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