sophisticated argument that its immutable nature means the law cannot speak to expressions of that nature (behavior), are at war with principles of government and the law that are necessary and right.

This concern ftr is I think the biggest reason I disagree with most who like me consider themselves progressive. They are sacrificing in the interests of interest group politics and alliances the more important principle that a democracy can regulate behavior through the law. I cannot go along with that.

[Sundayjack]

Jack,

I would not go so far as to say that homosexuality is clearly NOT immutable, at least for some. While there are people who are hetero and then homo, and vice versa, at different times of their lives, or are bisexual throughout, I understand some are homosexual all their lives.

But that does not change that what it is that we are talking about is behavior.

David Boies, one of the lead lawyers in this case, is one of the best lawyers in recent memory. I don't doubt that he believes in his case. I also don't doubt that he recognizes the importance of the immutable characteristic/behavior distinction. And has and will attempt to muddy this distinction to help his case.

But what should not and cannot be sacrificed at the alter of the gay agenda is the principle that behavior is a fit subject for the law to address.

In other words, I think that arguing not to mention concluding that homsexuality concerns immutable characteristics and NOT behavior, or perhaps the more sophisticated argument that its immutable nature means the law cannot speak to expressions of that nature (behavior), are at war with principles of government and the law that are necessary and right.

This concern ftr is I think the biggest reason I disagree with most who like me consider themselves progressive. They are sacrificing in the interests of interest group politics and alliances the more important principle that a democracy can regulate behavior through the law. I cannot go along with that.
Congratulations. You have effectively paraphrased the Greatest Supreme Court Justice of the Last 100 Years. Justice Scalia would be honored.

His point in the Texas butt secks case was that sodomy is conduct and states regulate conduct all the time. The majority of the Court, though, said that how you do your buddy is protected under the 14 Amendment due process clause (/thread crossover).

[Sundayjack]

No link yet. This is from Drudge.

EXCLUSIVE 1:26 PM PT: CA Prop 8 held to be unconstitutional under due process and equal protection. Will be released at 2 PM PT...

Judge strikes down -- IN 138 PAGE RULING -- 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California'...

JUDGE: PROPOSITION 8 DOES NOT SURVIVE RATIONAL BASIS...

JUDGE: Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments of counsel, the court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that its enforcement must be enjoined.

'Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians'...

'Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians'...

JUDGE: THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER...

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS DO NOT SATISFY CALIFORNIA’S OBLIGATION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO MARRY...

[Sundayjack]

.................


Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California (To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.)
August 4, 2010 | 1:48 pm

A federal judge in San Francisco decided today that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8, the voter approved ballot measure that banned same-sex unions.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Updated at 1:54 p.m.: "Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment," the judge wrote. "Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Vaughn added: "Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.“

Ultimately, the judge concluded that Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. … Because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”]

Walker, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, heard 16 witnesses summoned by opponents of Proposition 8 and two called by proponents during a 2½-week trial in January.

Walker’s historic ruling in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger relied heavily on the testimony he heard at trial. His ruling listed both factual findings and his conclusions about the law.

Voters approved the ban by a 52.3% margin six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.

The state high court later upheld Proposition 8 as a valid amendment to the state Constitution.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months that it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.

The federal challenge was filed on behalf of a gay couple in Southern California and a lesbian couple in Berkeley. They are being represented by former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative, and noted litigator David Boies, who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore.

A Los Angeles-based group formed to fight Proposition 8 has been financing the litigation.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown refused to defend Proposition 8, prodding the sponsors of the initiative to hire a legal team experienced in U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

Backers of Proposition 8 contended that the legal burden was on the challengers to prove there was no rational justification for voting for the measure. They cited as rational a view that children fare best with both a father and a mother.

But defense witnesses conceded in cross-examination that studies show children reared from birth by same-sex couples fared as well as those born to opposite-sex parents and that marriage would benefit the families of gays and lesbians.

[........]

^ Thank goodness for that. The political process here that allowed Prop 8 to happen is simply unconscionable.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

Sorry, it took so long I just noticed this reply.

It's messed up because to me it comes accross like you do not care about gay marriage (or if you do only a little) but are just trying to lesson the influence of the church where ever possible.

While I DO think elimination of any influence any church has would be fantastic, I do also feel very strongly that discriminating against people based on their sexual attractions is incredibly wrong.

[Italian Seafood]

^ Thank goodness for that. The political process here that allowed Prop 8 to happen is simply unconscionable.

What process? Didn't the people of the state vote on it? Am I missing something?

[Sundayjack]

Having read the decision, I'm guessing we'll start hearing a lot of yipping about how the attorneys for the defense had a lousy strategy and didn't offer much by way of evidence. They'll respond how this isn't a question of evidence, but about law; and how the judge chose to ignore standing law.

This is an interesting time for the case to come out. Can't help Democrats in the fall elections.


ETA: A temporary stay of the Court's ruling has been granted, pending appeal. (no link yet)

[Hobbes3259]

Having read the decision, I'm guessing we'll start hearing a lot of yipping about how the attorneys for the defense had a lousy strategy and didn't offer much by way of evidence. They'll respond how this isn't a question of evidence, but about law; and how the judge chose to ignore standing law.

This is an interesting time for the case to come out. Can't help Democrats in the fall elections.




BEDEMIR: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... they.. are the same sex, and marriage is an issue at Election time and hurts the Democrat party
BEDEMIR: it is therefore--?
Arthur: A NEOCON CONSPIRACY!!!!h!
BEDEMIR: Right, Off to the courts!
[whop]
[creak]
CROWD: Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage!
BEDEMIR: Who are you who are so wise in the ways of Politics?
ARTHUR: I am Rove, King of the Neocons.

[........]

What process? Didn't the people of the state vote on it? Am I missing something?

Yes. That's the problem, a system in which an uninformed populace is allowed to change the state constitution, especially when determining civil rights. I also found the amount of out of state religious monetary assistance despicable. My sisters in law are Mormon. They had friends in Utah stripped of their positions in the ward because they refused to donate to the cause.

[........]

Having read the decision, I'm guessing we'll start hearing a lot of yipping about how the attorneys for the defense had a lousy strategy and didn't offer much by way of evidence. They'll respond how this isn't a question of evidence, but about law; and how the judge chose to ignore standing law.

This is an interesting time for the case to come out. Can't help Democrats in the fall elections.


ETA: A temporary stay of the Court's ruling has been granted, pending appeal. (no link yet)

Hopefully it doesn't help them in this state. California is doomed without an influx of strong, fiscally conservative blood in Sacramento. If only we could have done better than Whitman, but nobody wants to run here.

[Sundayjack]

BEDEMIR: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... they.. are the same sex, and marriage is an issue at Election time and hurts the Democrat party
BEDEMIR: it is therefore--?
Arthur: A NEOCON CONSPIRACY!!!!h!
BEDEMIR: Right, Off to the courts!
[whop]
[creak]
CROWD: Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage!
BEDEMIR: Who are you who are so wise in the ways of Politics?
ARTHUR: I am Rove, King of the Neocons.

Oh Knights of Neocon, we are but simple travelers who seek the enchanter who lives beyond these woods.


Next thing we'll hear more about - and, as much as I've read about this case, I didn't know this until today: Judge Walker is gay. That adds GREAT intrigue to this. Heh. Rove, you magnificent bastard!

[Sundayjack]

And the NEXT bit of intrigue. . . I mean, after all that stuff up there ^. . . is how Barack responds. This is the guy who said he was opposed to gay marriage. He wasn't even ambiguous about it. Brace for the hand wringing.

[JetBlue]

I'm curious, what federal constitutional rights do gays and lesbians have to marry when sexual orientation isn't a federally protected class? or did I miss something and it was passed federally?

[Hobbes3259]

And the NEXT bit of intrigue. . . I mean, after all that stuff up there ^. . . is how Barack responds. This is the guy who said he was opposed to gay marriage. He wasn't even ambiguous about it. Brace for the hand wringing.

As he's home alone on his birthday Craigslisting for Larry Craig hookups.

[Sundayjack]

I'm curious, what federal constitutional rights do gays and lesbians have to marry when sexual orientation isn't a federally protected class? or did I miss something and it was passed federally?

Good question. The judge said he wasn't creating a new class, and then did just that. Tough to follow, because he avoids saying what people like you expect him to say knowing the decision he reaches.

[Sundayjack]

As he's home alone on his birthday Craigslisting for Larry Craig hookups.

Dude is ordering a pizza, turning on latenight Skinemax, and cranking it like only a commander-in-chief can crank it.

[RevisOfNazareth]

I don't understand how a court has the right to overturn an overwhelming majority referendum. I know we're a federal republic and not a democracy and all that bullshit, but somewhere you have to draw the line. It's just like the MO Prop C overturning Obamacare in Missouri. It'll be nullified, but it shouldn't.

[Penning10toColes]

Oh Knights of Neocon, we are but simple travelers who seek the enchanter who lives beyond these woods.


Next thing we'll hear more about - and, as much as I've read about this case, I didn't know this until today: Judge Walker is gay. That adds GREAT intrigue to this. Heh. Rove, you magnificent bastard!
It's amazing the fact that Walker's gay wasn't plastered all over the news while this trial was going on. I'm stunned, and more stunned I didn't know this until you wrote that.

Why is the decision bad for the Democrats in November I see why it puts Obama in a tough spot, but don't see how it hurts Democrats in congressional races. Or did I just answer my own question?

[Sundayjack]

It's amazing the fact that Walker's gay wasn't plastered all over the news while this trial was going on. I'm stunned, and more stunned I didn't know this until you wrote that.

Why is the decision bad for the Democrats in November I see why it puts Obama in a tough spot, but don't see how it hurts Democrats in congressional races. Or did I just answer my own question?

Gives social conservatives one more reason to go to the polls, and doesn't motivate the other side one way or the other. So, this, along with the Arizona immigration case, is the sort of thing that surrogates for Rossi, Fiorina, Buck, Huffman, and even Sharron Angle - all those western state Republican candidates except McCain - will hammer away at. Without much, if any, negative from it.

[Big Blocker]

I'm curious, what federal constitutional rights do gays and lesbians have to marry when sexual orientation isn't a federally protected class? or did I miss something and it was passed federally?

I have not read the whole opinion, but what i have read suggests he used the lower threshold equal protection analysis, which in turn required him to conclude that there is no rational basis for distinguishing between heterosexual and homosexual couples.

I find that laughable, since only heterosexual couples can procreate, and society imo has, always has had, an interest in creating a social construct within which children can be born into and raised. That is not a rational basis? Of course it is.

At least it is more plausible legal reasoning (even if woeful) than that ridiculous states rights argument used in the Massachusetts case a few weeks ago.

[ShadeTree#55]

Good for the fags.

[Sundayjack]

I have not read the whole opinion, but what i have read suggests he used the lower threshold equal protection analysis, which in turn required him to conclude that there is no rational basis for distinguishing between heterosexual and homosexual couples.

I find that laughable, since only heterosexual couples can procreate, and society imo has, always has had, an interest in creating a social construct within which children can be born into and raised. That is not a rational basis? Of course it is.

At least it is more plausible legal reasoning (even if woeful) than that ridiculous states rights argument used in the Massachusetts case a few weeks ago.

He used BOTH equal protection and due process, and analyzed it under BOTH rational basis and strict scrutiny. Dude was trying to cover all bases, it seems.

[ShadeTree#55]

What I find most satisfying is that he is a conservative judge with ties to Regan and Bush. He is also gay.

So the reaction from the hateful religious nuts will be to first claim he is a socialist liberal activist judge. Never mind the facts.

[........]

He used BOTH equal protection and due process, and analyzed it under BOTH rational basis and strict scrutiny. Dude was trying to cover all bases, it seems.

What better way to ram it through the CoA and straight into the Supreme Court? Get your popcorn ready. Either way, I'm glad the people of California weren't allowed to define a civil right, or the lack thereof.

[IATA]

I don't understand how a court has the right to overturn an overwhelming majority referendum. I know we're a federal republic and not a democracy and all that bullshit, but somewhere you have to draw the line. It's just like the MO Prop C overturning Obamacare in Missouri. It'll be nullified, but it shouldn't.


All that was required was a simple majority, and that's all they got. 52/47.
And even that has been contested, depending who you source, it was 50/49 or 51/49.


And honestly, what does it matter that a couple gays get married? It dosen't make your marriage any less valid.

[IATA]

What better way to ram it through the CoA and straight into the Supreme Court? Get your popcorn ready. Either way, I'm glad the people of California weren't allowed to define a civil right, or the lack thereof.

Indeed. Especially with the tens of millions of dollars being spent on both ends, the vote was bound to be rediculous. For something like this, civil rights and what have you, you need an even playing field.

[........]

Indeed. Especially with the tens of millions of dollars being spent on both ends, the vote was bound to be rediculous. For something like this, civil rights and what have you, you need an even playing field.

I do have to admit, however, that I found it hilarious that Gavin Newsom prompted people to vote. That Mormon ad "whetha ya like it or not!" led more than a few people I know to cast ballots in the name of gay takeover.

I'm not a fan of his. At all.

[IATA]

I do have to admit, however, that I found it hilarious that Gavin Newsom prompted people to vote. That Mormon ad "whetha ya like it or not!" led more than a few people I know to cast ballots in the name of gay takeover.

I'm not a fan of his. At all.


Newsom has been great for SF, but he's an idiot. He opens his mouth too much. But again, he's really done alot of great things for SF. Even tho I voted for Matt Gonzalez -_-

[kbgreen]

It's dissapointing that the judge made this decision. I just hope the SC corrects this biased judges error!

[IATA]

How is it disapointing? Does Ron and Steve getting married really effect you that much? You don't live in Cali, so this has no bearing on you.

[........]

It's dissapointing that the judge made this decision. I just hope the SC corrects this biased judges error!

As opposed to the biased public who voted for Prop 8 in the first place? Which one is more legally informed?

He corrected an action that never should have taken place. If California's legislature had passed a law or rewritten the state constitution, I wouldn't have challenged it, just as I respect the rights of those states whose legislatures passed similar measures. It's only when you allow the public to vote emotionally on a (alleged) civil rights issue that you get this problem.

Either way, I can't wait for it to reach the SC. It's going to be a fascinating discourse.

[kbgreen]

How is it disapointing? Does Ron and Steve getting married really effect you that much? You don't live in Cali, so this has no bearing on you.

Don't know Ron and Steve but why do they have to be married? why can't they have a civil union instead? I have said it here before I think that the word marriage should be up to the church and if you are joined leagally by a civil athority you should have a civil union. Just my opinion!

[ShadeTree#55]

It's dissapointing that the judge made this decision. I just hope the SC corrects this biased judges error!

Define what makes him biased? Because he is gay? So wouldn't that make any married straight judge biased as well?:ohmy:

[kbgreen]

Define what makes him biased? Because he is gay? So wouldn't that make any married straight judge biased as well?:ohmy:

That's true! I picked a poor descriptive word there. How about jerk does that work? He is a jerk because I do not agree with him.

[ShadeTree#55]

Don't know Ron and Steve but why do they have to be married? why can't they have a civil union instead? I have said it here before I think that the word marriage should be up to the church and if you are joined leagally by a civil athority you should have a civil union. Just my opinion!

So a man and a women who go to a justice of the peace are having a civil union? Why isn't the government issued document called a civil union license?

[ShadeTree#55]

That's true! I picked a poor descriptive word there. How about jerk does that work? He is a jerk because I do not agree with him.

I agree with his conservative leanings. You know he was appointed by Ronald Regan. And was a big time time adversary of Nancy Pelosi.

[MadBacker Prime]

If it helps it's gay week on Howard Stern


Woo-hoo!!!

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

[kbgreen]

So a man and a women who go to a justice of the peace are having a civil union? Why isn't the government issued document called a civil union license?

Why not, what would be wrong with that? So the government would have to issue two different certs. that mean about the same thing but are called something different based on who joined you.

[kbgreen]

I agree with his conservative leanings. You know he was appointed by Ronald Regan. And was a big time time adversary of Nancy Pelosi.

Yes, I know but I still think he is a jerk!

[........]

Don't know Ron and Steve but why do they have to be married? why can't they have a civil union instead? I have said it here before I think that the word marriage should be up to the church and if you are joined leagally by a civil athority you should have a civil union. Just my opinion!

I'd support that in a heartbeat. As long as you understand that would make straight marriages civil unions in the eyes of the law as well.

[brothermoose]

I'd support that in a heartbeat. As long as you understand that would make straight marriages civil unions in the eyes of the law as well.

That would work too. Church people want the word, give it to 'em. Keep it out of my laws.

[IATA]

Why not, what would be wrong with that? So the government would have to issue two different certs. that mean about the same thing but are called something different based on who joined you.

Does a word mean that much to you? It's obviously not that sacred anymore, since what? 3 out to 4 marriages end in divorce?

[kbgreen]

Does a word mean that much to you? It's obviously not that sacred anymore, since what? 3 out to 4 marriages end in divorce?

Yes, I actually feel strongly about it! We all know marriage is what you make of it. Who knows? If someone wants the title then maybe it will help it mean more for them.

[IATA]

The gays want the title. Let them use it and it will mean much more to them than 3 out of 4 couples, I'd bet.

[Tony]

I don't care what they call it, as long as they allow it. It will have no bearing at all on anyone else's marriage. Everyone is an American, and should be treated equally.

[kbgreen]

I'd support that in a heartbeat. As long as you understand that would make straight marriages civil unions in the eyes of the law as well.

Sure why not! I just think the word means something and that others feel the same way. If it means something to you, you should have the option of having the title for what it traditionally means.

[ShadeTree#55]

If it is about a word isn't it a freedom of speech issue?

[kbgreen]

The gays want the title. Let them use it and it will mean much more to them than 3 out of 4 couples, I'd bet.

Don't they break up at about the same sate as married couples? That is what I thought anyway.

[Penning10toColes]

Why not, what would be wrong with that? So the government would have to issue two different certs. that mean about the same thing but are called something different based on who joined you.
So they'd be different, but mean about the same thing. Separate certificates, but they'd be equal. Hmmm. Seperate but equal. Why does that ring a bell...

[IATA]

So they'd be different, but mean about the same thing. Separate certificates, but they'd be equal. Hmmm. Seperate but equal. Why does that ring a bell...

Segregation is bad, mkay.

[kbgreen]

If it is about a word isn't it a freedom of speech issue?

Please explain. How does the definition of a word become a freedom of speach issue?

[kbgreen]

So they'd be different, but mean about the same thing. Separate certificates, but they'd be equal. Hmmm. Seperate but equal. Why does that ring a bell...

Nope, very different because both strait couple and gay couples will both have civil unions. Those that choose to be married by the church will have marriages.

[Sundayjack]

In the end, there's not much question this makes it to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court will chuck this flawed decision (60-40 odds); and we'll be rid of this nonsense about "equal rights" for another decade or so. It will be up for local states to decide. As it should be.

[IATA]

Nope, very different because both strait couple and gay couples will both have civil unions. Those that choose to be married by the church will have marriages.


Why can't gays elect to get married? Why do straight people get more options?

[ShadeTree#55]

In the end, there's not much question this makes it to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court will chuck this flawed decision (60-40 odds); and we'll be rid of this nonsense about "equal rights" for another decade or so. It will be up for local states to decide. As it should be.

What is nonsense about equal rights? And why are you so sure the SC will "chuck" this?

[Sundayjack]

What is nonsense about equal rights? And why are you so sure the SC will "chuck" this?

It's not about equal rights. Or, rather, it is, but it shouldn't be. Discrimination isn't necessarily unconstitutional. It's not even wrong. People are allowed to have preferences. There's nothing wrong with one state deciding it likes gay marriage and another deciding it doesn't. That's how it's supposed to be. So, when a court decides to create a new category of federal civil rights, I'd say that's nonsense.

There's only one SC Justice whose vote is in question - Justice Kennedy. Last time the issue of gay rights was in front of him, he went out of his way to say that he butt secks was constitutionally protected, but he wasn't going so far as to say his decision didn't include anything beyond that, such as the right to same secks marriage.

[Hobbes3259]

Why can't gays elect to get married? Why do straight people get more options?

Why can't I have a Bat Mitzvah?

[Big Blocker]

Why can't gays elect to get married? Why do straight people get more options?

Because the state has an interest in fostering a social construct that among other things but very importantly is the preferred social construct for bearing and raising children.

That is the rational basis the judge completely ignored, and his ignorance will not stand.

Jack,

I didn't follow the due process argument, but I will look into press reports. as you may know the New York Court of Appeals considered this issue a few years ago and did not sustain the gay agenda, but I do recall them saying equal protection analysis came closest to sustaining their claim. But not close enough.

Not a big fan of your states rights analysis either. Heh.

[wildthing2022000]

It's not about equal rights. Or, rather, it is, but it shouldn't be. Discrimination isn't necessarily unconstitutional. It's not even wrong. People are allowed to have preferences. There's nothing wrong with one state deciding it likes gay marriage and another deciding it doesn't. That's how it's supposed to be. So, when a court decides to create a new category of federal civil rights, I'd say that's nonsense.

There's only one SC Justice whose vote is in question - Justice Kennedy. Last time the issue of gay rights was in front of him, he went out of his way to say that he butt secks was constitutionally protected, but he wasn't going so far as to say his decision didn't include anything beyond that, such as the right to same secks marriage.

Sounds like the same kind of reasoning to deny interracial marriages before Loving v. Virginia.

Defense of his decision made by Virginia Judge Leon Bazile in 1965:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, 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."


Supreme Court ruling in 1967:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The Supreme Court condemned Virginia's anti-miscegenation law:
"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

Notice the parallels between then and today?

[ShadeTree#55]

Why can't I have a Bat Mitzvah?

You can. I'll even play rabbi. Does the state issue you a jew-man license?

[IATA]

Because the state has an interest in fostering a social construct that among other things but very importantly is the preferred social construct for bearing and raising children.

That is the rational basis the judge completely ignored, and his ignorance will not stand.


That's a crock of shit and you know it. If that's the only argument you can come up with, your position is fucked.

[Sundayjack]

Sounds like the same kind of reasoning to deny interracial marriages before Loving v. Virginia.

Defense of his decision made by Virginia Judge Leon Bazile in 1965:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, 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."


Supreme Court ruling in 1967:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The Supreme Court condemned Virginia's anti-miscegenation law:
"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

Notice the parallels between then and today?

Yeah, great. Those are wonderful arguments posited by people looking to equate being gay with being black because they don't have any other good Constitutional arguments. There's a HUUUUUUGE difference, and if you don't understand it then I'm not sure I can explain it quickly, but I'll try. Race is a constitutionally significant characteristic that enjoys special protection carved out by the Post-War Amendments. Gayness doesn't enjoy that same protection, and no court has ever said that it does. Not even the California Court, although Judge Walker did a cute end run to reach the same result without actually creating a new classification.

Does that help you?

[ShadeTree#55]

What about hate crime laws?

[Big Blocker]

That's a crock of shit and you know it. If that's the only argument you can come up with, your position is fucked.

Oooh, I seem to have hit a nerve. You take this issue personally, I see.

Why is society's interest in how children are raised a crock?

[Sundayjack]

What about hate crime laws?

States are perfectly free to enact them.

If I oppose gay marriage, it won't be because I hate gay people. It will be because I want them to enact gay marriage in constitutionally proper and democratic way instead of crafting new rights out of thin air.

[ShadeTree#55]

Because they let crackhead welfare cases raise kids. And Scientologists.

[Big Blocker]

Yeah, great. Those are wonderful arguments posited by people looking to equate being gay with being black because they don't have any other good Constitutional arguments. There's a HUUUUUUGE difference, and if you don't understand it then I'm not sure I can explain it quickly, but I'll try. Race is a constitutionally significant characteristic that enjoys special protection carved out by the Post-War Amendments. Gayness doesn't enjoy that same protection, and no court has ever said that it does. Not even the California Court, although Judge Walker did a cute end run to reach the same result without actually creating a new classification.

Does that help you?

And there's also the distinction between laws against immutable characteristics and laws regulating behavior that we talked about yesterday and before.

THe attempt by people like Wildthing to draw analogies to race discrimination is not merely the usual form of arguing by analogy. It is also an attempt to draw in the moral analysis relating to this country's long history of dealing with slavery and the awful effects it left with the aims of the gay agenda and thereby attain the high moral ground that the good fight against race discrmination involved.

It also fits with the interest group dynamics within the Democratic Party - you scratch my back, I will scratch yours.

Only problem is they are not the same, and it is of no small interest that polls showed that blacks in Califrornia, despite being overwhelmingly Democratic voters, voted for Prop 8 by significant margins.

[IATA]

Oooh, I seem to have hit a nerve. You take this issue personally, I see.

Why is society's interest in how children are raised a crock?

So you are OK with dopehead Cindy and Ray raising 7 kids in a trailer park, because they at least consumated them together?

[Big Blocker]

So you are OK with dopehead Cindy and Ray raising 7 kids in a trailer park, because they at least consumated them together?

I think there is an advantage to having the parents of the child raise the child. That takes nothing away from adoptions. It's just a fact. And I also think a child benefits from having parents one from both sex.

Arguing from specific examples as you are suggesting does not mean that adopting society wide principles of general application is inappropriate. That there are bad apples does not change the benefit of the overall policy's application.

In any event this is what the state of California's voters chose. It is rational even if you disagree with it, and under democratic, constitutional principles I have real problem with unelected judges overturning a law like that. Conservative judges can do the same thing, and do, and I don't like that, either.

[IATA]

Wow. Really? You would be more accepting of some brokeass child hoarding people, as long as they were opposite sex, than of a couple of dudes who adopted(and therefore meet certain financial stipulations) a kid?

rediculous.

[Hobbes3259]

That's a crock of shit and you know it. If that's the only argument you can come up with, your position is fucked.

who are you who are so wise in the ways of science ?

[........]

I think there is an advantage to having the parents of the child raise the child. That takes nothing away from adoptions. It's just a fact. And I also think a child benefits from having parents one from both sex.

Arguing from specific examples as you are suggesting does not mean that adopting society wide principles of general application is inappropriate. That there are bad apples does not change the benefit of the overall policy's application.

Agreed, provided both parents are committed to their parenting. I support adoption because there are children in need, and certainly support it over the use of fertility drugs, but it's better in most cases for the child to be raised by his birth parents. You're right that specific examples of poor parenting don't detract from that, nor do examples of wonderful adoptive parents. Interestingly enough, I know 3 people who are the children of gay parents in straight marriages. In 1 situation, the parents stayed together despite the revelation. In the other 2, the father left. Mind you, we're talking 2 in the 80s and one the very early 90s. In all 3 situations, the now adult children were much closer to their father, both before and after the split. They actually have had better relationships with their parents than any of my other friends who have come from divorced homes. Again, doesn't even remotely prove or disprove any sort of rule. I've just always found it interesting.

In any event this is what the state of California's voters chose. It is rational even if you disagree with it, and under democratic, constitutional principles I have real problem with unelected judges overturning a law like that. Conservative judges can do the same thing, and do, and I don't like that, either.

This, however, I disagree with. I have yet to meet a single person who voted in the election, voted yes on Prop 8, and did so for a rational, legal reason. I was raised in a very Christian home in a very conservative area and continue to have a lot of very conservative friends. Every single one admits to having voted that way because they believe it's a sin. And here's the kicker...most of them recognized their behavior as irrational! They admit, often before being asked, that their minds tell them they should have voted no, but they simply couldn't do it.

It was true for both sides. Here in Southern California, our news was flooded with absurd tweets and comments from celebrities with completely visceral reactions to Prop 8. There was so little rational thought involved for the average voter here. That's why I maintain it never should have been put to a vote. If we're determining a civil right in this matter, why wouldn't you leave it to people with the experience and knowledge to determine that matter?

California has failed to allow its elected, informed officials (and yes, I know our politicians are nothing to write home about in a relative sense) to do their job and determine the law on this matter. In fact, the legislature DID vote to allow gay marriage...TWICE. Schwarzenegger struck it down twice, not because of his own determination of constitutionality, but because the uninformed populace had issued an initiative to define a right.

So, the court stepped up and once again decided in favor of gay marriage and AGAIN the people were allowed to make an emotional decision, this time to change the constitution. It's a shame.

Had the legislature, or the court, killed the matter, so be it. They're elected to make those decisions. To suggest, however, that the most rational thing to do was to put the matter in the hands of the people? You should take a visit out here before you make that claim.

[Sundayjack]

Agreed, provided both parents are committed to their parenting. I support adoption because there are children in need, and certainly support it over the use of fertility drugs, but it's better in most cases for the child to be raised by his birth parents. You're right that specific examples of poor parenting don't detract from that, nor do examples of wonderful adoptive parents. Interestingly enough, I know 3 people who are the children of gay parents in straight marriages. In 1 situation, the parents stayed together despite the revelation. In the other 2, the father left. Mind you, we're talking 2 in the 80s and one the very early 90s. In all 3 situations, the now adult children were much closer to their father, both before and after the split. They actually have had better relationships with their parents than any of my other friends who have come from divorced homes. Again, doesn't even remotely prove or disprove any sort of rule. I've just always found it interesting.



This, however, I disagree with. I have yet to meet a single person who voted in the election, voted yes on Prop 8, and did so for a rational, legal reason. I was raised in a very Christian home in a very conservative area and continue to have a lot of very conservative friends. Every single one admits to having voted that way because they believe it's a sin. And here's the kicker...most of them recognized their behavior as irrational! They admit, often before being asked, that their minds tell them they should have voted no, but they simply couldn't do it.

It was true for both sides. Here in Southern California, our news was flooded with absurd tweets and comments from celebrities with completely visceral reactions to Prop 8. There was so little rational thought involved for the average voter here. That's why I maintain it never should have been put to a vote. If we're determining a civil right in this matter, why wouldn't you leave it to people with the experience and knowledge to determine that matter?

California has failed to allow its elected, informed officials (and yes, I know our politicians are nothing to write home about in a relative sense) to do their job and determine the law on this matter. In fact, the legislature DID vote to allow gay marriage...TWICE. Schwarzenegger struck it down twice, not because of his own determination of constitutionality, but because the uninformed populace had issued an initiative to define a right.

So, the court stepped up and once again decided in favor of gay marriage and AGAIN the people were allowed to make an emotional decision, this time to change the constitution. It's a shame.

Had the legislature, or the court, killed the matter, so be it. They're elected to make those decisions. To suggest, however, that the most rational thing to do was to put the matter in the hands of the people? You should take a visit out here before you make that claim.
You can't presume to speak for seven million voters. All they need was some rational reason. Doesn't even need to be a very good rational reason. I can think of several of them that would be far more than just sufficient.

But here's the bigger point: There are 17.3 million registered voters in California (I had to look it up, of course). 13.7 million voted in the Prop 8 election. That's almost an 80% turnout. Pretty friggin' incredible, but it was a Presidential election, and that will always yield the highest turnout. The real kicker is Barack won the state 61-37%. Prop 8 won 52-48%. Now, I'd argue that 61% of the California electorate is stupid from the start; but, there's too much crossover between Barack voters and Prop 8 voters to suggests that these are rightwing nuts crazed with misinformation. I'm open to the notion that 61% of California voters are dopes, but it's just tough to make the electoral math support that.

I'd also trust the unwashed plurality vote over a legislative vote in almost every single scenario. I have two legislators and a state senator that represent my town, and I wouldn't trust any one of them to vote on appetizers from a TGI Fridays menu.

[........]

You can't presume to speak for seven million voters. All they need was some rational reason. Doesn't even need to be a very good rational reason. I can think of several of them that would be far more than just sufficient.

No, I can't speak for seven million voters, let alone the 13.7 that I'm somewhat generalizing (I don't feel rationality existed in sufficient supply on EITHER side). However, I disagree that the absence of a very good rational reason to vote on an issue of rights is appropriate. And it was an issue of rights, rights which the California State Legislature and California judicial system had both attempted to grant. How can you suggest that rights can be determined with only a modicum of rationality?

But here's the bigger point: There are 17.3 million registered voters in California (I had to look it up, of course). 13.7 million voted in the Prop 8 election. That's almost an 80% turnout. Pretty friggin' incredible, but it was a Presidential election, and that will always yield the highest turnout. The real kicker is Barack won the state 61-37%. Prop 8 won 52-48%. Now, I'd argue that 61% of the California electorate is stupid from the start; but, there's too much crossover between Barack voters and Prop 8 voters to suggests that these are rightwing nuts crazed with misinformation. I'm open to the notion that 61% of California voters are dopes, but it's just tough to make the electoral math support that.

I'd also trust the unwashed plurality vote over a legislative vote in almost every single scenario. I have two legislators and a state senator that represent my town, and I wouldn't trust any one of them to vote on appetizers from a TGI Fridays menu.

I don't think it was 'rightwing nuts', and I should have been clearer about that. Many of the people I know who voted for it are actually liberal in many respects and acknowledged that the contradiction which existed in the way they voted on this issue fell because of their religious beliefs. More than a few even said they recognized that gays should logically have a right to marry, but they couldn't vote against the bill because they felt it was a sin. I have a problem with that.

A huge crossover existed within the black community. Conversations with my family members in that community were perhaps the most enlightening given the huge stigma that exists. I spoke with cousins who, still unmarried, have multiple children with multiple people, and heard them tell me that it's 'not how God wants families to exist.' You're right, I can't speak for 7 million voters. I can tell you, however, that in speaking with a few hundred people in the past year and a half since the vote, and reading and hearing countless other opinions, I've seen enough for me to have the opinion that a vote of this nature should not have been left to the public.

I'm afraid I can't agree with the last statement, to moderate extent in a general sense and to great extent on a rights issue. One problem with the 'unwashed plurality vote' here is the way it's been used to override fiscal responsibility. Have a bill that could never pass because it's fiscally irresponsible? Just put it on the ballot! They know they can sell it to the people and avoid that pesky vote in the legislature. We're in a terrible financial crisis, and it's certainly a contributing factor. In this situation, much of the impetus came from forces outside of the state who sought to make a stand in California and couldn't influence the legislators. After the scare tactics put on by the LDS church for ALL church members to involve themselves in the Prop 8 fight led to campaigns of misinformation and scare tactics, I'm not even sure I'd refer to the people as 'unwashed'.

[Sundayjack]

No, I can't speak for seven million voters, let alone the 13.7 that I'm somewhat generalizing (I don't feel rationality existed in sufficient supply on EITHER side). However, I disagree that the absence of a very good rational reason to vote on an issue of rights is appropriate. And it was an issue of rights, rights which the California State Legislature and California judicial system had both attempted to grant. How can you suggest that rights can be determined with only a modicum of rationality?But it wasn't about rights. It was about what the law chose to allow or not allow, which doesn't necessarily equate to fundamental rights. Governments make choices. When 7 million people express their choice (and another 4 million express a non-choice by not going to the polls), a democratic government has made a really cool point.



I don't think it was 'rightwing nuts', and I should have been clearer about that. Many of the people I know who voted for it are actually liberal in many respects and acknowledged that the contradiction which existed in the way they voted on this issue fell because of their religious beliefs. More than a few even said they recognized that gays should logically have a right to marry, but they couldn't vote against the bill because they felt it was a sin. I have a problem with that.

A huge crossover existed within the black community. Conversations with my family members in that community were perhaps the most enlightening given the huge stigma that exists. I spoke with cousins who, still unmarried, have multiple children with multiple people, and heard them tell me that it's 'not how God wants families to exist.' You're right, I can't speak for 7 million voters. I can tell you, however, that in speaking with a few hundred people in the past year and a half since the vote, and reading and hearing countless other opinions, I've seen enough for me to have the opinion that a vote of this nature should not have been left to the public.

I'm afraid I can't agree with the last statement, to moderate extent in a general sense and to great extent on a rights issue. One problem with the 'unwashed plurality vote' here is the way it's been used to override fiscal responsibility. Have a bill that could never pass because it's fiscally irresponsible? Just put it on the ballot! They know they can sell it to the people and avoid that pesky vote in the legislature. We're in a terrible financial crisis, and it's certainly a contributing factor. In this situation, much of the impetus came from forces outside of the state who sought to make a stand in California and couldn't influence the legislators. After the scare tactics put on by the LDS church for ALL church members to involve themselves in the Prop 8 fight led to campaigns of misinformation and scare tactics, I'm not even sure I'd refer to the people as 'unwashed'.
I know that LDS pumped money into the Prop 8 fight. I'm terrifically certain that the anti-Prop 8 folks pumped just as much money in, but I have no way of proving it without taking several days off from work and dedicating myself to nothing but this thread. 2008 was a year where Democratic constituencies revolutionize political fundraising and social media. I just can't wrap my head around the undue influence point when 61% of the voters pulled the switch for Barack Obama, and 52% voted in favor of Prop 8. There's too much crossover. And, even if a healthy portion of those 52% DID cast their vote with religious underpinnings, they're allowed to do that. They don't make you write in a reason next to your vote.

The financial issue is the only thing that catches me on this issue. One the one hand, allowing more marriage is, from a theoretical economic standpoint, an economic plus. A married couple spends more than two individuals - although, I've been trying hard to disprove that with regular frivolous purchases. The chief economist for the City of San Francisco had some really interesting testimony on this point. On the other hand, we have no real study pool. For any of the facts and evidence that get tossed around in this debate, there's an awful lot of speculative evidence. We just don't know what the effect of gay marriage will be, economically or otherwise, because there's no model to study. And I thought that was one of the more compelling arguments in the Prop 8 case - that the uncertainty was enough of a rational reason not to leap. Every study offered as evidence was, at best, hypothetical.

But, most of all, I'm FOR the democratic lawmaking process involved when nearly 14 million voters speak; and I'm AGAINST the process that allows one man to create new rules to invalidate 7 million of those voices. Regardless of why they were saying what they were, about 40% of all registered voters in California were in sync on the end result. That's pretty remarkable.

[Johnny English]

You can't presume to speak for seven million voters. All they need was some rational reason. Doesn't even need to be a very good rational reason. I can think of several of them that would be far more than just sufficient.

But here's the bigger point: There are 17.3 million registered voters in California (I had to look it up, of course). 13.7 million voted in the Prop 8 election. That's almost an 80% turnout. Pretty friggin' incredible, but it was a Presidential election, and that will always yield the highest turnout. The real kicker is Barack won the state 61-37%. Prop 8 won 52-48%. Now, I'd argue that 61% of the California electorate is stupid from the start; but, there's too much crossover between Barack voters and Prop 8 voters to suggests that these are rightwing nuts crazed with misinformation. I'm open to the notion that 61% of California voters are dopes, but it's just tough to make the electoral math support that.

I'd also trust the unwashed plurality vote over a legislative vote in almost every single scenario. I have two legislators and a state senator that represent my town, and I wouldn't trust any one of them to vote on appetizers from a TGI Fridays menu.

If you held a vote to ask the people whether the state of California should write each and every resident of California a cheque for £10,000, would it be unreasonable of me to assume that the result would be an overwhelming "yes" despite the fact that you, me and pretty much every one of those voters with the slightest iota of intelligence and rational thought could figure out that it would be a catastrophically stupid thing for the state to do for all sorts of reasons?

If we accept, as I think we must, that the result of said vote would be for the irrational and dangerous course of action despite the obvious logic dictating that it should be otherwise, then we must by definition accept that on some matters the decision of state and/or legislature is more important than the will of the people, so your insistence on placing the collective will of the people above all else is fundamentally flawed. We can debate on a case-by-case basis whether a decision should be placed in the hands of the people, but majority decision is not the be all and end all.

[Sundayjack]

If you held a vote to ask the people whether the state of California should write each and every resident of California a cheque for £10,000, would it be unreasonable of me to assume that the result would be an overwhelming "yes" despite the fact that you, me and pretty much every one of those voters with the slightest iota of intelligence and rational thought could figure out that it would be a catastrophically stupid thing for the state to do for all sorts of reasons?

If we accept, as I think we must, that the result of said vote would be for the irrational and dangerous course of action despite the obvious logic dictating that it should be otherwise, then we must by definition accept that on some matters the decision of state and/or legislature is more important than the will of the people, so your insistence on placing the collective will of the people above all else is fundamentally flawed. We can debate on a case-by-case basis whether a decision should be placed in the hands of the people, but majority decision is not the be all and end all.

Each state has its own constitution that defines issues that are or are not appropriate for popular vote by initiative petition, but let's assume that your example would be allowed. Probably would. I don't assume that something like that would automatically win, because I don't assume that everyone considers only the check they'll receive. Many would consider the tax they'll be assessed to pay for all those checks. Half of the people would be taxed more than the $10,000 check to pay for the other half (who don't have the same taxable income) to receive it. I would count on that half figuring out their true self interest. And, if they didn't, then lesson learned, and they'll pay better attention next time they vote.

But how is your example any better than giving the authority to a select few? In Bell, California - a lower-middle class city of 40,000 - the people recently found out that their city manager was making $800,000, their police chief $700,000, and each of their part-time city counselors $100,000 each. The city manager resigned, but he'll soon be pulling in $1 million a year in pension. For life! Likewise, the governments of New Jersey, California, and Illinois have each, for years, been awarding state employees unreasonable government pensions and those states are all now in budget crisis. So, it's somehow better to allow a legislature to mismanage budget issues? It's more efficient, for sure, because it wouldn't be practical to put an entire budget on a ballot each year. But it's doesn't per se give you a better result when we put "professional" representatives in charge of those decisions. Just a different brand of bad.

So, I reject the premise that we need to save people from their own idiocy.

[Scikotic]

Does a word mean that much to you? It's obviously not that sacred anymore, since what? 3 out to 4 marriages end in divorce?

Well, to be completely fair, 3 out of 4 people are complete selfish and retarded dipshits. Look around this board....you are surrounded by three other posters. One of them is not a dipshit. That's a fairly high % of dipshitism going around. The divorce rate is so high because of how informal marriage has become. I don't think I need to go in detail to prove how this country clearly doesn't value marriage, but if you are curious of what I am talking about, just turn on your tv and scan through the guide and tell me how many TV shows you come across that have to do with poepl getting married. i.e. "The Bachelor" or my all time personal favorite "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?"

Back to the topic, I have no problem with this ruling .

[Big Blocker]

Funny how there is a focus on why people voted for Prop 8. How about those who voted against it, what was there motivation? Being cool, trendy, "progressive" because other people tell them it is? How many of these people have any idea what the effect of such a transformation of the definition of the basic social construct in society will be?

[Johnny English]

Each state has its own constitution that defines issues that are or are not appropriate for popular vote by initiative petition, but let's assume that your example would be allowed. Probably would. I don't assume that something like that would automatically win, because I don't assume that everyone considers only the check they'll receive. Many would consider the tax they'll be assessed to pay for all those checks. Half of the people would be taxed more than the $10,000 check to pay for the other half (who don't have the same taxable income) to receive it. I would count on that half figuring out their true self interest. And, if they didn't, then lesson learned, and they'll pay better attention next time they vote.

But how is your example any better than giving the authority to a select few? In Bell, California - a lower-middle class city of 40,000 - the people recently found out that their city manager was making $800,000, their police chief $700,000, and each of their part-time city counselors $100,000 each. The city manager resigned, but he'll soon be pulling in $1 million a year in pension. For life! Likewise, the governments of New Jersey, California, and Illinois have each, for years, been awarding state employees unreasonable government pensions and those states are all now in budget crisis. So, it's somehow better to allow a legislature to mismanage budget issues? It's more efficient, for sure, because it wouldn't be practical to put an entire budget on a ballot each year. But it's doesn't per se give you a better result when we put "professional" representatives in charge of those decisions. Just a different brand of bad.

So, I reject the premise that we need to save people from their own idiocy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that the state always knows what's best, and there's no doubt that the will of the people needs to be represented as best possible where appropriate. As far as I'm concerned, though, the will of the people is represented through the people that they elect, and unless it's a matter that directly concerns and impacts upon each individual I don't believe that a vote should be held to determine public opinion on a specific issue as it will have the tendency to mobilise marginals on both sides, neither of whom is to be trusted.

So, I'm not stating a premise that we're out to save people from their own idiocy, I'm stating that we need to save a free and libertarian society from the opinions of marginal zealots. In this case, having an impartial judge rule on a matter of personal freedoms and rights seems a far more sensible approach to me than giving religious fundamentalists and jackbooted anarchists a battleground on which to try and swing the middle ground towards their positions.

[Hobbes3259]

So, I'm not stating a premise that we're out to save people from their own idiocy, I'm stating that we need to save a free and libertarian society from the opinions of marginal zealots. In this case, having an impartial judge rule on a matter of personal freedoms and rights seems a far more sensible approach to me than giving religious fundamentalists and jackbooted anarchists a battleground on which to try and swing the middle ground towards their positions.

An Impartial Judge?

Are you sure? Can anyone really be?


Beyond that...Judiciary is a ROLE, not a final arbiter.

Supreme Executive Authority derives from a mandate from the masses.....

[Sundayjack]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that the state always knows what's best, and there's no doubt that the will of the people needs to be represented as best possible where appropriate. As far as I'm concerned, though, the will of the people is represented through the people that they elect, and unless it's a matter that directly concerns and impacts upon each individual I don't believe that a vote should be held to determine public opinion on a specific issue as it will have the tendency to mobilise marginals on both sides, neither of whom is to be trusted.

So, I'm not stating a premise that we're out to save people from their own idiocy, I'm stating that we need to save a free and libertarian society from the opinions of marginal zealots. In this case, having an impartial judge rule on a matter of personal freedoms and rights seems a far more sensible approach to me than giving religious fundamentalists and jackbooted anarchists a battleground on which to try and swing the middle ground towards their positions.And that's a real-live noble cause. Our Constitution has all sorts of neat tricks to do just that. However, in this case, I can't accept that 40% of the entire California electorate are marginal zealots. On the contrary. They're the mainstream majority, and they proved it with a vote.

It won't always be that way. Flip the the scenario on its head. Most younger voters are in favor of gay marriage. Let's say that 10 years from now, it's the grumpy old geezers that are suing to impose their own values over the values of the majority. Would that be any more fair? Course not. It all depends on whose ox is being gored. That's why the fairest thing is always deferring to the democratic majority. The fool's response is to say something like, "If we did that, blacks would never have the right to vote," or some such thing. But you'd have to equate race with homosexuality, and most reasonable people wouldn't make that leap. Certainly no courts would. So, then, the argument turns on trying to be "fair" to a minority. But there are all sorts of minority groups that don't get afforded the "fairness," and it would be a fool's task to try. The fairest thing of all is to let a democratic process work it out.

[Tony]

Funny how there is a focus on why people voted for Prop 8. How about those who voted against it, what was there motivation? Being cool, trendy, "progressive" because other people tell them it is? How many of these people have any idea what the effect of such a transformation of the definition of the basic social construct in society will be?

I'm all for gay marriage, or whatever provides them with equal protection under the law. Two men or women marrying each other does not threaten MY marriage in any way, shape, or form. I also believe that gay parents can be every bit as good at parenting as straight. Hell, I know straight people that never should have been alloowed to give birth in the first place. Sexual orientation does not affect parenting at all, I wouldn't think.

The argument that gay marriage will bring down marriage as an institution is bullshit, plain and simple. You get guys like Newt who rail against gay marriage, and huffs and puffs about the sanctity of marriage, and it's a joke. He left his sick wife for his mistress while she was in the hospital receiving cancer treatment. Is that how we define "the sanctity of marriage"? If two people love each other, shouldn't that be enough?

Denying someone basic rights and equal protection under the law for any reason is wrong, and un-American. You don't have to agree with it morally (I don't), but as an American, I want all to have equal rights. This culture war that the right continues to wage makes me sick. Nobody has any right to tell others how they should live their life, providing no laws are broken. This used to be a core conservative value, and for some reason has been lost in the din coming out of the far right. Old school conservatism is dead for sure. Edmund Burke must be rolling in his grave these days...

[Sundayjack]

I'm all for gay marriage, or whatever provides them with equal protection under the law. Two men or women marrying each other does not threaten MY marriage in any way, shape, or form. I also believe that gay parents can be every bit as good at parenting as straight. Hell, I know straight people that never should have been alloowed to give birth in the first place. Sexual orientation does not affect parenting at all, I wouldn't think.

The argument that gay marriage will bring down marriage as an institution is bullshit, plain and simple. You get guys like Newt who rail against gay marriage, and huffs and puffs about the sanctity of marriage, and it's a joke. He left his sick wife for his mistress while she was in the hospital receiving cancer treatment. Is that how we define "the sanctity of marriage"? If two people love each other, shouldn't that be enough?

Denying someone basic rights and equal protection under the law for any reason is wrong, and un-American. You don't have to agree with it morally (I don't), but as an American, I want all to have equal rights. This culture war that the right continues to wage makes me sick. Nobody has any right to tell others how they should live their life, providing no laws are broken. This used to be a core conservative value, and for some reason has been lost in the din coming out of the far right. Old school conservatism is dead for sure. Edmund Burke must be rolling in his grave these days...
I agree. Which is why no one is proposing that.

[IATA]

What is "fair" about a church based in Utah spending $42 million dollars, half of which was in small towns with a traditionaly low turnout, enticing older people who normally do not vote to come out and fight the gays?

[Johnny English]

And that's a real-live noble cause. Our Constitution has all sorts of neat tricks to do just that. However, in this case, I can't accept that 40% of the entire California electorate are marginal zealots. On the contrary. They're the mainstream majority, and they proved it with a vote.

It won't always be that way. Flip the the scenario on its head. Most younger voters are in favor of gay marriage. Let's say that 10 years from now, it's the grumpy old geezers that are suing to impose their own values over the values of the majority. Would that be any more fair? Course not. It all depends on whose ox is being gored. That's why the fairest thing is always deferring to the democratic majority. The fool's response is to say something like, "If we did that, blacks would never have the right to vote," or some such thing. But you'd have to equate race with homosexuality, and most reasonable people wouldn't make that leap. Certainly no courts would. So, then, the argument turns on trying to be "fair" to a minority. But there are all sorts of minority groups that don't get afforded the "fairness," and it would be a fool's task to try. The fairest thing of all is to let a democratic process work it out.

I'd argue that on a position like gay marriage, if only 40% voted against then the remaining 60% stated that either they're positively for it, or don't care one way or the other, and so it should be passed based upon the will of the people. After all, something that is viewed as either doing good or at the very least no harm has surely got a majority against a minority who view it negatively. I'm sure you can admit that there's logic to that position - except, of course, that that is complete rubbish, because if you start to take a non-vote as an opinion then we make a mockery of the entire democratic process. So which is more sensible - the result of a democratic vote which doesn't actually represent the logical position of the voting society as a whole, or the considered decision of an elected judge? (I'm assuming he's elected, although I may be showing my ignorance there.)

[Penning10toColes]

Funny how there is a focus on why people voted for Prop 8. How about those who voted against it, what was there motivation? Being cool, trendy, "progressive" because other people tell them it is? How many of these people have any idea what the effect of such a transformation of the definition of the basic social construct in society will be?
Yeah, because states and countries that have legalizes it have turned into bohemian wastelands.

[Johnny English]

I'm all for gay marriage, or whatever provides them with equal protection under the law. Two men or women marrying each other does not threaten MY marriage in any way, shape, or form. I also believe that gay parents can be every bit as good at parenting as straight. Hell, I know straight people that never should have been alloowed to give birth in the first place. Sexual orientation does not affect parenting at all, I wouldn't think.

The argument that gay marriage will bring down marriage as an institution is bullshit, plain and simple. You get guys like Newt who rail against gay marriage, and huffs and puffs about the sanctity of marriage, and it's a joke. He left his sick wife for his mistress while she was in the hospital receiving cancer treatment. Is that how we define "the sanctity of marriage"? If two people love each other, shouldn't that be enough?

Denying someone basic rights and equal protection under the law for any reason is wrong, and un-American. You don't have to agree with it morally (I don't), but as an American, I want all to have equal rights. This culture war that the right continues to wage makes me sick. Nobody has any right to tell others how they should live their life, providing no laws are broken. This used to be a core conservative value, and for some reason has been lost in the din coming out of the far right. Old school conservatism is dead for sure. Edmund Burke must be rolling in his grave these days...

The political world is full of contradictions, betrayals and lies these days, from the right wing claiming their holy war in Iraq was at least in part waged to liberate women from tyrannical oppression whilst simultaneously arguing against abortion based upon religious beliefs, to the left wing handing over billions of public dollars to keep global banking corporations in clover. Few politicians represent their beliefs these days, instead they represent whatever they think people want them to represent, and in the struggle for the lifeblood of media air time they take increasingly outlandish and unpleasant positions on both extremities of the political spectrum. America and the world needs some truly great statesmen again, but they're being marginalised by the preference for talking heads and soundbites. It's a depressing state of affairs.

[Big Blocker]

What is "fair" about a church based in Utah spending $42 million dollars, half of which was in small towns with a traditionaly low turnout, enticing older people who normally do not vote to come out and fight the gays?

Phony issue. What about the motives of people who were funding opposition to Prop 8? Self serving in many cases, I would bet, homosexuals who want to advance the gay agenda - that's okay? Why is that better?

[Sundayjack]

What is "fair" about a church based in Utah spending $42 million dollars, half of which was in small towns with a traditionaly low turnout, enticing older people who normally do not vote to come out and fight the gays?

It's absolutely fair. I guaranty the anti-Prop 8 people spent just as much. And, again, 80% of the electorate in California came out to vote. John McCain lost California by wide margin. Turnout was huge on the side that would typically be ANTI-Prop 8. The LDS spending thing is a red herring. Seven million people voted for; six million voted against. Why would you automatically assume that the seven million were mind-altered and the six million were not? A majority of voting voters spoke.

[Big Blocker]

Yeah, because states and countries that have legalizes it have turned into bohemian wastelands.

I think there is inadequate data on what the effect has been, but it is also true that the birth rate in such states is lower than here. Is there any connection? The fact is you don't know.

[Sundayjack]

With just a quick Google.


Big Money Spent On Both Sides Of Gay Marriage Ban (To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.)
LOS ANGELES (AP) ―

At least 64,000 people from all 50 states and more than 20 foreign countries have given money to support or oppose a same-sex marriage ban in California, reflecting broad interest in a race viewed by some as second in national importance only to the presidential election.

Ten days before the vote on Proposition 8, campaign finance records show that total contributions for and against the measure have surpassed $60 million, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

That would be a record nationally for a ballot initiative based on a social rather than economic issue, campaign finance experts say. It also eclipses the combined total of $33 million spent in the 24 states where similar measures have been put to voters since 2004.

If approved by California voters, Proposition 8 would overturn a state Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriages by changing the state constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

Campaign committees formed to respectively back and battle the amendment were close in fundraising as of Oct. 25, AP's analysis found. Supporters have raised at least $28.2 million, while opponents have taken in $32.3 million, closing a fundraising gap that had them $8 million behind a month ago.

The figures for each side are actually higher because these totals do not include most donations under $100 and contributions under $1,000 since Oct. 18.

The measure is likely to attract more money than any race other than the billion-dollar presidential election, judging by campaign-finance data from other high-profile contests. The closest appears to be the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota, at $35 million.

"I'm surprised how much they are spending because I would have thought 90 percent of the people would have made up their minds on this issue," said Robert Stern, president of the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies. "But if this is a close race, that undecided 10 percent will decide the election. Every dollar, in a sense, counts."

The money pouring into the 13 committees promoting or challenging the measure has come from prominent religious conservatives and gay rights activists, Hollywood actors and moguls, teachers and CEOs.

[snip]

[Sundayjack]

I'd argue that on a position like gay marriage, if only 40% voted against then the remaining 60% stated that either they're positively for it, or don't care one way or the other, and so it should be passed based upon the will of the people. After all, something that is viewed as either doing good or at the very least no harm has surely got a majority against a minority who view it negatively. I'm sure you can admit that there's logic to that position - except, of course, that that is complete rubbish, because if you start to take a non-vote as an opinion then we make a mockery of the entire democratic process. So which is more sensible - the result of a democratic vote which doesn't actually represent the logical position of the voting society as a whole, or the considered decision of an elected judge? (I'm assuming he's elected, although I may be showing my ignorance there.)

I'd agree with that bold part. Just to clarify - there are 17.3 million total registered voters; 7 million voted in favor (52% of the votes cast, and 40% of the all registered voters), 6.4 million against, and the remaining 4 million or so didn't vote. NOT voting is absolutely a democratic choice also. Some fools even try to make not voting out to be some sort of cutting edge political statement. But even if it's just sloth, it's a democratic choice. So, I'd flip it around and say that 11 million voters didn't want gay marriage in California.

Popular vote isn't lily-white and pristine. I'm not saying that. The trick isn't to find out the true will of the majority. The trick is to get more people to the polls to cast a legal vote for your own cause. Imperfect as it is, it's still the fairest process available.

[........]

Funny how there is a focus on why people voted for Prop 8. How about those who voted against it, what was there motivation? Being cool, trendy, "progressive" because other people tell them it is? How many of these people have any idea what the effect of such a transformation of the definition of the basic social construct in society will be?

I actually stated that I didn't think a heavy proportion either side was actually being rational about it:

No, I can't speak for seven million voters, let alone the 13.7 that I'm somewhat generalizing (I don't feel rationality existed in sufficient supply on EITHER side).

Being 'cool', 'trendy', and 'progressive' were absolutely terrible reasons that were given by people on the other side. Even more reason why it never should have been a public vote. Forgive me for thinking that both sides need a damned good reason to determine what is and isn't a right for a minority group.

As far as the effect of changing 'the basic social construct', I'd like to hear what you think it is. If you mean the family, gays are already free to adopt or use surrogates in order to have children. The fact is, I don't know very many gays who are actually interested in HAVING children. That includes a couple that's been committed to each other for 17 years now. If it's the state of marriage, I'd argue marriage is already in shambles. 50% divorce rates on first marriages attest to that.

I'd suggest the highest rates of successful marriages may be found when looking within the context of church communities, most of whom wouldn't be performing or recognizing gay marriages anyway. I'm not sure that marriage would change at all for them.

I agree. Which is why no one is proposing that.

And yet that's precisely what the California Legislature DID propose, and pass. It WAS made a rights issue, and that determination was then given to the people. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the voters were allowed to decide whether marriage is a right that gays are entitled to.

Last I checked, that deprivation of minority rights is precisely why our founding fathers placed restrictions on voting and instituted a republic instead of a democracy.

But how is your example any better than giving the authority to a select few? In Bell, California - a lower-middle class city of 40,000 - the people recently found out that their city manager was making $800,000, their police chief $700,000, and each of their part-time city counselors $100,000 each.

Which they were allowed to do under a voter backed measure. I'm not sure how this applies to the passed legislation legalizing gay marriage which surely didn't have the same personal benefit for most of California's state legislators.

Now, granted the people were lied to about the implications of that measure. So were voters of Prop 8. My parents belong to one of the largest churches in Southern California. They, and other members of that church, received calls from a Mormon call center in Utah (call centers which were subsequently shut down after their impropriety was pointed out, but not until after they had done months of damage).

My father was appalled by the things said in the conversation. He was told that, if Prop 8 were denied, his pastors would be thrown in prison for refusing to perform gay marriage. His schools would be forced to include lessons on gay marriage in the state curriculum in elementary school (my mother, a 4th grade teacher, laughed at this given that marriage in ANY form isn't found in the curriculum). And the kicker? That studies have shown that his children would have a 200% greater chance of being gay.

Here, BTW, everyone mismanages the budget. Voters, legislators...It's why we're dying. We voted for a governor in the recall election who smashed cars and promised to "surround himself with people who know how to govern" rather than the smart conservative candidate who could have made an impact.

[........]

I'd agree with that bold part. Just to clarify - there are 17.3 million total registered voters; 7 million voted in favor (52% of the votes cast, and 40% of the all registered voters), 6.4 million against, and the remaining 4 million or so didn't vote. NOT voting is absolutely a democratic choice also. Some fools even try to make not voting out to be some sort of cutting edge political statement. But even if it's just sloth, it's a democratic choice. So, I'd flip it around and say that 11 million voters didn't want gay marriage in California.

Popular vote isn't lily-white and pristine. I'm not saying that. The trick isn't to find out the true will of the majority. The trick is to get more people to the polls to cast a legal vote for your own cause. Imperfect as it is, it's still the fairest process available.

By that token, the fairest thing to do would have been to leave anti-miscegenation laws on the books in states where they were popular, yes?

[Sundayjack]

By that token, the fairest thing to do would have been to leave anti-miscegenation laws on the books in states where they were popular, yes?

No, because race enjoys special treatment under the Constitution. That's one choice that government almost never gets to make.

[Sundayjack]

And yet that's precisely what the California Legislature DID propose, and pass. It WAS made a rights issue, and that determination was then given to the people. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the voters were allowed to decide whether marriage is a right that gays are entitled to.

Last I checked, that deprivation of minority rights is precisely why our founding fathers placed restrictions on voting and instituted a republic instead of a democracy.
But homosexuals aren't a legally recognized minority, and that's the whole point. If we want to make them a protected minority class, then fine; but the sensibilities of ONE judge over the sensibilities of an entire community is just about the LEAST fair way to do that.

This is what happens when we treat concepts like “equal protection” like they rode down from the land of rainbows on the backs of unicorns.

Equal protection is a legal concept. It doesn’t mean fairness for everyone, because the law ISN’T fair to everyone. Nor do we want to be. We want the law to make choices, and we ask that they not make them at the expense of any constituency (e.g. gays) without some rational reason. You can’t say that there’s NO rational reason for wanting to maintain M-W marriages (althought that’s the leap that Judge Walker took). There is. I can give you several.



Here, BTW, everyone mismanages the budget. Voters, legislators...It's why we're dying. We voted for a governor in the recall election who smashed cars and promised to "surround himself with people who know how to govern" rather than the smart conservative candidate who could have made an impact.Government mismanages whatever it touches. That's what happens when you put idiots - but popular idiots - in charge of making policy for society. I hate it. But since we'll never have any perfect way to do things, the best we can hope for is an evenly spread bunch of bad.

[Big Blocker]

As far as the effect of changing 'the basic social construct', I'd like to hear what you think it is. If you mean the family, gays are already free to adopt or use surrogates in order to have children. The fact is, I don't know very many gays who are actually interested in HAVING children. That includes a couple that's been committed to each other for 17 years now. If it's the state of marriage, I'd argue marriage is already in shambles. 50% divorce rates on first marriages attest to that.



And most divorced people remarry, and gays want to marry (although imo for a different reason, but...) and most people still get married. That we fall short of the ideal does not mean we should stop trying. Life in general is a sisyphean enterprise, anyway, isn't it?

The fact that homosexuals can adopt or have children through surrogates is beside the point. It is not irrational for society to prefer that children born to their natural parents have in place a recognized social arrangement available and encouraged. Marriage is the setting within which this can and, with the effect of what subsidiesand other forms of encouragement exist, tend hopefully to lead to more children than not being born into and raised within such arrangement.

That btw is an entirely sufficient rational basis for restricting marriage to one between a man and a woman. Although there are others.

[Johnny English]

The fact that homosexuals can adopt or have children through surrogates is beside the point. It is not irrational for society to prefer that children born to their natural parents have in place a recognized social arrangement available and encouraged. Marriage is the setting within which this can and, with the effect of what subsidiesand other forms of encouragement exist, tend hopefully to lead to more children than not being born into and raised within such arrangement.

That btw is an entirely sufficient rational basis for restricting marriage to one between a man and a woman. Although there are others.

Are you still stuck on this ridiculous idea that gay marriage would encourage homosexuality, and that not permitting gay marriage will somehow encourage more heterosexual marriage?

Explain to me how allowing gay marriage will reduce the number of children growing up in heterosexual homes.

[Hobbes3259]

Are you still stuck on this ridiculous idea that gay marriage would encourage homosexuality, and that not permitting gay marriage will somehow encourage more heterosexual marriage?

Explain to me how allowing gay marriage will reduce the number of children growing up in heterosexual homes.

Because then you Brits will lose any pretense at heterosexuality and become completely untethered from tradition......

[IATA]

This would all be a moot point if the hetero sexuals would stop having gay babies.

[Johnny English]

Because then you Brits will lose any pretense at heterosexuality and become completely untethered from tradition......

We built an entire empire on strong tea and repressed homosexuality, you know.

[Johnny English]

This would all be a moot point if the hetero sexuals would stop having gay babies.

/thread

It isn't going to get better than that.

[........]

And most divorced people remarry, and gays want to marry (although imo for a different reason, but...) and most people still get married. That we fall short of the ideal does not mean we should stop trying. Life in general is a sisyphean enterprise, anyway, isn't it?

The fact that homosexuals can adopt or have children through surrogates is beside the point. It is not irrational for society to prefer that children born to their natural parents have in place a recognized social arrangement available and encouraged. Marriage is the setting within which this can and, with the effect of what subsidiesand other forms of encouragement exist, tend hopefully to lead to more children than not being born into and raised within such arrangement.

That btw is an entirely sufficient rational basis for restricting marriage to one between a man and a woman. Although there are others.

I absolutely agree that society should prefer that children born to their natural parents have a recognized social arrangement available and encouraged. I'm not sure how gay marriage threatens that. Gays obviously aren't capable of reproduction all on their lonesome, and I doubt you'll see mainstream society start pushing for children to be raised by gay parents simply because they're allowed to marry. I know I sure as hell wouldn't. Of course, the only gay people I personally know who want children are the ones who had children in straight marriages. Personally, I consider gay parent households an exception, just like the poor heterosexual parents to which IATA referred. They're not a threat to the system, nor would they ever become the norm. Unless you're planning to give said incentives only to people with an intention and ability to conceive, I'm not sure why the exception of gay marriage is so threatening.

[........]

No, because race enjoys special treatment under the Constitution. That's one choice that government almost never gets to make.

And when it was first awarded special treatment under the Constitution, it was a decision that overruled popular opinion in many states which were forced to accept it in order to return to the Union. It certainly wasn't left up to popular decision to make that determination, nor should it have been.

That's why I have a problem with the antiquated law that allows Californian voters to change the state Constitution in such a way.

[........]

This would all be a moot point if the hetero sexuals would stop having gay babies.

LOL. I'm not sure there's anything else to say :rofl:

[JetBlue]

ultimately, the issue is whether society has a right to determine whether a certain behavior is acceptable in the society and whether it should be promoted or endorsed, and the civilians of that society certainly should be permitted to participate in that decision unless their decision is such an egregious violation of standing law. the motive becomes irrelevant as long as it doesn't violate established law. in this case it doesn't because the federal government does not recognize sexual orientation worthy of being protected against such discrimination.

let's not forget that this is not an absolute, the rules permitted to citizens of the U.S. are artificially constructed by man to create the society man prefers to live in. thus, discrimination is not a violation of any absolute rights, and the U.S. has already set forth conditions that allow or disallow discrimination to certain groups. sexual orientation is not seen as warranting protection. that's where the change needs to occur if there is to be any.

[Italian Seafood]

I have no problem with gay marriage myself, I just don't understand how one unelected judge can overturn something that was voted on by 10 million or so people. Why have the vote at all?

[Big Blocker]

Are you still stuck on this ridiculous idea that gay marriage would encourage homosexuality, and that not permitting gay marriage will somehow encourage more heterosexual marriage?

Explain to me how allowing gay marriage will reduce the number of children growing up in heterosexual homes.

I never said that. Perhaps someone else did, but it was not me.

Gay marriage may reduce the percentage of children who grow up in a heterosexual household, but that's a different assessment.