#42: Your “pretend equivalence” between gay marriage, polygamy, incest and bestiality is worse.

This is about the legal recognition of a unique status between people who have chose to make a life together, such as you and your different-sex partner have.

Cool! I can smell the reference to “husband” or “wife” being flushed down the crapper because it calls attention to the difference between married heterosexuals and married homosexuals.

“Different sex parter of John Smith, may I introduce the different sex partner in our marriage, Mary?”

It fairly trips off the tongue, it is so lyrical.

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive (pretend equivalence)!”

1. The state ruled that separate is not equal. Arguing against a principle enshrined in Brown is silly and counterproductive.

Wrong, they ruled that the state has no right to recognize the glaring and fundamental difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. A decision made farcical by the mere fact that each of us exists. They ruled that different is the same. It’s newspeak.

Arguing against a principle enshrined in Brown is silly and counterproductive.

Brown NEVER enshrined the principle that all differences are equal. It enshrined the idea that inconsequential things like pigmentation do not make us different, and that the law where there are no significant differences, the law must treat us the same. Which is proven by the fact that the law doesn’t treat us the same. The law prohibits men from using the womens restroom, and women from using the mens. The law prohibits women from performing certain jobs in the military for which they do not possess the strength, the law allows private employers to discriminate against people who cannot perform the required work, the law treats elderly and the handicapped differently, the law prevents obese and handicapped people from sitting in the exit aisle, it prohibits blind people from driving, and on and on and on.

Brown NEVER said we must treat all different things equally. Nor does the 14th amendment. It only requires us to treat things the same when there is no significant difference.

2. The decision to marry is part of a person’s autonomy and sovereignty.

Wrong again. The freedom of association is part of a person’s autonomy and sovereignty. And you have the freedom to associate with whomever you wish for as long as you wish. It is protected by the assembly clause of the 1st amendment.

Marriage, as far as the government is concerned, is me giving you my hard earned money to encourage you to settle down with a woman, make babies, and raise them. You don’t have a right to my money. Ever.

If we all get together as citizens and decide we want to also give out our money to encourage same sex couples to settle down, even though they have no prospect in hell of producing and raising their own babies, then and only then you may have some of my money. But you never have a right to it.

And just because we encourage same-sex relationships does not mean we have to pretend that homosexuality can provide everything to society that heterosexuality can. Because that would be a lie.

hospital visitation, estate planning, etc.

You already have the right to bequeath your estate to whomever you wish and you are allowed to determine who may visit you in a hospital.

It seems to me that the “will of the people” rhetoric is lazy shorthand for “We don’t like this decision.”

No, it is shorthand for self governance.

Really the only part I agree with is how the Court goes on and on at length about dignity and acceptance. Lord, it’s a legal matter. The judges should stick with the law and leave the social commentary in their memoirs.

Their entire argument hinges on dignity and acceptance, because their decision could not be supported by either the CA or US Constitutions.

California has two systems of partnership. Two separate, but equal systems.

Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality. Children come from heterosexuality. Children can never come from homosexuality. A heterosexual relationship is the only kind of relationship in which children can be raised by both their biological parents. California had two separate systems precisely because they are not equal.

The court lied.

And there’s nothing at all conservative in ignoring the fact that all three branches of government support same-sex marriage.

Actually, the governor vetoed it. And he got re-elected too. The fact is that the people got a chance to vote on it directly, and they voted overwhelmingly against it. Just under two thirds.

The fact that People re-elected the same democrats who voted for it, and the same governor who vetoed it pretty much shows that people were voting based on other issues. And the fact that polls still show a majority of Californians opposed to gay marriage makes it clear that Democrats got re-elected in spite of voting for it, not because of it.

We’re a Republic, functioning as intended.

No, for now, you’re an oligarchy. At least until the people have their say again.

And have you seen what society values these days? How about things it used to value? You act as though society has never been wrong.

The CA Supreme Court took away the right of the people to define what the purpose of the marriage…is in the first place.

Considering the insane system they have in California where a mere majority can actually amend their constitution for any reason, I find this argument to be wholly without merit.

Self-governance is without merit???

The people of California CANNOT amend their constitution in any way that violates the US Constitution. Which is why, with all due respect, it is your argument that is without merit, not mine.

When you add to this that the legislature has twice voted for SSM, and that since 2000 support for SSM hasn’t cost legislators their jobs in the intervening elections, or the Justices who’ve all been retained with over 60% of the vote, this argument is weak.

When you consider that most people admit in polls that they base their votes on many other issues before gay marriage, and the fact that the people themselves voted by 61-62% against recognizing same-sex marriage, it isn’t weak at all.

The right of the people to govern themselves is never a weak argument. Especially given the fact that civil rights are protected by the US Constitution.

The CA decision took away the right of the people to even determine what the hell the PURPOSE of marriage is in the first place!!! If the people can’t decide what the purpose of an institution is, what on Earth can they decide???

Ban “straight” marriage.

Laws, even constitutional amendments, that are voted on and approved by the majority of the public can still be ruled un-constitutional.

Um, I’m sorry, but a constitutional amendment cant be ruled unconstitutional.

How on earth do people have “rights” to keep other people from doing things that don’t affect them in the least.

Oh for crying out loud! It appears to be a prerequisite of being a liberal to have no farking clue what a right is.

No one is “keeping” you from doing ANYTHING, you have the right to associate with whomever you want for however long you want. You have the right to tie your finances to each other, grant each other power of attorney, bequeath everything you own to one another and there are even churches and synagogues that will perform the ceremony.

Its called the freedom of association and it is a God-given, inalienable right, protected by the assembly clause of the first amendment.

It is being denied no one.

Marriage is a set of incentives given to encourage a behavior that you are entirely capable of but refuse to do.

You are driving a Hummer and demanding the same tax credit people get for buying a prius.

You are totally able to marry someone of the opposite sex. You want to have a nontraditional form of union because that is your way of making yourself happy. You refer to the legal complications of having your loved one die. That can be repaired with a civil union. However, many gays want to have some sort of government license that says homosexual sex and heterosexual sex are of equal value in the eyes of society.

I flat out oppose gay marriage; I have no quibble with civil unions.

So, back at you: why is the redefinition of marriage so critically important to you? How do you make a civil right of the action one takes to reach sexual gratification?

You ask me: “How can you claim to be friends with people who you see as inferior.”

My gays friends are not “inferior” and I do not regard them as such. I would be delighted for them to have a civil union. Not one of them is an advocate of gay marriage. I know that because we have had the conversation. Nor does any one of them feel inferior. We know what is different in our sexual orientations and we just don’t dwell on it.

If you have a way to define gay without bringing sex into the equation, please instruct me.

While I may disapprove it is not my job to police the sex lives of other people. I have enough to deal with in my own life without running anyone else’s.

So you’re down with pederasty as long as it doesn’t crimp your style, right?

This is about the legal recognition of a unique status between people who have chose to make a life together, such as you and your different-sex partner have. I hope you have a happy marriage and if you do why would you deny that to your friends? Do you see their relationship as less serious or of lesser status than your own? How can you claim to be friends with people who you see as inferior.

I always find these conversations odd. I probably currently socialize with more straight people than gay people (just a quirk of work and current living situation). They are all more thrilled with this decision than even I am and are more vocal about the rights of gays to marriage than I am. I do understand that. I fight for my friends. I want them to be happy and live the fullest lives they possibly can. I don’t understand anything else and hope I never do.

Gays do not want to destroy marriage. That’s just a lie of the religious right. We want to be a part of it. Why is that so hard to understand. And if you think that not being legally married doesn’t create numerous problems in times of great crisis then you don’t really know many gay people because everyone I know can tell at least a dozen stories of people they know personally who discovered in their most stressful time (death of spouse, illness, etc) that they had no legal standing under the law and that often family members, often family members who have been estranged for years, can suddenly show up and exercise rights over you. Oh yes, it’s possible to pay a lawyer a lot of money to set up dozens of legal documents to protect against such things. Wouldn’t it just be easier to allow those couples who choose to do so to marry rather than spend ten thousand dollars in legal fees?

I think most straight people take marriage for granted to such an extent that they can’t quite comprehend what it means to live for 30 years with someone and wake up one morning and realize that you have no legal standing. None. Maybe we should get rid of marriage for awhile so straight people would understand what they have. I don’t really wish that but perhaps if people just imagined for a few moments they would realize what the big deal is.

Off to dinner. I hope David Hyde Pierce is in good health. I am paying a lot of money and don’t want to see the understudy.

My marriage of 44 years to the same woman is not affected in the least by the polygamists in the Texas cult. Nor did the whore with multiple partners that lived next door when I was a child leave any scars. My good friends Pat and Lou have lived together for the thirty years I have known them and we are frequent guests at each other’s table. No harm there. I have known countless illegitimate children who have had no affect on my marriage. I have a sister who has had a common law marriage for decades. My cousin can not limit himself to any one homosexual partner for more than 24 hours. None of these examples affects my traditional marriage in the least.

Perhaps, if we follow your line of reasoning, we can do away with marriage entirely. We can say that inheritance laws, property division, etc. should never, ever be a matter of state interest.

Imagine a world with no state interest in divorce. Your Portia comes home to find that Ellen has moved on leaving two of the three adopted children, while taking the new car, the silver and jewels and the bank account. No state interest is involved, it is just “tough luck, Portia.”

OK, you didn’t actually say you favor taking the state interest out of marriage. But you somehow seem to think that the state should automatically favor the minority viewpoint. Or something. In fact, what are you trying to say?

Technically, your neighbor having sex with his daughter or marrying a ten-year-old doesn’t affect you in the least either, Houndentenor. Why don’t you mind your own business and call for repeals on those bans? Why should your “traditional” moral values interfere with someone marrying whomever they “love”, especially since “equal protection” means that the state has no right to deny marriage to anyone?

Robbie, in #!7, your comments were also well-written. Even though we will see them tomorrow when they are graduated from college, my wife is on the phone right now reading your comments to our twin sons, Taylor and Tyler, who are gay. The points you made will certainly reinforce the arguments Taylor and Tyler are making in support of what the California Supreme Court has done. They would much rather move to California than to Massachusetts, where winters are cold. I want them to move to England, where both major political parties respect gays, but their Mother and Grandparents want them closer to home.

California is one of the most hopelessly-gerrymandered states in existence.

You mean like Texas? About the only thing both parties agree on is seeking to keep themselves in power and screw really representative districts.

Third, the justices have never before voted in favor of same-sex marriage; in fact, they’ve repeatedly turned it back. Hence, it cannot be said that the judges have been “voted on” relative to this; indeed, they may not survive the recall round.

Perhaps. Yet while they may not have voted in favor gay marriage before, considering the number of “pro-gay” decisions this court has handed down and that many people expected yesterday’s result sooner or later, this doesn’t seem to be that surprising. Yet it doesn’t matter, the people will still have their say on their ruling in November and can vote on retaining these Justices later on. My prediction: the amendment passes (approx 55% range) and these Justices are retained.

Fourth, California’s constitution is written the way that it is because we were well familiar with non-representative representative government under Mexico. The ultimate authority is given to voters because we are well aware that legislators, judges, and even governors cannot always be trusted; the referendum and initiative process is to ensure that Californians need neither wait for people to be voted out of office or be forced to vote someone out with whom they disagree on one or two key issues, but otherwise support.

Hey it’s your state, live under whatever kind of crazy system you like. I prefer the wisdom of the Founders in making amendments to the Constitution difficult so popular passions don’t screw things up. If change is needed it should require far more agreement than merely 50+1.