Another Argument for Making the Case for Gay Marriage
In his excellent piece opposing a California Supreme Court decision overruling Proposition 8, William McGurn echoes some of the arguments I’ve been making electronically (i.e., on this blog) for as long as I’ve been blogging and verbally for as long as I’ve been talking about gay marriage. He holds that judicial resolution of the issue would only serve to prolong a bitter debate, whereas a democratic solution might more readily yield a social consensus:
How much healthier our politics would be if those so convinced of the rightness of their views would have equal faith in the decency of their fellow Americans — and their openness to being persuaded by clear, fair and honest argument.
I remain puzzled why so many supposed advocates of gay marriage remain so unwilling to actually advocate the cause they champion. They demand state recognition of gay marriage, insisting it’s a right yet all too few ever defend the institution itself on its merits.
I believe the state Supreme Court should let Proposition 8 stand even as I believe the language my fellow Californians voted to include in our state constitution does not belong there because, as I put it in a recent post, “I prefer democracy to oligarchy.” McGurn fleshes out that argument:
The great achievement of our system was to create a political order where these great moral disputes, as a matter of policy, are left to the people — with allowance for differences according to region and locale. Moral agents have a role to play, generally by shaping the larger culture in which these decisions are framed and debated. But the outcome is left to the people acting through their elected representatives, a process that inevitably involves compromise, trade-offs and messy accommodations.
When “the courts short-circuit this process, they do three things corrosive to our politics,” including cheating “the American people of an honest political contest, where candidates need to persuade the people of their views to put them into effect.” Not just that, he believes (as do I) “when courts usurp the role of the people, they inject cynicism and bitterness into America’s body politic.”
Let us avoid such cynicism and bitterness. The demographic trends favor state recognition of same-sex marriage, at least in the Golden State. If state recognition of gay marriage is what we want, we should have the resolve, the determination, to make our case to those who, in a free society, should ultimately decide such things: the people.
Just read the whole thing!
75 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Lobbyists can’t make a coherent, effective argument unless they understand the opposition, so I repeat: Until the leadership of these organizations comes from conservative areas, where they know conservatives, and as long as they live in leftist ghettos, they will only strengthen the opposition.
Comment by rightwingprof — November 27, 2008 @ 12:18 pm - November 27, 2008
This “bi-partisan support”, has be come a pat phrase these days … Advocates ALWAYS forget that if it really is good for society as a whole then they can find common ground to get the support from people who normally don’t.
Comment by Colocelt — November 27, 2008 @ 12:45 pm - November 27, 2008
I agree with you that it is better through the democratic process and also that the Court overtturning this will only make this more controversial, but disagree strongly that they should uphold Prop 8. Well, putting aside my own desires in this, they shouldn’t unless they undo their May ruling as well. If they do not then they set a precedent where a “suspect classes” can have their rights stripped away by a mere majority which violates the CA Constitution at least.
Understand what I am saying here: it mattters not whether you believe gays have a right to same-sex marriage or not, the Court ruled otherwise in May as well as finding homosexuals to be a “suspect class”. To allow Prop 8 to stand without also quashing this ruling would be far more disastrous for civil liberties.
I of course hope they strike down Prop 8 but if they do let it stand I hope they kill their May ruling as well.
Comment by John — November 27, 2008 @ 4:59 pm - November 27, 2008
You cannot vote rights to people, this is like theists arguing that evolution is impossible because of the laws of thermal dynamics.
I’m sure you could get enough votes in any given state for all kinds of crazy things that doesn’t mean the things are not crazy. I’m sure there are some towns in America where one could vote for an ordinance banning Blacks from lunch counters, should that ordinance stand until their eventual enlightenment of the people?
The fact that you think the government should have some say as to who can and can’t get married makes you rather less than conservative.
You are deeply silly and confused.
Comment by salvage — November 27, 2008 @ 5:37 pm - November 27, 2008
Good thing no one is talking about rights, then. Well, except some deeply silly and confused leftists who believe that they have a “right” to be treated equally for doing something entirely different.
Comment by American Elephant — November 27, 2008 @ 6:26 pm - November 27, 2008
I read the whole article and the comments that followed, and they ran approximately 80% against his thesis. I remember learning in my 8th grade civics class that we had a Republican form of government and that the judicial system made up the third branch of government. If the majority is allowed to decide the rights of the minority, then I guess in the near future it would be okay with you if the majority decides to strip churches of their tax exempt status, or force one religion on its citizens?
Comment by DaveA — November 27, 2008 @ 6:28 pm - November 27, 2008
>they have a “right†to be treated equally for doing something entirely different.
And what is the “different” of which you speak?
Comment by salvage — November 27, 2008 @ 6:56 pm - November 27, 2008
marrying a partner of the same sex is the oposite of marrying someone of the oposite sex.
Comment by The_Livewire — November 27, 2008 @ 7:48 pm - November 27, 2008
>marrying a partner of the same sex is the oposite of marrying someone of the oposite sex.
It most certainly is not, the opposite of marriage is divorce.
Try again.
Comment by salvage — November 27, 2008 @ 10:01 pm - November 27, 2008
I’m still curious how y’all feel about the Supreme Court decision in Brown vs. The Board of Education. Do you really despise the 3rd branch of government so intensely that you don’t want them to affirm a right that should be afforded to all citizens under our laws? (ie, the equal protection clauses of both the US and state constitutions)
I’m astounded how the false information about the judicial system in this country, especially the courts, are being touted by conservatives these days. The rhetoric I see here (and elsewhere) make it sound as if the courts are creating these cases to constantly overturn the law. Don’t forget that its people who must petition and come before the court; courts just don’t create their docket items on their own.
Conservatives love to tout how we are supposed to be a nation of laws, but it’s been pretty clear (especially during the last nearly 8 years) how much they despise those laws in order to achieve their own agenda, legal or not.
Comment by Kevin — November 28, 2008 @ 6:00 am - November 28, 2008
I’m one of those who needs to hear the reasonable arguments in favor of allowing gays to co-opt the heretofore heterosexual term “marriage.” I read many at this site saying such a dialogue is essential, but I’ve yet to see the position put forward in the way you say it should be. Could someone please refer me to an article, book, or other site where I can learn why it is I, as a non-gay, should be open to allowing gays to use the term marriage for their same-sex unions, especially if, as in California, they appear to have been granted everything they’ve wanted except the use of this term. What is it about the word that is so important? Thank you.
Comment by jep — November 28, 2008 @ 6:09 am - November 28, 2008
Ah that old chestnut…
Kevin, you’re comparing what’s clearly in the 14th ammendment to things that are pulled out of thin air.
salvage, so do we put you in the pro-polygamy, pro-beastiality party?
Comment by The_Livewire — November 28, 2008 @ 9:26 am - November 28, 2008
The former is a privilege we as a society extend to churches and most definitely not a right. Americans could decide to strip all churches of tax-exemption and no violation of the First Amedment would occur. It would be dangerous IMO because this could lead to an indirect undermining of religious freedoms and right now is politically insane for a politician to take such a position, but doing so isn’t a violation of rights. Well, that is unless we decided just to strip Mormons of their tax exemption because we don’t like them while allowing all other religions to keep theirs. However, we do condition this privilege and the Mormons for example could lose theirs for violating election laws while the Quakers kept theirs. I have little doubt though that for the most part the LDS followed the strict letter of the law as it currently exists in the Prop 8 campaign, which tells me that reform is needed. No tax-exempt group should be contributing money or endorsing political campaigns, including ballot initiatives, regardless of which side they take. There are enough ways for religious groups to make their views known without such a direct involvement.
Now as to the latter in your statement, unlike tax exemption in general such would indeed be a violation of the First Amendment. Yet what bothers me here is that I didn’t see this cry when it came to Catholic Charities in Massachusetts or eHarmony in New Jersey. Their rights were violated and gay activists cheered on the State government which was wrong. We don’t have to like or agree with a religious group to respect their civil rights just as much as we demand they respect ours.
Comment by John — November 28, 2008 @ 9:55 am - November 28, 2008
“Clearly”? Surely you jest, Livewire. Since we’re doing repeats of comment posts, allow me to repeat mine again:
Such is easy to say now decades after a liberal Supreme Court came out with the Brown decision. You have been saying all along that it never occurred to the original framers of the CA Constitution that the same-sex marriage was included under the equal protection clauses, yet this “strict constructionism†you tout out is noticeably absent when it comes to segregation and the 14th Amendment. A complete mixing of the races, including intermarriage or even occurrences where blacks might be in authority over whites, was not at all thought to be included in the 14th Amendment. Well, except for a few “radical†Republicans at that time and even many of them with daughters would have balked at intermarriage. Yet you ignore this history because it isn’t useful to your argument now. Why is that? The fact of the matter is that segregation wasn’t seen as violating the 14th Amendment until the Brown decision, something even the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist may have agreed with:
The understanding about segregation and the 14th Amendment is summed up in the Plessy decision, using reasoning VERY similiar to what we see today in the current matter:
Comment by John — November 28, 2008 @ 10:13 am - November 28, 2008
>salvage, so do we put you in the pro-polygamy, pro-beastiality party?
This is an orange.
This is an apple.
They are two DIFFERENT things.
There are legitimate arguments against polygamy, one merely has to look at the Mormon cases to find them and bestiality is tantamount to animal abuse.
See the thing you and many others don’t get is that gay people? They’re people! No, no, really they are and the law recognizes them as such. Like how you can’t fire them for being gay or deny them a seat at a lunch counter? They even have jobs, pay taxes and everything!
Crazy I know but what are you going to do? There’s this stupid Constitution and all these other laws that make it so.
Now as people that means that gays get equal rights to all of the opportunities… I know, I know they don’t have sex like you do and that makes them awful and they should be treated as second class citizens but dang it, the law says you can’t do that!
Marriage is two PEOPLE (there’s that word again!) entering into a contract so as long as it’s two PEOPLE then that’s the end of the debate.
Not three PEOPLE. Not a person and a cocker spaniel… people… two.
Because the only difference between gay and straight is their sexual preferences, so if that’s your reasoning, that gays should not have their marriages recognized because of the way they have sex then that has to apply to straights; unless you have penis in vagina coitus you are not married.
Gosh, sounds stupid when you put it that way doesn’t it? Almost like there’s more to marriage than just sex.
And it’s neat how you threw up that lame point about “opposite” it’s shot down and you just stroll right by as if you said nothing of the sort. See that’s what your arguments are in this case, wrong and you know it but you think if you don’t acknowledge your error no one will notice.
And finally to anyone about to howl about “protecting marriage” or some such nonsense Canada has had gay marriage now for close to five years and funny thing, nothing has changed.
Grow up, worry about your own relationships and leave others be in their personal pursuit of happiness.
Comment by salvage — November 28, 2008 @ 10:17 am - November 28, 2008
salvage, so do we put you in the pro-polygamy, pro-beastiality party?
Actually, since you are the one indirectly appealing to tradition against same-sex marriages, the burden falls upon you to sustain the ban against polygamous marriages more so than it does upon salvage. There is a distinct and glaring gap in your use of tradition for such arguments since polygamy has a far longer and more widespread claim on tradition throughout human history than monogamy does.
As for bestiality, that’s a specious argument since a valid marriage, along with any contractual arrangement, requires all involved parties to be able to freely give consent. Animals have never been found to be capable of giving consent as humans are. Well, unless one is an animal rights nutjob who thinks a snail-darter is the same as a human being…
Comment by John — November 28, 2008 @ 10:28 am - November 28, 2008
You have been saying all along that it never occurred to the original framers of the CA Constitution that the same-sex marriage was included under the equal protection clauses, yet this “strict constructionism†you tout out is noticeably absent when it comes to segregation and the 14th Amendment.
That is because, John, there are two other amendments — the Thirteenth and the Fifteenth — that make it rather clear that race, in and of itself, is not easily designated as valid grounds for different treatment under the law.
Furthermore, you ignore the most basic issue — that if marriage is an action of “equal protection”, since the Fourteenth Amendment does not make differentiation on the basis of age, species, blood relationship, or existing relationships, that ANY bans on marriage are a violation of “equal protection”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2008 @ 12:11 pm - November 28, 2008
Are you seriously this obtuse?
Do I need to explain where babies come from too? For crying out loud! I truly am sick to death of homos in denial about the facts of life
There is one and ONLY one type of relationship that can reproduce. Marriage exists to encourage people to enter into that relationship in a legally binding way.
You want everyone to treat you exactly the same for entering into an entirely different kind of relationship.
Seriously, dont expect 300 million Americans to embrace your delusion, grow up and come to terms with reality instead.
Comment by American Elephant — November 28, 2008 @ 12:15 pm - November 28, 2008
There are legitimate arguments against polygamy, one merely has to look at the Mormon cases to find them and bestiality is tantamount to animal abuse.
And, using that logic, there are legitimate arguments against gay marriage, such as the fact that gay liberals support the abolishment of marriage and the examples of gays using their relationships as legal shields for engaging in child abuse.
Now, certainly you’re going to try to spin back that not all gay couples are like that and we shouldn’t judge the whole by certain cases — which thus neatly undercuts your argument for banning polygamy, incest, and bestialist marriages and makes it clear that you are using a hypocritical argument for gay marriage.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2008 @ 12:16 pm - November 28, 2008
Again you ignore strict constructionism when its inconvenient only to trot it out later, hoping that nobody notices the inconsistency in your arguments. I don’t think so. You’ve tried this line before but once more the 13th & 15th Amendments deal with slavery & voting rights, neither of which say anything about segregation or anti-miscenegation laws. Yet again you seek to prop up a MODERN view of the 14th Amendment, one that didn’t exist prior to Brown in the mid-20th century, while conveniently skipping over original intent. As Plessy demonstrates, in the times this amendment was written neither segregation nor anti-miscenegation laws were seen as violations except perhaps by a few ‘radical’ Republicans. Now if you are to be consistent in your arguments then a new amendment is needed to supplement the 14th in order to ban such racist practices and a ruling by SCOTUS isn’t sufficient to do this. You do recall the line about “judicial activism” dontcha? Such is exactly your argument when it comes to same-sex marriage. Keep avoiding the issue all you like but the inconsistency is glaring.
Nope, you have failed to prove that other species are capable of freely giving consent as humans do in forming contracts so that continuing such a specious slipperry-slope argument doesn’t bolster your case. The same goes for age. As for incestous relationships or polygamous, sorry but that onus falls upon you, not I. I’m not the one appealing indirectly to tradition to frame my argument against same-sex marriage, while you are. You do recall of course that both have great appeal in tradition throughout human history, especially polygamy?
Comment by John — November 28, 2008 @ 12:33 pm - November 28, 2008
There is one and ONLY one type of relationship that can reproduce.
Indeed, which does not include infertile couples or the elderly. Are you saying that the government has the right under the Constitution to ban such marital relationships? Can they be banned from adopting children as well?
Comment by John — November 28, 2008 @ 12:37 pm - November 28, 2008
Also, we should remember that the ACLU and the other leftist organizations are looking to abolish limitations on plural marriage, which they consider to be unconstitutional.
Gee, wonder why they’re so interested in cases that demand justices create the “right to marriage” and insist that bans on marriage are illegal?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2008 @ 12:40 pm - November 28, 2008
Nope, you have failed to prove that other species are capable of freely giving consent as humans do in forming contracts so that continuing such a specious slipperry-slope argument doesn’t bolster your case.
The requirement for consent is a law that limits access to marriage, John, and you have argued that laws limiting access to marriage are unconstitutional and a violation of “equal protection”. Furthermore, you have argued that biology is not an allowable basis for marriage restrictions; therefore, species differences, since they are biological in nature, are not valid.
The inconsistency here, John, is in how you refuse to acknowledge the right of the people to choose who is allowed to marry when it inconveniences you and insist that a moral basis is no basis for law, but invoke it when it is against something you find wrong and disgusting.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2008 @ 12:45 pm - November 28, 2008
Yet on what basis are you seeking to maintain such a ban against polygamy, NDT?
Comment by John — November 28, 2008 @ 12:46 pm - November 28, 2008
Are you saying that the government has the right under the Constitution to ban such marital relationships? Can they be banned from adopting children as well?
Absolutely. As I’ve challenged other gay leftists, go right ahead and try to push that through.
The reason you will fail, John, is because you don’t have the votes for it. And that really is the principle here: which is more fundamentally important, the right of people to vote on their own laws and constitution, or eliminating that right in favor of the judiciary?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2008 @ 12:48 pm - November 28, 2008
Irrelevant. One must be capable of freely giving consent in order to enter a contract. Until you overcome that hurdle, this line of defense remains specious.
Nice try. I haven’t argued based upon morality or my personal tastes in the examples you cite, but instead on the very foundations of contractual law: that all involved parties are freely capable of giving consent. You can parrot the talking points of the religious right all you wish NDT, but they aren’t sustained on their own. Try again.
Comment by John — November 28, 2008 @ 12:50 pm - November 28, 2008
Yet on what basis are you seeking to maintain such a ban against polygamy, NDT?
Easy. I maintain that the right of the voters to recognize what relationships they wish as marriage and to codify that into law is paramount. Those who empower the Constitution in the first place — “We the People” — are the ones who have ultimate authority. If they choose not to amend the Constitution to ban interracial marriage — as they chose not to do — then the judiciary is free to impose it. However, in this case, the voters changed their constitution to make it clear that gay marriage is not recognized, and that should be respected as well.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2008 @ 12:51 pm - November 28, 2008
One must be capable of freely giving consent in order to enter a contract.
Ah but you see, John, states have the power to limit who is allowed to enter a contract. You have denied states the power to limit marriage; therefore, marriage is not a contract, or at least not one bound by regular rules. Since the legal requirement to enter marriage is now “love”, you have no right to state that animals cannot love, or that humans cannot love animals.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2008 @ 12:54 pm - November 28, 2008
In the movie Parenthood, Keanu Reeves says “You need a license to fish and a license to drive, but any jerk can become a parent.”
YES, AE, biologically, sperm needs to be introduced to a fertile, receptive egg, and if wonders of wonders happen, fertilization occurs, the zygote sets itself up in the lining of the uterus and matures. If nothing interferes, a human child is born.
But nothing says that the biological father or even the biological mother are ready, willing or even able to become parents. and it doesn’t mean that these two people will be around for the next 15-18 years of life to raise this child together.
don’t know where you are living, but Frank Capra hasn’t produced ‘the wonderful life’ you seem so set on establishing.
we live in times where people can arrange surrogate mother’s, both heteros and homos do it. . .we live in times where folk adopt, as hetero couples, homo couples and even single folk.
and there are even situations, where young gays and lesbians become wondreful aunts and uncles, and with the ugly thought of a disaster those gay folk even become parents.
Now why is it that you are so resistant to the idea that gay folk can’t be parents. I would really like to tell the gay folk here, primarily the gay patriot and GPW, why in your mind they can’t become a parent?
With the ongoing struggle of prop 8 and other SSM battles, folk are coming around to the idea of change. But there will still be folk like you
sitting over in the corner, banging the drum, staring out the window, and mumbling ‘tradition. . .tradition. . .tradition. . .’
who knows how things are going to play out with gay marriage. like some have said, this is a relatively new idea. but it is taking hold, and though you and others like you might continue to resist the change,
like my old friend’s say who have been around awhile,
‘resistance is futile’
Comment by rusty — November 28, 2008 @ 12:57 pm - November 28, 2008
Interesting. I’ll give you credit for consistency on this point.
Actually you have misframed this. The principles of majority rules isn’t enshrined in the Constitution when it comes to civil rights. Heck, in many other instances it isn’t recognized or approved of. This isn’t a case of judicial activism vs. popular vote, but instead an unconstitutional move to subvert civil liberties through the ballot box.
Comment by John — November 28, 2008 @ 12:58 pm - November 28, 2008
Now this is a VERY interesting argument you are trying to make. Are you seriously saying that courts are free to be as “active” as they wish until the People choose to amend the Constitution? Of course you are mixing up your metaphors so to speak since the US Constitution isn’t amended by the People while the California state one can be, under certain circumstances. Yet in both cases it doesn’t matter what a mere majority wants. It takes 2/3’s of Congress, not direct vote by the People, and 3/4’s of the State legislatures, again not direct approval by the People, to pass amendments. A 52% popular vote doesn’t cut it. In California a mere majority is great for amendments, but not revisions. Thus we come back to which one Prop 8 was and guess what? That necessitates a role for the California Supremes who will decide the matter. Afterwards either you or I will come back and say how wrong they were, no doubt. Yet we have been speaking of Federal constitutional principles mainly in this thread, not necessarily those peculiar to one state.
Comment by John — November 28, 2008 @ 1:05 pm - November 28, 2008
Indeed. Yet such is not an absolute power and one that is very much restricted.
Really? Where have I done this? Nope, I have maintained the basis of contractual arrangements while denying the government absolute power to choose restrictions as it sees fit. You, on the other hand, have taken the opposite approach that not only would approve of anti-miscenegation laws but would allow a mere majority to add further restrictions as it sees fit. All this is of course in blatant violation of the Constitution but such hasn’t stopped you.
Really? Please show me where I made such an argument.
I’m sure that humans can love animals but the reverse has never been shown to be true. You will of course produce evidence beyond any shadow of a doubt to establish such while continuing to make such a specious argument, right?
Comment by John — November 28, 2008 @ 1:11 pm - November 28, 2008
You, on the other hand, have taken the opposite approach that not only would approve of anti-miscenegation laws but would allow a mere majority to add further restrictions as it sees fit.
Yup. That’s called being committed to the principles of democracy and the right of people to make decisions that you don’t like. In that worldview, getting the results you want depends on coherent argument, persuasion, and compromise.
You, on the other hand, pay only lip service to the principles of democracy; you support peoples’ right to vote and make decisions as they see fit only inasmuch as they don’t inconvenience you, and you have no problem with depriving people of their right to vote on and amend their own constitution by the principles laid out in it because you don’t like the end result and are unwilling to put together a coherent, persuasive, or compromising argument.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2008 @ 1:26 pm - November 28, 2008
This isn’t a case of judicial activism vs. popular vote, but instead an unconstitutional move to subvert civil liberties through the ballot box.
Thank you for making it obvious, John, that you consider the right of the people to vote on their own constitution in accordance with the process for them to do so that is outlined in that very same constitution to be “unconstitutional”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2008 @ 1:30 pm - November 28, 2008
I remain puzzled why so many supposed advocates of gay marriage remain so unwilling to actually advocate the cause they champion. They demand state recognition of gay marriage, insisting it’s a right yet all too few ever defend the institution itself on its merits.
Because, GPW, marriage is everything the gay community is not.
It’s about commitment. It’s about fidelity. It’s about one sexual partner. It’s about taking another person’s needs, wants, and desires into consideration. It’s NOT easily broken. In short, it’s contrary to the most fundamental values of the gay community.
What it IS is a means of attacking religious people and society at large. Just like a bullying sibling who is looking for a weak spot and trying to attack it, the gay community has latched on to marriage as a way to work out its antireligious bigotry, hate of heterosexuals, and contempt for society without it being blatantly obvious.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2008 @ 1:51 pm - November 28, 2008
Which is not at all what our system of government and Constitution were founded upon. This is a Republic, not a democracy.
Indeed, quite proudly too. I do not believe in democracy at all, at least on such a large scale as the United States. Now republicanism? I’m a firm believer in this which is precisely what this country was founded upon and which all 28 Amendments have done nothing to undo.
Nope, if such were the case Obama would have a very difficult time assuming office in January. Now I do believe in the process and the Constitution which establishes it. You apparently do not, seeking some nebulous form of democracy, or really mobocracy, which the Founders were staunchly opposed to even if the Jeffersonians rhetorically flirted with it from time to time.
On the contrary, the People are quite free to amend the Constitution. Yet they are not free to subvert the existing process in the governing document in seeking to do so. This process was not followed in the case of Prop 8 which actually was a revision. Now if you’d like to revise the CA Constitution, by all means go for it. Good luck getting that 2/3’s support from the state legislature.
Btw, NDT, why are you complaining when you previously said that judges are free to be as active as they wish?
Comment by John — November 28, 2008 @ 1:52 pm - November 28, 2008
Rusty,
Don’t put words in other people’s mouths, its a weak way to argue. I never said gay people cant become parents.
Single people can become parents too! By your logic, single parents should get marriage benefits as well.
But of course they don’t, and at least they understand that they aren’t entitled to them, because they understand that they are doing something entirely different than what society is trying to encourage.
While gays can become parents what gays CANNOT do is become parents with each other. They cannot bear each others children. No child can ever be raised by both its biological parents inside a same sex relationship.
Society wants to encourage this to happen. Gays are telling them they have no right to encourage it because it hurts their feelings.
Comment by American Elephant — November 28, 2008 @ 1:53 pm - November 28, 2008
So I take it then that you are arguing in favor of 52% of the People being able to toss out the U.S. Constitution and putting in one of it’s own choosing? Such is the logical conclusion of the reasoning you employ here.
Comment by John — November 28, 2008 @ 1:54 pm - November 28, 2008
Scientist predicts humans will have sex with robots and marry them!”
And gays will be right there saying its their “right”!
Comment by American Elephant — November 28, 2008 @ 1:55 pm - November 28, 2008
Btw, NDT, why are you complaining when you previously said that judges are free to be as active as they wish?
About? Judges are free to be active, people are free to amend the constitution. The problem comes when liberals try to argue that judges can be active, but people can’t amend the constitution. That imbalances power, and actually perverts the entire theory of a republic, in which people elect others to represent their wishes, into an oligarchy, where those in power rule patriarchially over the voters who are deemed too incompetent to make their own decisions.
So I take it then that you are arguing in favor of 52% of the People being able to toss out the U.S. Constitution and putting in one of it’s own choosing? Such is the logical conclusion of the reasoning you employ here.
Of course.
Why does that frighten you, John?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2008 @ 2:09 pm - November 28, 2008
an opinion piece floating about today by Kathleen Parker’s (In Basic Civics) Parker notes: In his book, Shenkman, founder of George Mason University’s History News Network, is tough on everyday Americans.
Why, he asks, do we value polls when clearly The People don’t know enough to make a reasoned judgment?
The founding fathers, Shenkman points out, weren’t so enamored of The People, whom they distrusted. Hence a Republic, not a Democracy.
They understood that an ignorant electorate was susceptible to emotional manipulation and feared the tyranny of the masses.
Both Shenkman and the ISI pose a bedeviling question, as crucial as any to the nation’s health: Who will govern a free nation if no one understands the mechanics and instruments of that freedom?
Answer: Maybe one day, a demagogue. –
AE
There are couples out there who are not in same sex marriages who cannnot, will not and or choose not to ‘bear each other’s children’.
Many of them fall into the ‘hetero’ category.
And speaking of putting words into the mouths of others, sometimes there seems to be evidence that you lack a spoon but rather a scoop shovel when it comes to your rebuttals and a evident practice of putting / pushing words into other’s mouths, along with being rather insensitive, overbearing and extremely tempermental.
My question, back to GPW ‘building alliances’ post: Those folk in the groups like ADF who backed the Prop 8 and other anti SSM initiatives are the same folk who will be calling for similar Arkansas bans on gay folk adopting.
Where will that line in the sand be drawn and who will be drawing it.
FOLK like GPW, AE, NDT
or the ADF and other ‘faith-based’ folk looking to engage a demogagy. who will lead: leaders who makes use of popular prejudices
Comment by rusty — November 28, 2008 @ 2:18 pm - November 28, 2008
an opinion piece floating about today by Kathleen Parker’s (In Basic Civics) Parker notes: In his book, Shenkman, founder of George Mason University’s History News Network, is tough on everyday Americans.
Why, he asks, do we value polls when clearly The People don’t know enough to make a reasoned judgment?
The founding fathers, Shenkman points out, weren’t so enamored of The People, whom they distrusted. Hence a Republic, not a Democracy.
They understood that an ignorant electorate was susceptible to emotional manipulation and feared the tyranny of the masses.
Both Shenkman and the ISI pose a bedeviling question, as crucial as any to the nation’s health: Who will govern a free nation if no one understands the mechanics and instruments of that freedom?
Answer: Maybe one day, a demagogue. –
AE
There are couples out there who are not in same sex marriages who cannnot, will not and or choose not to ‘bear each other’s children’.
Many of them fall into the ‘hetero’ category.
And speaking of putting words into the mouths of others, sometimes there seems to be evidence that you lack a spoon but rather a scoop shovel when it comes to your rebuttals and a evident practice of putting / pushing words into other’s mouths, along with being rather insensitive, overbearing and extremely tempermental.
My question, back to GPW ‘building alliances’ post: Those folk in the groups like ADF who backed the Prop 8 and other anti SSM initiatives are the same folk who will be calling for similar Arkansas bans on gay folk adopting.
Where will that line in the sand be drawn and who will be drawing it.
FOLK like GPW, AE, NDT
or the ADF and other ‘faith-based’ folk looking to engage a demogagy. who will lead: leaders who make use of popular prejudices
Comment by rusty — November 28, 2008 @ 2:24 pm - November 28, 2008
Because your position is worse than that espoused by liberals and is more akin to the anarchists. We have a constitution for a reason and the position you have taken here undermines the very fabric of our Republic. It subverts the very Constitution which for over 200 years has given us the great country all of us live in. Indeed, we wouldn’t have a Republic OR civil liberties if it were up to you. This goes waaaaay beyond gay issues, NDT. Based on your reasoning, SCOTUS would have been just fine in ruling the other way in Heller and the Republicans really did “steal” the 2000 election since they clearly thwarted the will of the People. Don’t bother bringing up his win in the Electoral College, because process and the Constitution doesn’t matter to you as you’ve already said. It’s whatever 50.1% of the People say at any time. One wonders how you can live with yourself for not loudly opposing the “judicial activism” of SCOTUS in Bush v. Gore over the past 8 years.
Wow. Your position here is far more dangerous than the most extreme liberalism and is a recipe for civil war.
Comment by John — November 28, 2008 @ 3:05 pm - November 28, 2008
We have a constitution for a reason and the position you have taken here undermines the very fabric of our Republic. It subverts the very Constitution which for over 200 years has given us the great country all of us live in. Indeed, we wouldn’t have a Republic OR civil liberties if it were up to you.
John, were I not aware that the same arguments had been made about breaking with Britain in the first place, or with the Declaration of Independence, or with the Articles of Confederation, or with the Reconstruction Amendments, that might be a plausible argument.
But I am aware, and as a result, am not impressed. The Constitution is not some static and archaic document; it is a structure that the American people have had, treasured, built upon, and changed when the nature of the time required it. That is why the amendment process exists, and why its sanctity should be respected and protected.
The problem here is your bigotry towards your fellow Americans and your unwillingness to give way to their right to vote as they see fit and on what grounds they choose. You see the Constitution as a means to force your will on others; I see it as a safeguard against exactly that. You and your fellow gay liberals think the courts exist to eliminate the vagaries of a democracy and to provide a conduit for you to legislate your own beliefs free of having to respect the viewpoints of others; I see the Constitution as explicitly prohibiting the courts from doing that and leaving the ultimate decision-making power up to the voters.
You are attempting to hide behind the Constitution, John, and use it as a means of lording over others. I embrace it and the wonderful rights it gives, first and foremost the right of the people to determine the form and practice of their own government.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2008 @ 3:52 pm - November 28, 2008
Correction: not “rights it gives”, but “rights it protects“.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2008 @ 3:53 pm - November 28, 2008
Ok, now that we’ve cut through the fluff of the rest of your post…
You may claim to embrace the Constitution now but instead you have done everything you can to overthrow it today. The Constitution is not simply a means for the majority to impose it’s will upon the minority, but a compact among all of us that our civil rights will be upheld even if at times we may find ourelves in the minority - something each one of us does one time or another. You are the one who claims that a mere majority may ignore the Constitution and do whatever it likes with nothing to restrain it. Tell me, what reaction do you think that 48% will have in such a scenario other than civil war? Without the Constitution in place that is all that is left for them to resist the tyranny of the majority. With the free hand that your view gives to Obama, liberals and the 52% who voted for them, what gives us in the 48% minority even a semblance of protection from possible abuses against the Constitution? Your comments earlier make it quite clear that you have zero respect for the Constitution, regardless of your claims to the contrary now, and instead embrace such an extremist view of democracy that the Founders rejected and I would say ironically even most Americans would reject today. Your view leaves no room for “inalienable rights”, a Bill of Rights, or even a Constitution, because all one needs is to whip 50.1% of those who bother to show up at the polls to vote into a frenzy and vote a certain way. Tell me, if that 52% majority decides that conservatives should no longer be allowed to vote, to what will you appeal for redress? Don’t bother claiming this is a violation of your rights guaranteed by the Constitution because you’ve already said the will of the majority trumps all of that and clearly it’s “bigotry” to deny this majority the ‘right’ to disenfranchise conservatives.
That is not what the Constitution is about.
That is not what this country was founded upon.
That is not what even the republican tradition of the West our nation is derived from entails.
You have allowed your zeal to blind you to the bigger picture and in that are just as dangerous, if not more, than the worst liberal you can think of. The Constitution may be a “living and breathing” document to them but at least they recognize it as our governing document that imposes some limitations upon the majority and which provides guarantees for us all. That’s something you clearly reject.
You may claim to be a conservative but you are not. Instead you are a radical who has rejected the very fabric of what holds this nation together.
Comment by John — November 28, 2008 @ 7:30 pm - November 28, 2008
Tell me, what reaction do you think that 48% will have in such a scenario other than civil war?
Let’s turn your question around, John: since you refuse to let the people vote on their own constitution and intend to nullify any vote that the majority makes, what option do you leave those 52% for reaction or redress other than civil war?
Oh, that’s right. Those 52% are just supposed to sit down and shut up and do what the minority tells them to do. They have no right to change their constitution; after all, it says that the majority has no rights and no power, and that minorities can use the Constitution to force the majority to do whatever they want.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2008 @ 2:14 am - November 29, 2008
Oh, and John, since you insist that the majority has no right to amend the Constitution, will you please repudiate every amendment after the 13th? Because, after all, every one of them infringed on some minority’s right, and therefore, according to your logic, they should be invalidated.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2008 @ 2:15 am - November 29, 2008
One more thing: John, since you insist that the majority has no right to deny anyone marriage and that the Constitution guarantees that right to everyone, would you please state publicly for the record that bans on plural marriage, incestuous marriage, child marriage, and bestial marriages are unconstitutional, insamuch as they are also denied by vote of the majority?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2008 @ 2:45 am - November 29, 2008
Ok, getting caught up.
salvage, again, you say that marriage is a right, but disallow polygamy/beastiality/etc. So you draw a line. So let me restate your position for you. “Marriage is what -I- say it is, and devil take what everyone else thinks.”
Rusty. zzzzzzzzzz
John, you’re fighting the wrong battle with me. I thought you and I agreed on the ends (some government recognition of same sex couples) just not the means (I feel it will be more practical to create the institution, call it ‘Fred’ but don’t call it marriage. What’s in a name? pissing a lot of people off who will meet you halfway that’s what).
I do find the fear of the 52% arguement amusing. Wasn’t the ‘right’ to allow same sex marrage found in CA by a 5-4 decision? So 55% of the judges pulled it out of the air. not that far from 52% So wouldn’t it be consistant to oppose that, as it’s the majority so feared?
Also I’m not seeing fears of a civil war from the 47% who didn’t vote for Sen. Obama. Or are those 47% the mature half of America?
The reason I keep coming back to the polygamy/beastiality arguement is it’s handy and convient. You can’t define marriage as a ‘right’ then say ‘we’re limiting that right to the following…’
What the gay marriage arguement is, boils down to ‘we want to change one of the criteria of marriage, while leaving the others intact.’ The key is the ‘wanting to change’ aspect. As one who wants to change the status quo, the burden is on you to make the arguement. I believe that’s what Dan is trying to say that is getting shouted down. Stop demonizing your opponents, stop mocking them, and start educating people, making the arguements, living the example.
The current method of fear and demonization is 0-30, even the Wolverines have better records than that.
Personal experience note: When Ohio’s DOMA was on the ballot one of the recurring arguements was that it would invalidate -any- contract out of marriage. I researched it and confirmed that no, it wouldn’t. REason 1/fear 0
Comment by The_Livewire — November 29, 2008 @ 3:08 am - November 29, 2008
Ah, but that is the benefit of living in a free country, the government can encourage behavior with incentives, but it cant put a gun to your head and force you to do it.
Whether every heterosexual married couple has children or not does not change the fact that only heterosexual couples can have children with each other. So your argument is specious.
And yet, oddly enough, you couldn’t provide any of that evidence!
Yes, I plead guilty. I don’t mind disagreement, but when people who disagree are snotty, self-righteous or condescending in making their stupid arguments, then I very much enjoy dishing it right back to them — and its much more effective when I do it, because unlike them, I happen to be right.
Comment by American Elephant — November 29, 2008 @ 3:35 am - November 29, 2008
Now you mention the Constitution? Who cares about that? You certainly don’t since actually adhering to the document is not something you believe in. Unlike you I do believe in the constitutional process so the majority is very free to try and amend it to their heart’s content. As long as they follow the process outlined. If they don’t like the process the Constitution provides, they are free to try and change that through amendment.
Comment by John — November 29, 2008 @ 8:05 am - November 29, 2008
Nope, because a mere majority didn’t adopt those amendments. All 28 Amendments to the US Constitution were approved of by 2/3’s of Congress and 3/4’s of the States, as outlined in Article V.
Now in your world the freedom of religion & speech, the right to be free from unreasonable searches or to bear arms, etc. are not really “rights” but merely temporary grants that await a shift of .1% of popular support, contrary to Article V.
Comment by John — November 29, 2008 @ 8:11 am - November 29, 2008
They are quite free to overturn the Court’s decision, remove the Justices they dislike, or even abolish the Court if they so choose. Yet in order to do so there is a process to follow. You are implicitly upholding the sanctity of one process, i.e. the will of the People reflected at the ballot box by only those who bother to show up, while ignoring what goes hand-in-hand with it. Courts rule all the time in ways I personally dislike (Kelo springs to mind) and Congress is stupid on a daily basis, but the Constitution remains in place. If necessary, we have a means, though a very difficult one, to amend that document.
Of course not. Unlike in NDT’s World, we 47% know that the Constitution remains in place and there is always the next election to remove politicians we dislike.
Marriage has been defined as a right since at least Loving v. Virginia, if not earlier in Perez. It may seem to be a convenient argument but it still remains specious.
Ok, points to you for the Red Dawn reference.
I agree that the current movement has been pathetic, which the record shows. If I were leading it, we would have settled for civil unions a while ago and put marriage off till the next generation. I believe there is a constitutional argument in this but I’m a pragmatist and would table it for that next gen to argue if civil unions were available. Well, that is as long as such unions were available in every state and included all the rights, responsibilities and protections of marriage. I personally am not stuck on a name, though I find those who are on both sides to be absurd idiots.
Comment by John — November 29, 2008 @ 8:29 am - November 29, 2008
>Do I need to explain where babies come from too? For crying out loud! I truly am sick to death of homos in denial about the facts of life
>There is one and ONLY one type of relationship that can reproduce. Marriage exists to encourage people to enter into that relationship in a legally binding way.
Few points on this nonsense:
1) So if straight couples don’t have children they cannot get married?
2) If a straight couple has children they must be married?
3) Gays are not sterile, they can have children
>You want everyone to treat you exactly the same for entering into an entirely different kind of relationship.
No. I want the government to treat all contracts the same.
>Seriously, dont expect 300 million Americans to embrace your delusion, grow up and come to terms with reality instead.
Ha! Ha! The same can be said about religion. Again I don’t care what 300 million, billion or trillion Americans embrace we are talking about the government recognizing a contract between two people.
>And, using that logic, there are legitimate arguments against gay marriage, such as the fact that gay liberals support the abolishment of marriage and the examples of gays using their relationships as legal shields for engaging in child abuse.
If there are you are not using it, I don’t think you are capable if this is your idea of logic. You’re first point is just nonsense and your second point is retarded nonsense.
>salvage, again, you say that marriage is a right,
I say no such thing, I say that being treated equally before the government is a right, a marriage contract being recognized for one couple but not another violates that right. The substance of the contract is immaterial.
>but disallow polygamy/beastiality/etc. So you draw a line.
Well of course, there are no such things as “slippery slopesâ€, things go exactly as far as we allow them.
>So let me restate your position for you. “Marriage is what -I- say it is, and devil take what everyone else thinks.â€
I don’t know if you deliberately misinterpret these things or not but that is not my position, marriage is a contract between two people swearing an oath of fidelity to each other forsaking all others. That contract grants certain rights to the couple, as long as there are two and as long as they’re human adults it’s no one business but theirs.
See the problem y’all have with it is you hate “homosâ€, they frighten and disgust you because they are outside the norm and you want to keep them there. Gay marriage and the gradual acceptance of the reality that how people have consensual sex is no one’s business save for those getting busy is scaring the hell out of you.
But it’s happening, prop 8 aside, slowly but surely and the next generation will look back at this time and wonder what the fuss was about.
Fact: There are gay people and they are PEOPLE and have all the rights of people including the pursuit of happiness. Anyone standing in the way or even speed-bumping it are sad, pathetic and deeply un-American.
And again, Canada and a few other nations have had gay marriage and it hasn’t actually caused any problems for straight marriage, there has been no angry sky god retribution or any of the other delusional consequences dreamed up by fevered bigots.
The End.
Comment by salvage — November 29, 2008 @ 9:19 am - November 29, 2008
Scientist predicts humans will have sex with robots and marry them!â€
And gays will be right there saying its their “rightâ€!
When robots are given the same rights as humans in the Constitution, I’ll worry about it then. After 219 years, we’re still don’t quite got the equal rights and equality thing for all humans yet.
Comment by Pat — November 29, 2008 @ 9:19 am - November 29, 2008
Yet in order to do so there is a process to follow.
Which the people of California did. But now, since John doesn’t like the result, he tries to argue that it’s wrong — which makes it obvious that he doesn’t believe in or support the principles he is trying to espouse, and that he would try the same tricks if it were the US Constitution.
Marriage has been defined as a right since at least Loving v. Virginia, if not earlier in Perez.
And yet, oddly enough, in Baker v. Nelson, the very same Supreme Court that decided Loving, which overturned a state law that banned interracial marriage, let stand a state law and decision that banned gay marriage.
So explain again: how does a “right” only apply to one set of people?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2008 @ 1:05 pm - November 29, 2008
I don’t know if you deliberately misinterpret these things or not but that is not my position, marriage is a contract between two people swearing an oath of fidelity to each other forsaking all others.
Of course, how liberal gays like salvage define “fidelity” and “forsaking all others” looks very different.
Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.â€
Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.â€
Add to that the Beyond Marriage manifesto, which calls for sibling marriage and marriage for “households with more than one conjugal partner”, and what it makes obvious is that salvage and his fellow liberal gays care nothing about what marriage means and are demanding that people accept and endorse whatever combination salvage and his ilk want.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2008 @ 1:11 pm - November 29, 2008
And also we should remember that gays in Canada not only are pushing for plural marriage, but also to have sex with children tolerated — on the grounds that having sex with people who are seventeen years younger than you are is “common” among gays, and that stopping gays from doing so is “homophobic”.
This is all part of salvage’s rhetoric about how “consensual sex is no one’s business” and how gays should be allowed to have sex with whomever they want in the “pursuit of happiness”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2008 @ 1:16 pm - November 29, 2008
iff they did then 2/3’s of the state legislature would have referred this matter to the People as required by the CA Constitution in cases of revision. Now, of course, you will insist that Prop 8 was an amendment and not a revision while I will continue to maintain otherwise. So guess who that leaves to decide the matter? You got it! The CA Supremes.
Of course all of this is academic anyways since you don’t believe in constitutions or civil liberties.
Indeed. Of course this is at the Federal level and not the California state level. And just like rulings some conservatives don’t like (Roe springs to mind), the matter will continue to be argued - or are you saying that efforts like Heller were wrong to reverse previous rulings that a later generation found wanting? Btw, since you raise this issue does that mean that you now accept the CA Court’s authority in their May ruling and whatever they may decide regarding Prop 8 or are you trying to have it both ways?
Comment by John — November 29, 2008 @ 1:45 pm - November 29, 2008
North Dallas Tweety - You are too stupid to talk too but for the sake of clarity I need to inform you that I’m not gay, that I (probably) like you find two men having sex gross. I don’t even understand why women would want to do it (but I’m glad they do).
However two women having sex is fantastic and I do encourage that sort of thing.
Now I’m done with you.
Comment by salvage — November 29, 2008 @ 2:11 pm - November 29, 2008
John, thank you for keeping it civil, I try but am sure I don’t succeed. It was actually a slam on Michigan University than Red Dawn. Though I remember the movie fondly.
I agree it is a long trying process to change a society. Civil unions (or as I call it ‘fred’) is the first step. Legal recongition of monogomus two partner contracts of people for the same sex. Some might dismiss this step, but it is needed, both to ‘prove’ that the institution needs to exist, and to give society time to assimilate the change. This is how societies change in times of peace. To be seasonal, this is how Christmas became celebrated on the 25th.
The 0-30 record is a sign that society is not going to currently accept gay marriage as marriage. The demographics are on the ‘marriage’ side, but how long to wait for the whole pie, or grab the slice. Florida, who’s laws are more hostile than Ohio’s are a sign that the baby boomers (for all their tollerance and the 60’s) will need to change/die off. And who knows? With immigration and social changes, if you don’t grab now, you might not get the whole pie later. Another reason for the establishment of ‘fred’.
As to the revision vs. Ammendment, INAL, but it does seem like sour grapes, and a reach. Personally, I hope that just as the MA supreme court upheld the 1913 citizenship law, the court will leave well enough alone for now, rather than upset more voters. Plus the precident it sets is bad. But I accept that you and I are never going to agree on the role of the courts in law.
I do have a question though. Whichever way the court rules, what’s the best way to address the change, in your opinion? By legislation trying to pin the court down, or by changing the composition of the court.
salvage. you know nothing. Nothing about me nothing about how to be civil. Your postings are full of sound and fury, told by an idiot, and singifying nothing. Please stop projecting and go somewhere your rantings will be appriciated. I hear daily kos still has room.
Comment by The_Livewire — November 29, 2008 @ 7:34 pm - November 29, 2008
Btw, since you raise this issue does that mean that you now accept the CA Court’s authority in their May ruling and whatever they may decide regarding Prop 8 or are you trying to have it both ways?
Better question, John; why do you refuse to acknowledge the right of voters to amend their own constitution and continue to try to disenfranchise them?
The voters have followed the rules set out in their constitution and amended it. It is only you and your fellow bigot gays who continue to try to deny the voters their legal rights, which ARE spelled out in the constitution.
In short, you are trying to change the rules because you keep losing. It is amusing beyond belief that you accuse others of not believing in constitutions or civil liberties when you pervert the use of the former and deny the latter to others.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2008 @ 11:38 pm - November 29, 2008
Whichever way the court rules, what’s the best way to address the change, in your opinion?
A thorough housecleaning in the gay community.
When the antireligious bigots, the racists, the sexual libertines, and the others who have been co-opting sexual orientation as an excuse for their antisocial behavior and marriage (for which they have nothing but contempt) as a proxy battle against those they dislike are eliminated, then the actual passage of partnership laws will be a piece of cake.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2008 @ 11:41 pm - November 29, 2008
Livewire - A tear slides down the side of my face because I you don’t think I’m civil.
Makes me very sad when bigots don’t like me.
You hate gays on some level and you don’t want to be alone in that hate so you try your darndest to keep them outside of society anyway you can. Your kind is losing and that makes you confused and angry.
Oh and since you compare gay couples with bestiality I think you may want to think about how to be civil yourself.
Or it’s okay to compare fags to that sort of thing? If anyone has sex in a way you don’t like they’re animals themselves right?
Comment by salvage — November 30, 2008 @ 9:08 am - November 30, 2008
NDT, how do you go about the housecleaning?
I mean, I’m a lone conservative voice in the leather community, and, while I try to educate people curious about the lifestyle, too many people are louder than I. It’s hard to lobby that ‘the majority of us want to have fun behind closed doors’ when the face is stuff like comfest, NLA and Folsom street fair. I’d assume it’s the same uphill battle in the gay community. For ever GayPatriot and NDT who just want to be left the hell alone and not force their way of life on others, you have the same problems.
salvage. zzzzzz I know who and what I am, and don’t need your pathetic condemnation or validation.
Comment by The_Livewire — November 30, 2008 @ 11:42 am - November 30, 2008
No worries, salvage; we know liberals scream “bigot” as an attempt to intimidate and scare people away from investigating the behaviors that said liberals support and endorse.
Or to explain why liberals support gay couples who are dressing up their children as sex slaves and taking them to sex fairs to “show off” for adults masturbating and having public sex.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2008 @ 11:44 am - November 30, 2008
NDT: Blah, blah, blah. I’m not about to listen to criticism from somebody with so little respect for the Constitution and who, if given the opportunity, would eviscerate the most basic rights we as Americans hold dear which go far beyond niche gay issues. You are not a conservative and in this are just as bad as the worst one can imagine from the most extreme of liberals.
Livewire: I’ve already said it once here, but I’m a pragmatist so am willing to settle for civil unions for now as long as they have all the rights and responsibilities (including dropping the ban on adoptions for qualified couples) and are nationwide. Citizen Crain has been posting about this recently and I’m intrigued by what he has been saying. I do believe there is a constitutional issue here with regards to full marriage equality, but other than discussing this academically I guess, I’m willing to put this aside for the next generation to argue for. However, the religious right is not willing to compromise on this, pushing for the most stringent bans, some of which include making civil unions verboten, depending upon what they think they can get away with from state to state. They speak out of both sides of their mouths and lie about this to voters, which is one reason I have zero problems seeking redress in the courts.
Btw, it should be noted I am speaking in general terms here with labels such as “religious right”. This does not include each and every person whose political and religious views are more right of center. Obviously not all persons who hold religious faith are included either, especially since about half are either moderate or liberal and even some who are conservative do not hold to everything religious right groups believe. I am speaking mainly about these activist groups like AFA, AFTAH, FRC, etc.
I would say legislation, the method I would prefer anyways in recognizing same-sex marriage. The mistake that some here are thinking is that this is an either/or proposition. Nope. I prefer the legislative route because that’s better for society and less acrimonious. As I’ve said, I’m also willing to settle for now. Yet at no time does this mean we cast aside the same right all Americans have in the judicial route when necessary. Let’s assume for the moment that the Court upholds Prop 8 in answering your question. Unless they come out with something completely outlandish, which I don’t expect, I would not support removing the Justices. It would be disappointing but that would be the time to regroup and re-strategize. Something I did like recently came from Equality Utah, which took the LDS leadership’s statements on civil unions to heart and called upon them to assist in doing so in that state. I believe the LDS leaders were a bit embarassed at their slip and have started to backtrack but even so I like that this is being tried.
If this loses for now, fine. We will continue fighting on through the best methods available. Time is on our side.
Comment by John — November 30, 2008 @ 6:59 pm - November 30, 2008
Thank you John. Can you provide a link to this Citizen Cain? Food for thought.
Comment by The_Livewire — November 30, 2008 @ 7:06 pm - November 30, 2008
Here you go: http://citizenchris.typepad.com/
Look for the posts by Chris. Enjoy.
Comment by John — November 30, 2008 @ 9:34 pm - November 30, 2008
NDT: Blah, blah, blah. I’m not about to listen to criticism from somebody with so little respect for the Constitution and who, if given the opportunity, would eviscerate the most basic rights we as Americans hold dear which go far beyond niche gay issues.
The Constitution exists to protect rights, John, not to deny them — and in your case, your attempts to use it to deny people their right to vote to make changes to it, a right which is clearly spelled out in it and protected by it, demonstrates that you have nothing but contempt for both the Constitution and for basic rights.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2008 @ 11:13 pm - November 30, 2008
It’s hard to lobby that ‘the majority of us want to have fun behind closed doors’ when the face is stuff like comfest, NLA and Folsom street fair. I’d assume it’s the same uphill battle in the gay community.
You’re right, it is. And really, there are three steps that you follow:
1. Ask nicely for them to stop.
2. Ask directly for them to stop
3. Make it clear to the public that these people are disgusting perverts who don’t know the difference between right and wrong, who are abusing the public trust, and who should be arrested for their refusal to obey the law.
The problem in the gay community is that it’s stuck on 1, mainly because anyone who actually sticks to their guns and goes to 2 gets the full-bore “Jewish Nazi” treatment. But you have a choice: either accept the behavior for your own personal comfort or stick up for the principles involved and take the abuse.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2008 @ 11:17 pm - November 30, 2008
NDT, you’re a hoot ya know? A lying, weasely, faux conservative, but a hoot nonetheless. I tire of this thread, especially the repeats of your nonsense. Later.
Comment by John — December 2, 2008 @ 9:49 pm - December 2, 2008
John, the link for that site made for some interesting reading. Looks like the writer and I agree on some ideas, disagree on others. que surprise, non?
Assuming (dangerous to do, I know) your last comment was connected to comment 71, what exactly was wrong with what he said? I’ve retreated from the local gatherings because of the slander my ex spread, and general hostility. But they accept her infidelities just fine, along with others. So I’ve tried 1 and 2, and ran into the same problem that leaves me with 3 as my only option. So at least with my lifestyle community, he’s in the black.
Comment by The Livewire — December 3, 2008 @ 6:55 am - December 3, 2008
Debatepedia has a pro/con resource on same sex marriage that may be of value to this article and its readers as background on the broader debate and those involved in it.
http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:Same_sex_marriage
http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia!
Comment by Brooks — June 28, 2009 @ 12:59 pm - June 28, 2009