Someone may want to alert the gay rights movement that the actions of some of their supporters in the wake of Prop 8 passing in California are teetering on the edge of becoming the political equivalent to this hilarious and off-color Onion article.
Ugly protests against the Mormon church, the creation of enemies lists, and racial epithets tossed at African-Americans is not exactly a case study in "how to win friends and influence people" (examples of media coverage of said antics here and here).
Not to be missed, our local denizens of the "tolerant" left are going to protest outside of a Mormon family's home on Monday for those folks showing the temerity to donate to a political cause with which these activists disagree.
The root problem here is that for all the preaching one hears from key components of the left on "tolerance" and "free expression," many activists on the left get pretty darn bitchy when asked to tolerate the free speech of people who disagree with them. Indeed, their MO now appears to be: don't agree? Shut them down...or intimidate them with hate speech from liberals (define irony) until they shut up.
Something tells me that wasn't exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind with the First Amendment.
UPDATE: regardless of whether or not one agrees with their issue, yesterday's marchers deserve credit for keeping it more civil than than which has been accomplished in California.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 14, 2008 09:16 PM | Email ThisThey deserve the right to marry.
Why? Because we have attached rights to marriage like health care, property rights, ownership and other things that a true Conservative would never have allowed.
Because a religious ceremony, Marriage, was linked to so many mundane property rights, marriage cannot be denied to gays.
What is more, being the party that tries to restrict or regulate morality has always been a losing position with the Independents. Independents are chased away from Republicans once we start to dictate behavior.
A person may feel strongly about abortion, or marriage and so on...but as a true Conservative, they should never try to use Government to impose those beliefs...right or left.
Give the Gays marriage. Drop the opposition. Within a Church one may have restrictions. One may also preach those beliefs. But in America, one should not impose those beliefs. That is what Separation of Church and State is all about...
Posted by: John Bailo on November 14, 2008 09:49 PMAs I have frequently pointed out here on SP, to BE a leftist is to be a hypocrite.
"Rights" are only "rights" when they're the CORRECT "rights." Any OTHER "rights" are treated in the manner and way you've described.
There is no tolerance on the left. None. There is no ability on the left to allow for dissent. Dissent is to be punished. Dissent is to be ostracized and attacked. (Just ask Brian Baird upon his return from Iraq.) There is absolutely no ability to apply the same standard to their own as they apply to anyone wise enough to disagree with them. See, for example, the illegal activities against one "Joe the Plumber."
Fortunately for all concerned, SW Washington isn't yet quite infested with the kind of activities you've described. The rabid intolerance is here... but so far, they've kept most of the asinine behavior under wraps.
It's early yet, of course. And one never knows. But the county commission coming under GOP control for the first time in 30 years here in Clark County in spite of the despicable interference by David Barnett and the Cowlitz Casino crowd is a good sign.
Posted by: Hinton on November 14, 2008 10:05 PMThroughout the entire history of western civilization, there are things that people have just known - grass is green, the sky is blue, and marriage is between a man and a woman. There was never any argument - it is the definition. It has nothing to do with religion.
This is not to say that there should not be any kind of special acknowledgment between gay partners or civil unions. People should be able to do what they want. But to force people to redefine a term that has an age-old meaning is ridiculous. It is not discrimination or lack of tolerance.
Posted by: YesOn8 on November 14, 2008 10:13 PMPolitical ineptitude and misreading the political landscape as Mr. Ballo does in his effort above (I would venture to say that, given the results in CA, Prop 8 had no problem with independents) does nothing to achieve the goal.
Society regulates behavior. There is no more of a "right" to marry someone of the same gender as there is a "right" to be married to more than one person at the same time; a "right" to marry your sibling, a "right" to marry an animal or a doorknob.
The people of CA have spoken. And one right gays have, but don't seem to have ever tried, is to hold a statewide referendum or initiative to legalize the practice. And why not? No guts?
The moronic behavior of the losing side on the Prop 8 issue has set their "movement" back, perhaps decades. And the more they act like idiots, the less likely I am to cave to their bizarre demands.
This, in fact, goes to the heart of the issue I wrote about in my first post. It shows a complete lack of tolerance for any opposing view. And this increasing "in your face behavior" of the kind detailed here: http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/ tends to result in much more damage to their cause then good.
Posted by: Hinton on November 14, 2008 10:20 PMwhy don't these tough guys ever try it in a mosque? hmmm...
selective hate? or knowing the world reality of REAL consequences of their actions?
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 14, 2008 10:30 PMThe community knows that the majority of society is against same-sex marriage. This is why they take the issue to the courts and liberal judges by into the "discrimination" argument. Again, as far as marriage laws are concerned, gays are not being discriminated against. They can marry any of the opposite sex they want, as the marriage laws state As Orson Scott Card wrote: "a small group of dictators have simply taken it upon themselves to deny universal human practice (democracy) and remake the law as they saw fit, without waiting for the democratic process."
In other words, the courts should not be making new laws. The only reason there is a push for same-sex marriage is that it makes people feel good.
The issue has nothing to do with beliefs, or religion. The Soviet Union had marriage laws,and I'm pretty sure they weren't based on religion, based in my understanding of how tolerant Communism is of religion.
Since the founding of this country marriage has been regarded as a private contract with public implications. It was never associated with religion from a legal perspective. Marriage is not now and has never been dependent upon any one religion or even religion in general for its justification or existence. Marriage exists because people desire it and the community, working through the government, helps ensure that married couples are able to do what they need to in order to survive. At no point is religion needed or necessarily relevant. So, the community (California) defined marriage. Democracy at work. How can anyone disagree with democracy?
Posted by: Dave on November 14, 2008 10:31 PMYou know, in the 60s, most southern states would have voted overwhelmingly against civil rights for blacks. That would have been a disgrace, just as voting down civil rights for gays will be viewed in a generation or two.
Sometimes the rights of minorities need to be protected against the wishes of the majority.
Posted by: cat on November 14, 2008 10:53 PMI'm just sayin'...
Posted by: Michele on November 14, 2008 11:05 PMtry this in other parts of the world; Saudi; Mid East; if this is such a great historical and natural universal truth that we all missed over the eons, do it in front of a mosque or other non-Christian holy place;
if it's just innocuous and a right or a freedom, then what's the big deal? yep--you are not affected--true--why care;
just like you are not affected by a hospital super resistant infection bug--that is--unless YOU or a loved one now is in the hospital; look wider for the long term effects on us all;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 14, 2008 11:17 PM
My own opposition to is not based on religious or moral ground however. It is based on my belief that the gay community's purpose in pushing the issue has more to do with revenge against the faithful than with rights.
The reaction in California is evidence that my belief is correct.
Posted by: deadwood on November 14, 2008 11:44 PMAnd from your example, to be a rightist is to be laughably hypocritical. I see no tolerance from you about anything, and no desire to actually life in a society that respects freedom or democratic institutions. You soil this country simply by being in it.
@7: Marriage exists because people desire it and the community, working through the government, helps ensure that married couples are able to do what they need to in order to survive. At no point is religion needed or necessarily relevant. So, the community (California) defined marriage. Democracy at work. How can anyone disagree with democracy?
Great! Then let's vote on stripping you of your ability to enter into a contract. All we need is 50% + 1, right? That's what a democracy is all about from your definition.
@10: cat, there are a whole lot of black americans out there who are deeply offended at the notion that their former situation equals the current.
Of course, there are plenty of Americans out there that are offended when you stick your damn bigoted fool nose in their civil marriage. I don't want you in my personal life any more than I want to be in yours.
If folks are sincere about marriage being about children, then get the government out of the marriage business altogether and focus policies on children. Gay couples can get many of the rights of marriage through complicated contracts, why not just call all marriages "civil unions", grant it to all couples, and call it a day?
Posted by: demo kid on November 14, 2008 11:55 PMThe LDS practice of polygamy was discontinued long ago, but as practiced by the LDS lead Mark Twain to comment, "Anyone that would marry more than one of those pioneer women deserves to go to heaven." Please don't spread wild imaginations as true. You would do well to do a little research on what the practice actually entailed and not on what people living far, far away from the LDS imagined was going on. As for my ancestor who had 12 wives, I would challenge you to find anyone in your family tree who lived a life such as his, full of charity, service, and self-sacrifice in everything, everything he did.
The LDS church stood against the Nazis, the Soviets, and every other tyranny, and stands firm against them today.
The LDS church has enjoyed a close relationship with any religion that wanted one, especially the Jewish one, from the very beginning. (One of Joseph Smith's tutors was a Jewish scholar.)
The LDS church was driven out of Missouri in the 1840s for, among other reason, being anti-slavery and treating the black man as peers. This contention lead eventually to their expulsion from the US, which they pledged their allegiance to as they were fleeing for their lives.
The LDS church was derided in the 1920's by the popular KKK (name the political party that was most heavily affiliated with the KKK, win a lollipop.) Why were they derided? Because they actively campaigned and organized against the KKK and were a large part of the reason the KKK couldn't get a foothold in the West.
The LDS church was almost unanimously behind the civil rights movement of the 60's and 70's in support of the black men denied their rights. (By behind, I mean actually doing something, not just nodding their heads.) I know several people who still claim that the LDS have never been as politically active as they were then, and only for that reason alone.
The LDS church is called a lot of things by its enemies. You would do well to ask the LDS what their side of the story is. Or you can remain woefully ignorant. Your choice.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on November 15, 2008 12:54 AMDemo kid, try to keep an open mind about this, will you? See it from my point of view.
I believe that the most important social organization in our country is the family. I believe that should our families fail in their primary role, then all else is lost. Should everything else fail but families remain intact, that's ok because families will put it all back together again.
What is a family? Where do they come from? Homosexual activists would believe that marriage is built on love or physical attraction. It is not. As a married man, I can tell you, honestly, that physical attraction is only the icing on the cake. The "love" which I call "romantic love" may be decorations on the top. The real "love" of marriage is the Christ-like brotherly love, the kind of love that makes me sacrifice all that I have, am, and will be for my wife and family.
Where does that love come from? It comes from binding oneself to another with an unbreakable bond, a bond that says, "I commit to you, and you to me, that we will make this thing work, even if it destroys us. I would gladly sacrifice myself to make this work. We believe that out of this sacred contract, we can perhaps create something better than we had apart."
Government has an interest in this contract, not just because it logically does, but because God says it does. (Oops, did I say God? Demo kid, as sure as you are that he does not exist, I am more sure that he does. Keep an open mind, remember?)
There are really four parties to the marriage contract. The husband, the wife, God, and society, represented by the government. Each is going to put something in. Each is going to get something out. Take any away, and you don't have marriage anymore. Traditionally, Americans have de-emphasized the role that society has in marriage. I think we need to re-emphasize that role.
It is imperative, for the good of society, that couples marry and stay together through thick and thin. Hence the reason why getting a divorce isn't easy. In fact, in times past, it wasn't even possible. Once married, that was it. Society has an interest in keeping man and wife together even though man and wife don't like each other anymore.
It is also imperative that society recognize said marriage and distinguish it from all other legal relationships. Being a business partner, signing a contract, etc, are all nice and fine and dandy. But marriage is something else. Think of it like incorporation, and you'll being to understand.
The homosexuals in this country and those who are working with them to undermine this basic institution are really working to destroy families. And hopefully this success of Prop. 8 despite all the winds blowing against it will be enough for America as a whole to re-examine marriage and our treatment of it, and perhaps re-assert society's interest in seeing marriages stay together.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on November 15, 2008 01:07 AMNow, let me tell you where I disagree with you, and please keep an open mind about this.
You talk about an 'unbreakable bond' between husband and wife. Is it so inconceivable that this bond could also exist between two people of the same sex? The gay and lesbian couples who've been together for decades -- what's keeping them together, if not that bond? I don't think they're together just to spite Deadwood@14!
I believe that the love that you describe so beautifully can exist between any two adults, regardless of gender, and it is a cruel thing for the government to discriminate against it.
I would prefer that my government not be cruel, so I gave money to No on 8 and to Equal Rights Washington, and I will demonstrate peacefully tomorrow.
Posted by: JohnA on November 15, 2008 02:08 AMGuess what? That's because marriages also produce children, and there's a societal benefit to supporting a two-parent family in raising, and passing inheritances to, said offspring.
Some small fraction of gays, for whatever reason, declare that their adoptions or artificial inseminations of children should make them equally entitled to those same benefits. Maybe. They'll just have to close their ears to their gay colleagues who sneer so righteously against 'breeders'.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on November 15, 2008 07:18 AM"And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." I Corinthians 9-11
Posted by: Saltherring on November 15, 2008 07:25 AMThat's the only fair way to deal with this without forcing anything on anyone.
The left wants a forced culture change, and it will lead to violent armed confrontations. Possibly as early as today.
Posted by: Independent Voter on November 15, 2008 07:56 AMCount on it.
Posted by: jimg on November 15, 2008 09:28 AMI'll take you at your word regarding your experiences, but in my experience, hatred and violence are not just "lilly-white". Unfortunately, it runs the rainbow, so to speak.
Posted by: BrassTax on November 15, 2008 09:57 AMThese same people were poised to mount an immense smear campaign against Mitt Romney should he have been the Republican nominee, implying that he supported polygamy. Their ceaseless attacks on Sarah Palin would have paled by comparison.
The left, their heads swelled with political victory, are already venturing into dangerous territory, taking on an issue where a clear majority of Americans have spoken forcefully in opposition. I hope they also push the reintroduction of the "fairness doctrine".
As I've said, the sooner America sees who these people genuinely are, the better for everyone.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 15, 2008 10:13 AMIn the first place, the only reason that the LDS church ever was "against" interracial marriage was because it is already hard enough to stay married without the added issues arising from it. And in fact, it goes even farther than that! I heard a leader of the church who said that he woul d prefer Catholics to marry Catholics, Jews to marry Jews, etc.. Why? Not because of any ethnic, racial, or religious intolerance, but because having that central core belief in common can strengthen your marriage and provide stability to a relationship.
As for the polygamy thing, you are obviously ignorant of the fact that the small percentage of LDS members who were EVER polygamists were required to have at least separate bedrooms, if not separate houses for their various wives. To the best of my knowledge there was never 'group sex'. Each wife had her own space and the husband tried to spend equal amounts of time with each. And that does not refer to sex only, but as a father the the children of each union. This balancing act was one of the many reasons that polygamy was never wide spread in the LDS church. Only a few of the men than were able to manage it. And as a married man myself, I have to agree because I have a hard enough time keeping up with one wife, let alone more!
@12 - Boeing is NOT a monopoly. Airbus has about %50 of the market. If anything, the Airline market is a duopoly. Amazon is not a monopoly as there are probably millions of websites online that sell random crap. Any and all of them could challenge Amazon if they got their act together. But I agree about Microsoft.
Posted by: Jeff in KC on November 15, 2008 10:15 AMI cannot speak for Tony, but I was merely comparing the area I live in with his capsule of Bainbridge Island.
In that, I agree with you that "hatred and violence....runs the rainbow", but hatred and intolerance of DISSENTING OPINION seem to be most prevalent in highly 'educated' affluent, utopian, liberal enclaves.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 15, 2008 10:16 AMI especially like the lecture on civility, coming from one of the least civil places in our local political dialog. You guys just can't stop the hypocritical lecturing, can you? It's like oxycontin or something.
Here's some free insight: the only purpose of Prop H8 was to denigrate a group of people, to make them unequal to everyone else. That is not a legitimate purpose of government, and I refuse to pretend otherwise. If people are told, over and over and over again, that they are inherently inferior, that they are threatening civilization with their behavior, that they must be publicly identified for humiliation for the good of the rest of us, guess what? They'll resent it, and some of them may not respond with perfect civility. If 50% +1 of Washingtonians voted to deny you the same rights and privileges the rest of us have, I somehow doubt you'd respond with perfect civility. (Look at the four-year temper-tantrum you threw after losing the Governor's race by a close margin.) If an out-of-state group had organized the hate, you'd have something to say about them, too, I bet.
Oh, by the way: if you don't like radio hosts mocking your hypocritical leaders, then STOP FOLLOWING HYPOCRITES. Simple as that, really.
Posted by: tensor on November 15, 2008 10:19 AMDo you know any gay couples? Every gay couple I know who has married or had a commitment ceremony did it because they were deeply in love, wanted to symbolize a lifelong commitment, and in some cases wanted to raise children. Revenge was completely irrelevant. Where do you get this crap?
Jonathan Gardner @ 19 writes, "It is imperative, for the good of society, that couples marry and stay together through thick and thin."
Do you have any evidence for this? I certainly agree that each and every one of us married folk should do our best to keep our marriages strong, but if a marriage is bad, is there any evidence that society benefits by keeping it together? And anyway, what does that have to do with sexual orientation? If your real concern is avoiding divorce, require that any couple, straight or gay, undergo marriage counseling and live together for a year before marrying.
Insufficiently Sensitive @ 21 writes, "marriages also produce children"
Actually, scientists have determined that sex produces children. Unmarried people have been known to have children, and married people have been known to not have children. So I suppose you'd prefer that only people with children (or at least pregnant, or trying to get pregnant or adopt), straight or gay, should be allowed to get married?
Posted by: Bruce on November 15, 2008 10:51 AMI agree with you when I agree with you, I disagree with you when I disagree. But I prefer to have my opinions challenged and to provide a strong response than to just write stuff on a board and be a dittohead of sorts. No better way to figure out what you believe than to have to defend your beliefs.
Of course:
US Political Belief versus Media Attention Given
@19: Unlike @20, I think that you're quite wacky, Jonathan. I don't know you personally, though, so I can't speak to anything else.
Demo kid, try to keep an open mind about this, will you? See it from my point of view.
I have, and that doesn't mean I have to believe it is correct.
I believe that the most important social organization in our country is the family. I believe that should our families fail in their primary role, then all else is lost. Should everything else fail but families remain intact, that's ok because families will put it all back together again.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that sentiment, and I think that a lot of gay marriage activists would agree with every word.
What is a family? Where do they come from? Homosexual activists would believe that marriage is built on love or physical attraction. It is not. As a married man, I can tell you, honestly, that physical attraction is only the icing on the cake. The "love" which I call "romantic love" may be decorations on the top. The real "love" of marriage is the Christ-like brotherly love, the kind of love that makes me sacrifice all that I have, am, and will be for my wife and family.
You know, you're so blind and short-sighted, it isn't even funny.
Do you actually think that "homosexual activists" believe that the basic definition of marriage is any different than the host of "heterosexual activists" that are out there? You have the gall to think that all gay couples automatically don't have this bond, while all straight couples do? Hardly. In fact, I would argue that a group of people that has fought long and hard for the right to marry, that goes through the ceremony and makes a purely symbolic commitment to each other, and that tries to fight for these rights in government, actually would value marriage MORE than folks that often get married for the health insurance, or just on a lark in Las Vegas.
Where does that love come from? It comes from binding oneself to another with an unbreakable bond, a bond that says, "I commit to you, and you to me, that we will make this thing work, even if it destroys us. I would gladly sacrifice myself to make this work. We believe that out of this sacred contract, we can perhaps create something better than we had apart."
And you haven't proven that there is a difference between that bond for a gay couple versus a straight couple.
Government has an interest in this contract, not just because it logically does, but because God says it does. (Oops, did I say God? Demo kid, as sure as you are that he does not exist, I am more sure that he does. Keep an open mind, remember?)
"Having an open mind" means "being open to different beliefs". I think that it's fine that you think that God hates gay people, or at the very least, strongly dislikes them. That doesn't mean that I need to share that belief, just that I need to give you the latitude to express it in a far way. So do I think that we should be running our civil society on the basis of your beliefs alone? Hell no. I don't follow your God, and a lot of other people don't either. Until I join YOUR church, I don't plan on following their rules.
There are really four parties to the marriage contract. The husband, the wife, God, and society, represented by the government. Each is going to put something in. Each is going to get something out. Take any away, and you don't have marriage anymore. Traditionally, Americans have de-emphasized the role that society has in marriage. I think we need to re-emphasize that role.
No, there are three parties in the contract for me. I don't care what you include, but again, until the entire country converts to Mormonism, I'm not too keen on applying the rules of your God to it, and more than you should be thrilled with having the rules of mine applied to yours.
As far as the role that society has in marriage, I say... sure! I don't think that there's anything wrong with relying on couples in households as the building blocks of our society, and there is more that people can do together than separately. But there is something wrong when government steps in and tries to make those decisions for me. I would no more want the government to tell me that I can't marry a man as I would want them to tell me that I couldn't marry someone that was sterile.
It is imperative, for the good of society, that couples marry and stay together through thick and thin. Hence the reason why getting a divorce isn't easy. In fact, in times past, it wasn't even possible. Once married, that was it. Society has an interest in keeping man and wife together even though man and wife don't like each other anymore.
It is also imperative that society recognize said marriage and distinguish it from all other legal relationships. Being a business partner, signing a contract, etc, are all nice and fine and dandy. But marriage is something else. Think of it like incorporation, and you'll being to understand.
I absolutely, positively, wholeheartedly agree.
I don't think that marriage should be as easy as it is. For a legal instrument that essentially provides the participants with very strong legal rights over one another, it is a sham that you can go to Nevada and get it done quickly. In fact, I would argue that one should make it MORE stringent, for everyone. (Increase the waiting period, perhaps?) I'd also encourage that officiants require some proof that the couple is actually a couple, and that they've been through counseling about the marriage.
As far as what the government can do about it beyond that, though... you get into dangerous territory when you ask the government to impose additional restrictions or requirements. Should people have to pay a lot of money to get married, which would provide a disincentive for lower-income folks? Should a government force a child's father to marry that child's mother? Can the government test couples in some kind of objective way to make sure that they really are interested in making a commitment? These are things that are the responsibility of society, yes, but cannot be legislated.
Heck, people can create an LLC for no reason, or for bad reasons. That doesn't mean that the government should impose some kind of test to figure out if the people forming one are really doing it for the right reasons according to one person's religious viewpoint.
The homosexuals in this country and those who are working with them to undermine this basic institution are really working to destroy families. And hopefully this success of Prop. 8 despite all the winds blowing against it will be enough for America as a whole to re-examine marriage and our treatment of it, and perhaps re-assert society's interest in seeing marriages stay together.
You've done NOTHING to prove that gay couples "undermine" this basic institution. None. As I said, I agree that the basic requirements of marriage SHOULD be tightened. I think that it's absolutely inane that people get married for health insurance purposes, or on a lark while on vacation. Furthermore, I think that allowing a whole host of people that desperately want to get married that right is far BETTER for the institution of marriage. But aside from your own religious beliefs, there isn't a reason for the government NOT to recognize these couples.
Posted by: demo kid on November 15, 2008 10:56 AMI graciously allow you to suppose any silly conjecture that you think will support your side in an argument.
However, the active ingredient in the marriage connection to children is the societal benefit in the raising and launching of those children into society from the reasonably permenent framework of a two-parent household with a structure of consistent goals and discipline. Supporting such a marriage is beneficial for society overall. Supporting the mostly barren unions of same-sex couples might be gratifying for said couples, but doesn't enhance the continuity of families. Same-sex couples are entirely free to enter into legal commitments with each other, but marriages they aren't and should not be so named.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on November 15, 2008 11:53 AMYou Marxists do know that civil partnerships exist in California and guarantee COMPLETE equality in terms of partner benefits? Health insurance, medical notification, joint estates, all that.
So you just want a word? Is that it? Because in the state where Prop 8 passed, there ARE no legal differences between a civil partnership and a marriage.
All this hatred from the "tolerant, enlightened" Left over a single word. No actual differences, just a word...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 15, 2008 11:57 AMNO reason why that two-parent household has to be one man, one woman, or that barren couples of any type shouldn't be allowed to raise adoptive children.
@36: All this hatred from the "tolerant, enlightened" Left over a single word. No actual differences, just a word...
Exactly. So if the Catholics and Mormons and Orthodox Jews aren't required to marry a gay couple, I'm not really seeing the problem.
Again, get government out of the marriage business. Call them ALL civil unions or civil marriages, tighten the restrictions to make sure that it isn't being abused by anyone, and that's it.
Posted by: demo kid on November 15, 2008 12:06 PM[They] desire the legitimacy of marriage, the total approval of the public If they can't get what they want through the democratic process, like other citizens do, they'll intimidate Christians, create civil disturbance and pervert the legal process till they prevail. This is not a "civil rights" issue. It's an issue of rebellion, intimidation and - painful to say - anarchy. It's getting close to classic gangland extortion: "Do it our way, or we'll ruin you."How dare the voters defy the wishes of this sexually defined group? How dare the people of California require that marriage continue to be defined in such narrow terms, just one man, one woman? We'll show 'em ... We'll take to the streets!
Whatever happened to the democratic process? To the will of the people, expressed at the polls? To the rule of law, to say nothing of normal decency? Has it not occurred to the activists that arrogant ranting and civil disturbances turn people against them and their goals? That acting out this way reveals the kind of social order they want to force on America?
***
Whether one agrees with the ban or not, it was put on the ballot, it was voted for, just as Barack Obama was voted for, and although conservatives aren't happy with the outcome of the presidential election, we understand it is a done deal.TIME also reports that the campaign manager for Yes on Proposition 8, Frank Schubert, states, "No matter what you think of Proposition 8, we ought to respect people's right to participate in the political process. It strikes me as quite ironic that a group of people who demand tolerance and who claim to be for civil rights are so willing to be intolerant and trample on other people's civil rights."
That truly does seem to be the bottom line here. No matter where you stand on an issue, if it is on a public ballot to be voted on, then each person has the legal right to vote as they choose without fear of intimidation or harm.
Perhaps the activists should take aim at officials or laws that made it legal to put the measure on the ballot to begin with, instead of targeting people that fought for what they believed in.
Gay activists that are acting like children, stomping their feet and having a temper tantrum, vandalizing churches, publishing personal information about people that dared oppose your point of view, is nothing short of intimidation and should not be tolerated at all.
When judgments come down in favor of gay rights, gay activists like to proclaim loudly that it is the Democratic way, the people have spoken and all that jazz, yet when the people vote, by a majority, slim or not, and 52 percent IS a majority, against something those same activists do not agree with, they act like out of control little spoiled brats.
Guess what folks? Life isn't always fair and sometimes the majority of voters do not agree with a minority group, it happens, grow the hell up and deal with it and work harder next time to get your own proposals passed, but stop acting out and showing your own intolerance while proclaiming that others are intolerant of you.
That simply makes you look hypocritical.
And quite frankly, THIS kind of behaviour is a perfect example of what I was referring to when I got commie kids undies all twisted up his crotch: the left will over-reach.
And so it begins.
Sorry, wrong. There may be some minor exceptions, but supporting a traditional family whose parents combine their own genes to produce offspring and then remain committed to raising and educating said scions (they're not toys or fashion accessories, you know) is an excellent reason for society to give special recognition and advantages to the marriage. Surprise, surprise, that genetic continuity is also a motivating factor for each of the parents to remain committed.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on November 15, 2008 12:32 PMI believe most Americans would overwhelmingly support gay couples having all the same legal rights as married couples. I don't think people consistently vote for the marriage amendments because they don't want to tolerate gays or somehow deny them any legal protections, they do it to protect the religious sanctity of the word marriage.
Also, this business of slamming the Mormon church is at best misguided. Prop 8 passed by 5% in the most liberal state in our country, Mormons make up maybe 2% of the population - they are not that influential - prop 8 passed in almost every demographic except young voters under 35. And if Mormons have this much sway over the electorate do you think Obama would have won California by 22%??
Posted by: jk on November 15, 2008 12:33 PMYes...and no.
Again, I believe it's not about "marriage". it's about validation and acceptance of BEHAVIOUR.
That being said...
"I don't want to be married," he told USA TODAY's Donna Freydkin at a New York fundraiser last night. "I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," said ----. "The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
Who knew that I'd ever agree with that self-professed queen!?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 15, 2008 12:43 PMThe absurdity that granting two people who love each other the same property and legal rights becuase they have the same plumbing is absurd in the extreme.
And if marriage is strictly for promoting reproduction, then when are we going to revoke marriage licenses of couples who cannot or will not have kids?
If gays are allowed to marry, will that cause all striahgt marriages to dissolve because once they hear they can go queer, they won't ever go back?
Face it, gay marriage is the last bastion of bigotry in this country.
Face it, gay thuggery is the loudest, ugliest bastion of intolerance in this country.
I've got a GREAT idea!
Let's overturn the will of the people in Florida and Californis. Let's let the homosexuals have the validation they so desperately want.
However, let's let them have it knowing full well that when they DO overturn those legal votes by legal voters, they overturn ALL the election results in Florida and California.
Whaddya say liberals... put your electoral votes where your validation is!
Good Morning President McCain!
How are you this fine day Vice President Palin?
Would it also be bigotry to oppose the marriage of siblings?
Ragnar has it right. This is about leftist thugs using the gay marriage issue as yet another attempt to destroy traditional families.
What's not mentioned is the proliferation of homosexuality among young people because it has been promoted as hip and "edgy" by the left. Another socialist voting bloc.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 15, 2008 01:02 PMIt is also a trap for those young teens who haven't found a place to "fit in".
In many schools and in the rest of the culture today, only one perspective is allowed to be heard: "Homosexuality is normal and healthy."
Teens are pushed to decide early if they are gay, straight, or bisexual, as young as middle school. But kids in their early teens are no more equipped to "decide" their sexual orientation than they are to choose a college major and career track. A landmark study done by the University of Minnesota determined that at age twelve, one fourth of the students were unsure of their sexual orientation. Their bodies were just beginning to experience the changes that would turn them from children into adults, and they were being asked if they were gay, straight, or bisexual. No wonder so many were confused! But by age seventeen, that number of kids unsure of their sexual orientation had dropped to 5%.
And psychiatrist Dr. Jeffrey Satinover says,
"[W]ithout any intervention whatsoever, three out of four boys who think they're gay at age 16 aren't by 25. So if we're going to treat homosexuality as a state, 75% of 'gays' become 'non-gay' spontaneously. That's a statement which I consider ludicrous, but if you accept this tacit proposition--that being gay is an actual state, like being short or being tall, black or white--then in three out of four people that condition changes itself spontaneously. . . That's with no outside intervention, just the natural processes of development."
We need to tell teens, "It's too soon to 'declare a major' in your sexuality."
Teens are also pressured to experiment with both sexes as the only way they can know their sexual orientation. It's presented as nonchalantly as our cruise ship table partner suggesting we try escargot--"Hey, how can you know if you like it unless you try it out?"
Teens Who Identify as Gay or Lesbian Growing numbers of teens are self-identifying as gay or lesbian. In many circles, being gay--or claiming to be gay--is now considered cool, especially among girls.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 15, 2008 01:29 PMTeenagers experiment with same-sex relationships for a variety of reasons. Some experience normal crushes on same-sex peers and think this means they are gay--or their friends inform them that's what it means. What it really means is that they are learning to form deep and intense attachments which is a necessary precursor to maintaining long-term adult relationships like marriage.
Others experiment with same-sex relationships out of a legitimate need to belong. Some kids are simply curious; they just want to try it out like a new shade of lipstick.
Some teens experiment with same-sex relationships because others have labeled them gay or lesbian, and they wonder, "Am I? Do they know something I don't know? Maybe I am and I need to go in that direction." This is one reason it's so important to impress on all kids the absolute unacceptability of name-calling and other cruelties. It's not only bullying behavior, it can have terrible emotional consequences.
Some adolescents pursue same-sex relationships because they are anxious about growing into adolescence and the responsibilities of adulthood. So they hide behind immature and emotionally volatile same-sex feelings and behaviors.
Often, what teens are attracted to in same-sex peers are the characteristics they wish they had in themselves: popularity, good looks, a winsome personality, a strong physique. This kind of jealousy doesn't mean they are gay or lesbian; it means there is an area they need to build confidence in!
Most girls who get involved in same-sex relationships start out in friendships that grow increasingly controlling and needy. In these emotionally dependent relationships, girls can get so enmeshed with each other that their relationship turns physical.
Many people who later identify as gay or lesbian report feeling different from others, feeling like they don't fit in or belong. Girls can feel like they don't belong to the world of girls, and guys almost always feel like they can't measure up in the world of males. This is gender insecurity, not homosexuality, but teens usually don't hear this message. They need to.
Just an aside here...guess what President-elect puts his children in private school?
Isn't the left enough to make you sick?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 15, 2008 01:57 PM
Thank you for permitting me to speak.
I am supporting this marriage amendment.
My mother was very seriously ill. From infancy I grew up with a homosexual father. I loved my Dad, but my father exposed me to diverse sexual subcultures. The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual subcultures did not have boundaries and principles of morality and monogamy. Rather it was experimentation, pansexuality, many sexual partners, and self-indulgent lifestyles. Gender and sexual orientation were blurred. Unisex dressing, transsexualism, and transient and anonymous multiple partners were common. My father and his associates were not limited by gender nor age. They frequented public areas. By age ten, for example, I was exposed to a gay nude beach, a sex shop, and a gay cruising park. My father had partners in the home from my infancy. All our vacations were to key GLBT areas where cruising was available.
I was traumatized by six years old in my household. I was stuttering, blacking out and having nightmares caused by molestation, physical and verbal abuse, and abandonment. My father would leave us alone for days to be with his partners. At eight, two of my father's partners committed suicide. My father intimidated me into silence, making me fearful for my life, and unable to talk about my father's lifestyle. Alcohol, drugs, gay bars and parties were part of the scene. Youthfulness, beauty, art, fashion, and travel were prized. However, the painful losses my father's friends experienced were devastating. My father and his partners were involved in domestic violence and he dropped them like commodities. Males who were minors were at risk in my home of being preyed upon sexually.
Dad had encouraged me to be more open sexually, while teaching me by example that sex was gratuitous. I could not look to my father as a moral agent in my life. This left me confused about my sexual identity, and my feelings and roles as a girl and woman. My father could not show affection or affirmation to females, making me believe it was better to be a boy. He doted on his male partners - time, communication, affection and sex - travelling and buying them gifts, leaving me feeling worthless. If particular judges had their way, I would have had at least three "psychological" parents - men I would not have wanted to be named my parents.
I felt worthless and began seeking other boys' affections by age twelve. Long-term, I became depressed, anxious, and suicidal. I was in and out of counselling between the ages of sixteen and thirty. All my family members were severely impacted.
My father left his associations within the subcultures in the late eighties, succumbing to death by AIDS in 1991 at the age of fifty-one. Many of his partners have died of AIDS, some in their early forties.
Children have no voice when they grow up in a homosexual household. Children are unwillingly forced to tolerate their parent's sexual choices and living arrangements. If I spoke about what happened around my father, I would risk being sent to the streets or a group home. I was silenced for over forty years, afraid to share the reality of what I had lived through. I waited until both my parents had died before speaking publicly. Most other adult children feel that they cannot speak about their experiences until their parents have passed away. By the way, I know of 14 children who grew up with a homosexual parent, including myself. All of us have been negatively impacted long term. This includes adult children who have not been able to cope with their difficulties growing up - Some have tried to numb the pain with drug and alcohol addictions and sexual promiscuity.
My first thirty years around my father and his partners showed me how not to live my life. Marriage exclusively between a man and a woman is the best environment for children. Children need to see gender as male or female. Children need firm moral boundaries around sexuality. As a child, I could not comprehend the emphasis on being gender-neutral, unisex dressing, and pansexual practices. Group sex, bathhouse sex, cruising, and other expressions of diverse sexuality broke down the barriers between private and public sex.
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, has stated, "Undermining the traditional definition of marriage is an assault on the beliefs of virtually all cultural and religious communities who have come to this country," according to Lifesite News.
Freedom of speech and democracy are eroded by hate crime and same-sex marriage legislation, and by judicial activism. Human Rights Tribunals in Canada police speech, and penalize upstanding citizens for their expressed opposition to homosexuality. It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the person tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. On the other hand, the person making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint. All television, radio and print media are monitored. May what is happening in Canada serve as a warning to Massachusetts. Where can the children find safety if legislation is in place legitimizing homosexual marriage?
Item numbers 10, 24, and 28 are included with this testimony. My article, "Same-Sex Marriage: Have the Best Interests of Children Been Considered?" is also included below.
"Same-Sex Marriage: Have the Best Interests of Children Been Considered?" By Dawn StefanowiczPosted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 15, 2008 01:57 PM
Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn't endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That's why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated.That conclusion has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with what's best for children and society. Just ask pro-gay, liberal democrat David Blankenhorn.
Muslims also overwhelmingly supported Proposition 8 and are opposed to gay marriage. Don't expect to see a single protest outside a Mosque, nor expect to hear Muslims called bigots and homophobes by these cowardly thugs the way Christians are.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 15, 2008 02:17 PMFor some here, they think it's that gays should be happy with civil unions, and just let the word "marriage" belong to straight people. That'd be great, except that "marriage" amendments in many states prevent civil unions.
For some here, they think it's that gay couples are somehow inferior to straight couples because they can't have children. That'd be great, except that barren people can get married too, and you're not required to get a fertility test before getting a license.
For some here, they think gay couples can't be good parents. That'd be great, except that I've know some pretty awful straight parents, and some pretty great gay and single parents. Going by stereotypes, irrational assumptions, and cherry-picked anecdotal evidence is not true. Heck, does that mean that if we found that the children of all teen parents had a lower chance of thriving, the state should automatically take children from teen parents?
For some here, they think that it's God's mandate. That'd be great, but I don't follow your religion, nor do a whole lot of other people. I don't think that your personal definition of God should apply to our secular government, just as I don't think that Christian Scientists should keep me from having a blood transfusion through regulation.
For some here, they're just bigots that hate gay people and want to trivialize them. That's fine. If you're an evil, bitter bastard, I probably hate your lifestyle too. I'm not voting to take away YOUR rights, though.
For some here, they're just willing to maintain that 50%+1 should rule all. That's fine, but that means that the tyranny of the majority rules over everything. Never mind about protecting the rights of the 50%-1... as long as you can get the votes, you can do ANYTHING you want without a need for rules or fairness or respect for democratic institutions.
In every movement, there are the nutters. (And most of the right-wing ones are here.) However, the advocates of gay marriage by and large aren't looking to attack straight marriage, nor are they pushing for special rights.
But, of course, the only rights that conservatives care about are their own. Watch out for number one, and screw everyone else. What a wonderful, loving way to run a country.
Oh... and...
@47: So if I were to simply replace a promiscuous gay father with a promiscuous straight father in that story, would you believe that straight people shouldn't get married?
Posted by: demo kid on November 15, 2008 02:18 PMThey ARE bigots and homophobes. They're also not the biggest financial contributors to the Yes on 8 effort, nor did the leader of the Muslims get up and profess that all members should donate their time and money to opposing gay marriage.
Posted by: demo kid on November 15, 2008 02:23 PMLet's overturn the will of the people in Florida and California. Let's let the homosexuals have the validation they so desperately want.
However, let's let them have it knowing full well that when they DO overturn those legal votes by legal voters, they overturn ALL the election results in Florida and California.
Whaddya say commie kid and liberals... how badly do you want it?? Put your electoral votes where your validation is!
Good Morning President McCain!
How are you this fine day Vice President Palin?
No. But that marriage does discourage that person from having children out of wedlock with another. The idea of marriage between a man and woman is for society to promote having children in wedlock. Some will choose not to have children and some will choose to break their vows. But those things don't change the goal of traditional marriage to promote procreation and the ideal way of raising children.
Posted by: Palouse on November 15, 2008 02:34 PMThat would make me a nutcase...uh, I'm just saying...
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 15, 2008 02:39 PMThe problem will be as follows: As soon as gay couples are granted the "right" to get married, they will then demand to be married in churches. Churches will refuse, gay couples will start suing churches for "discrimination". A judge will then issue a ruling stating that "clergy cannot discriminate as to whom they marry or they will be revoked of the power to marry by the state" This will lead churches to either marry everyone or get out of marrying couples all together.
This is why, if you don't use the word marriage, much can be accomplished to get true equality.
Whether this new social order is a positive or negative development has yet to be seen, but it is reckless to rush headlong into something that changes a fundamental aspect of life and society when the people are not ready for the change.
So, while you may think nothing is wrong with "gay marriage", dragging the "neanderthals" along too fast could do more harm than good.
A final thought: Happiness does not come from outside acceptance, and marriage rights will not fundamentally change that.
Posted by: Eyago on November 15, 2008 03:17 PM@54: So? You haven't proved that adoptive gay parents that are married don't prove that same benefit.
@55: Poor example.
@56: Government can no more make the Catholic Church marry gays than they can make them ordain women. Stop confusing the issue. This isn't what we're talking about here.
@57: Yes, marriage once had a very specific and clear meaning and purpose: women as chattel and the bearers of children to maintain a hereditary line. And this isn't about happiness. This is about fairness.
@58-59: Being ignorant douchebags isn't tolerance either. Grow the hell up.
Posted by: demo kid on November 15, 2008 05:38 PMBetter majority rule than minority rule, but by the appearances of the 'no on 8' cohort, it appears that they disagree. How is this justified? Oh, just label your desired outcome a 'right' and it must then trump anyone else's values, even those of a majority. That's childlike simplicity - nice if you can bamboozle the MSM into touting it.
Sorry if majority rule seems like tyranny, but in this case it's far from tyrannical. Gays can hook up with anyone they want, and enter into lifetime contracts likewise, with full approval of the State. But they want the 'marriage' label plastered on their 'pioneering' relationships. In the desiring of that label, they deserve no more rights than those who wish it reserved for traditional marriages of breeders. And yes, the breeders done won the election.
Or should we give up democracy for rule by a self-selected Politburo issuing decrees of 'rights' to some, and revoking rights from others?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on November 15, 2008 05:48 PM@59 If you aren't a member of he LDS Church, why do you care.
You ignoramuses that comment on the LDS Church re: polygamy, etc. Why don't you first do some research. You might just as well be saying people in Rome still feed Christians to the lions. That is how out of touch you are.
Look, we can all rant about marriage and religion and ask irrelevant questions as to why one religion allows this or that, but as far as the State is concerned that doesn't matter. Marriage has nothing to do with religion whatsoever in the eyes of the State. Hell, any religion can say it's okay Mother's to marry their son's and fathers to marry their daughters. Guess what? The State won't recognize it because it's against the law. Same goes for "gay marriage" at the moment.
Those who bring up discrimination, well it's not. Indeed it was discrimination when states had laws against mixed race marriages. That's because they were being denied their 14th Amendment rights. Gays are not being denied their 14th Amendment rights because, AGAIN, no one is preventing them from marrying anyone of the opposite sex they want. See the difference? I didn't think so.
dumbo kid, I'm quite sure you would not be ranting about this had Prop 8 passed. I contend that if anyone said it wrong YOU would be the first person to shout "Will of the People". Well, you can't have it both ways, pal. That's why in most cases democracy sucks. It's mob rule. But it's always no problem when you agree with what is voted on, right? You keep using the word "rights". Marriage is not a right. But even assuming that it is, gays are NOT being prevented from obeying marriage laws. Love, attractions, hell even sexual orientation has nothing to do with marriage laws. They fact they they think it does is irrelevant. The law doesn't care how you feel about your spouse.
Unless, or until it is proven beyond doubt that homosexuality is a genetic condition, gays cannot cite discrimination in this case. Blacks certainly could because they could not change their skin color. And all of you who are about to say "it is not a choice", well, you are going to have to explain Anne Heche to me. There can't be exceptions if it is genetic. You either are or aren't.
The fact that the LDS Church mounted an opposition campaign does not validate the belief that marriage and religion go hand it hand as far as the State is concerned.
Posted by: Dave on November 15, 2008 05:49 PM"And from your example, to be a rightist is to be laughably hypocritical. I see no tolerance from you about anything, and no desire to actually life in a society that respects freedom or democratic institutions. You soil this country simply by being in it."
First of all, moron, my example, which you did not dispute by citing any examples where, for example, YOU have held YOUR political heroes to the same scrutiny you apply to everyone else, provides nothing of the kind.
Secondly, I have served around this fricking planet to protect the very freedom that my service, and that of millions of others who've actually given a damn about their country enables you to abuse.
You and your ilk are hypocrites. You and your ilk apply a standard to everyone that you don't apply to yourselves. Examples abound... and you don't deny it.
Dumbo goes on to puke: "You soil this country simply by being in it."
Which, of course, is an example not only of what I wrote, but of the basic thrust of this thread.
Dumbo, you serve as the poster bitch for intolerance. And while I served my country around the world for 14 years to keep dickheads like you free to prove your ignorance, you were suckling down the leftist kool aid that enables idiots like you to lack common sense, ethics or morality.
Well done. You've held up the side extremely well, and I expected no less.
Posted by: Hinton on November 15, 2008 06:02 PMNo, they don't provide the same benefit because they don't produce children. Traditional marriage does that, and it's the most successful way of raising children in the history of civilization. Now, you can argue all you want about artificial insemination of two female married partners, but this is just a very small fraction of gay unions that produce this outcome, and it's not worthy of changing the definition of marriage because of it. Not to mention, the majority of society believe children should be raised with a father and mother present.
Society only has a vested interest in traditional marriage because it's the only one that produces the offspring that society needs to continue. That is why it is given special recognition as marriage. And offspring of married parents are far less likely to end up in poverty and dependent on the state.
Posted by: Palouse on November 15, 2008 06:40 PMWhy the hatred towards Mormons? They're about 2% of the population; did they account for the 10 point difference in the Proposition 8 vote?
How about the 65/35 pro-8 differential of that 10% voting block, African Americans? Why not direct your hatred towards a group that was overwhelmingly anti-gay-marriage and turned out in numbers strong enough to make most of that significant lead?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 15, 2008 06:45 PMBecause their fads are not about whatever they claim, but are simply continued political appeals to collectivism.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 15, 2008 06:50 PMIt's EXACTLY the will of the people. In every single state, every single time, the VOTERS have REJECTED redefining marriage.
Tell your pals to join you as you grow the hell up.
I made you and your ilk an offer which you have studiously avoided. WHICH will of the people is more important to you: baby bear-y the toddler president or legitimizing homosexual behaviour by calling it marrigae?
THOSE are your choices, because those exactly are the CHOICES the American voters made in the two defining states of Florida and California.
Be the man that you pretend to be: PICK.
Oh... I'm so sorry. Should I kiss your ring or something?
I don't care what you've done in the past. The lack of character and morality in your statements is repugnant REGARDLESS of your background.
@64: You're still missing the point. If marriage is all about children, they why don't we make having children mandatory for a marriage? Gay or straight, old or young, by your definition married couples should have children or not be recognized as a real marriage.
@65: Again, you're also missing the point. When the leaders of a religious organization promote the idea that its members should get involved SPECIFICALLY with a political cause, they become fair game. Mormons and Catholics were the biggest. If you can find me an equally large organization of other groups that opposed this, we can get to work protesting them as well.
@67: Shanghai Dan: No railing against African Americans because they have to be kept in their Dem voting pocket and therefore not offended, and no railing against the Muslim voters because they might kill them. :):)
Same could be said of many economic conservatives and the religious whackjobs that infest the Republican Party.
@69: You're no man, nor do you have ANY inkling as to what living in a democracy is about.
First of all, the margins are narrowing. Old farts are dying off, and younger voters are consistently less socially conservative as their parents. It may take a generation, perhaps two, but this will go through. If it does pass, are you suddenly going to accept it?
Second, your "offer" is laughable, because it shows that you haven't got a clue as to how the government can (and should) operate. Best example, again, is the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Were anti-miscegenation laws right? Hell no. Only a few people today would even suggest that. But would these laws have passed as state initiatives? Hell yes. Despite the fact that it makes for unequal treatment under the law, a majority of folks in Georgia could conceivably take away the rights of people by a majority vote.
In such a case, what do you do? In the case of civil rights, it was a mixture of plenty of different things: federal action (by both Democrats and Republicans), court cases, and protests and pressure from minority groups. But relying simply on a majority vote is not enough to guarantee that the rights of the minority are being respected by the majority.
Posted by: demo kid on November 15, 2008 08:00 PMFalse. You can re-read my post @54 explaining this.
Posted by: Palouse on November 15, 2008 08:18 PMWhile I am not a Mormon myself, I find it rather repulsive that there is so much anger directed towards this religion. LDS is maybe 3% of California's population, how could they have single handedly passed Prop 8? California is the most liberal state in the country, they gave Obama more than 60% of the vote and yet it was only the Mormons who passed Prop 8?
Take your energy, organize a movement IN CALIFORNIA to get a new prop. on the ballot and pursude the electorate. That is how you win in a democracy.
I don't like the result of the governors race but you don't see me rallying outside of union halls or tribal casinos because Gregiore won. Just because someone gives money to a cause and that cause or candidate wins doesn't mean that they were the whole reason for its success.
Posted by: jake on November 15, 2008 08:41 PMLook, if you don't like the outcome of the vote, then push for another initiative or proposition. To attack people - the politics of personal destruction - is simply wrong and evil. You constantly condemn it, so why do you condone it now?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 15, 2008 09:01 PMI think the anger against the Mormon church, and the Catholic church, stem in part from the tax exemption thing, and the fact that with all the terrible things going on in the world, like the woman in Somalia being stoned to death for being raped for just one instance, this is the only thing they can think of to go the mat for.
It would have been great to have the popular vote affirm this right, but this is properly the area for the courts anyway. We don't vote on whether blondes can vote or get married, and if we did restrict their rights the Courts would have to throw it out.
What's my basic analysis on this? The number one poster right here had it perfect, no need to restate.
Thanks all, Best wishes, New Left Conservative # 1
Posted by: New Left Conservative #1 on November 15, 2008 10:27 PMBoth of those premises are wrong. Figure it out.
First of all, the margins are narrowing.
So?
They clearly haven't narrowed enough as evidenced by the 53% in California that upheld marriage is between one man and one woman, nor by the fact that almost all the states have indicated by VOTES of the people that they intend for it to remain so.
Second, your "offer" is laughable, because it shows that you haven't got a clue as to how the government can (and should) operate
"Can" Should"
You conveniently forgot the word "DOES".
You wishing it so will not make it come true. The "offer" is valid as those are the exact choices the voters made in BOTH California and Florida.
Now, I've posited a question to you: if you could choose to overturn the ENTIRE election results to give homosexuals the validation they crave, would you do so at the expense of giving up the toddler president?
SOMETIMES commie kid, you can't have it all. .... as evidenced most recently by California and Florida.
And by the way, I KNOW how I would choose. I expect that I know how most of the conservatives here would choose. BUT you clearly haven't the guts to say. Can you say "BAWK!"?
Best example, again, is the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Were anti-miscegenation laws right?
Haven't had that 10th grade biology yet, have you?
There is absolutely NO biological difference between a black man marrying a caucasian woman or a black man marrying a black woman.
There is a clear and distinct biological difference between a man "marrying" a man and a man marrying a woman. That biological difference goes all the way down to their genetic code. Furthermore, skin color cannot be compared to a behavior pattern.
Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved.
While some heterosexual coupling turn out to be sterile, ALL homosexual acts are sterile and life threatening. They are irrational--they literally have no meaning and make no sense to nature. Thus, such acts are unnatural.
Man and woman are physiologically and psychologically ordered to each other. The meaning of the design is unity, and the function of the sexual design is procreation. The fact that sexual intercourse is pleasurable is nature's insurance policy that the species will continue.
Marriage requires consummation, (hence also the legality of annulment when it has NOT been consumated), the physical union of the two forms of the human being. This unity is both physically and psychologically ordered by nature to increase the bond that makes it possible to assume the lifelong responsibilities of parenthood.
Bluntly, the new meaning so desired by homosexuals would be that sex has no meaning beyond pleasure. This philosophy imperils marriage. Sex for pleasure and nothing greater devalues men and women, reducing them to gratifying objects. A society that accepts such a model has a death wish.
"Homosexual Marriage" doesn't exist. It never has and it never will. But a fiction can become an illusion when a big lie is repeated often enough.
If it's homosexual, it ain't marriage. The word "marriage" came into usage in English late in the thirteenth century, and it has always pertained to the matrimonial union of a man and woman.
So, homosexual marriage? It's an oxymoron.
In fact, we should rightly be called ANTI-MARRIAGE.
And I will.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 15, 2008 10:28 PMSorry, that should read: ONE of those premises are wrong. Figure it out.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 15, 2008 10:33 PMDave @ 62: so if sexual orientation is a choice, when did you make the choice to be heterosexual? Was it a 50-50 proposition?
To those who point out that homosexuals have the same rights to marry the opposite sex: do you really want homosexuals seeking out heterosexual marriages? Would you like to volunteer for one of these relationships?
The bigoted commenters on this post are the logical equivalents of neanderthals, and fortunately for all concerned, they're going to suffer the same evolutionary fate. For the record, I will always defend your right to make your moronic, bigoted arguments for as long as your species ambles the planet with your ape-like gait.
Posted by: nj on November 15, 2008 11:24 PMI appreciate that you value traditional marriage and the importance of family. You are clearly correct that allowing gay marriage would be a redefinition of the concept of marriage. But why and how would allowing gays to marry damage heterosexual marriages or make them those marriages any less complete or real?
As a straight man, I don't see how gays being allowed to marry would threaten the reality or meaning of my marriage (assuming that I marry one day). If anything, allowing more marriage of this type would lift the rest of us up - marriage, of anyone, is a recogniition by the community of the attempt to create a new family, bring us together through love and the desire to have a deeper, meaningful, lifetime commitment.
I am a supporter of gay marriage and consider myself liberal, but to tell the truth, I believe that aside from religious issues, I don't see where gay marriage is in conflict with traditional conservative values. Most conservatives I know believe that the government should avoid regulating private lives except in extreme cases, and we should limit the scope of government as much as possible. Limiting marriage in this manner is an intrusion by the government, an intrusion into a private matter. If a particular religion or church chooses not to recognize gay marriage, that's their privilege, but what is the compelling reason that the government should be involved?
"Bluntly, the new meaning so desired by homosexuals would be that sex has no meaning beyond pleasure. This philosophy imperils marriage."
I think that a lot of opposition stems from this misconception. Suggesting that all homosexuals think of sex as nothing more than a source of pleasure is completely incorrect. While many gays do think of sex as primarily a means of play, so do many straight people and it would be unfair to categorize either group as seeing sex only that way. Gays who want to marry want to do so for the same reasons straight people do - to be in a loving, meaningful relationship recognized by their communities. Why should they be denied this?
My stance is that the government shouldn't consider 'marriage' a legal term. The government should use one term to recognize straight and gay couples the same and leave marriage as a term that religions can use as they see fit for religious ceremonies recognizing the establishment of this governmentally recognized contract (whether it's called a civil union or anyting else).
Of course, all of this in no way excuses the minority of liberals, gay and otherwise, who have chosen to scapegoat the black community for the passage of proposition 8. It is no more fair to accuse all liberals as being hypocrites for this than it is to accuse conservatives of being racist because they didn't vote for Obama (by which I mean neither accusation is fair).
Posted by: Icarus on November 15, 2008 11:36 PMYes, that will certainly go a LONG way to changing peoples minds.
Perhaps you have a few crosses you'd like to burn or churches you'd like to vandalize with your eloquent tantrum.
Feel free, though, to regale us with the tale of when you made the choice to be heterosexual. I trust you had to at least dabble to make sure. Was yours a 50-50 call also, or more of a 52-48 lean?
Posted by: nj on November 15, 2008 11:49 PMMarriage is a social institution, not a private institution. As such, changing the definition of marriage will affect society at large. It will affect their conception of the meaning and significance of marriage. If the institution of marriage is weakened. We do not have to wonder if same-sex marriage will ultimately have a negative affect on traditional marriage. There has been an ongoing social experiment of this very kind in Scandinavia. The introduction of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia has contributed to the continued decrease of traditional marriage, and an increase in children born out of wedlock (the out-of-wedlock birth rate is the best way to gauge the strength of marriage in a society, because out-of-wedlock birth rates will rise as more couples choose to forego marriage). Cohabitation is becoming the dominant "family" form. Cohabiting parenthood is problematic because cohabiters are known to experience rates of family dissolution 2-3 times higher than married couples. Without stable family units children suffer socially and emotionally, and thus are ill-equipped to function maximally in society.
It's true that American society's concept of marriage has changed, especially over the last fifty years. But not all change is positive, and our experiences in that regard may be instructive. Consider some of the recent changes to the institution of marriage--and their consequences:
The divorce revolution has undermined the concept that marriage is a life-long commitment. As a result, there's been an epidemic of broken homes and broken families, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.
The sexual revolution has undermined the concept that sexual relations should be confined to marriage. As a result, there's been an epidemic of cohabitation, sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, and broken hearts, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.
The concept that childbearing should be confined to marriage has been undermined. As a result, there's been an epidemic of out-of-wedlock births, single parenthood, and fatherless children, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.
The pornography revolution, particularly with the advent of the Internet, has undermined the concept that a man's sexual desires should be directed toward his wife. As a result, there's been an epidemic of broken relationships, abused wives, and sex crimes, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.
The commonsense understanding of marriage has been that it begins a family, and a family entails the idea of procreation. Marriage, then, is not a term that applies to any relationship between human beings, but only particular kinds of relationships: those that at least in principle can help form families, the foundation of society. That is why governments have gone out of their way to promote (not invent) marriage. As valuable as other relationships may be, they do not need the same sort of social support because they do not function in the same way the family functions in society.
Anthropologist Kingsley Davis has said, "The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval ... of a couple's engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing children." Marriage scholar Maggie Gallagher says that "marriage across societies is a public sexual union that creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children their sexual union may produce."
Canadian scholar Margaret A. Somerville says, "Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life."
Another Canadian scholar, Paul Nathanson (who is himself a homosexual), has said, "Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, ... every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . ... Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm" that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people "are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it."
What we have happening today, however, is homosexuals wanting their relationships recognized by the State as equal to married couples even though their relationship does not serve the same purpose that the heterosexual marriage relationships serve. The question we must ask, then, is If the relationships are not equal, upon what grounds must we treat them as such?
To say homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships is to make a qualitative distinction between the relationships, not a judgment concerning the value of homosexuals' humanity. The two types of relationships are simply different in both nature and function. Heterosexual relationships are based on procreation, whereas homosexual relationships are not. Heterosexuals can procreate, thus perpetuating society, but homosexual relationships cannot (at least not naturally). Relationships that initiate families are different from any other type of relationship and should be treated as such. Marriage is a natural institution. There are clear and natural reasons for it, which is why society at large has sought to protect and perpetuate it.
Homosexual activists argue that marriage is a construct of the State that can be defined in any manner the State chooses. They say marriage is about the public union of two people who wish to affirm their love and commitment to one another in a public, official manner. What's interesting is the limitation of this definition. Where does the idea of two come from Why not three or four? And where do we get the idea that love is the foundation of marriage? Who decided that? Nowhere in the history of the world has love been the basis of marriage.If marriage is a construct of the State, and the basis of marriage is love and commitment, then there is no principled reason to prohibit group or incestual marriages.
To demonstrate the insensibility of sanctioning same-sex unions as "marriage" consider the following point made by Francis Beckwith: Just because you can eat an ashtray doesn't make it food. Food is not determined by what you put in your mouth, but by the nature of the substance itself, and the types of things the body is designed to consume and use. Just because two homosexuals pledge the vows of marriage does not make it a marriage. Marriage is something in particular. Homosexuality is not congruent with the nature and purpose of marriage, and therefore we should not call same-sex relationships "marriage," nor give homosexuals the same rights/benefits we give to heterosexual unions.
Marriage is a particular something, not an "arbitrary anything." Marriage is not defined by society, but rather recognized by society. This point cannot be made any better than with the words of Greg Koukl:
It is not culture that constructs marriages or the families that marriages begin. Rather, it is the other way around: Marriage and family construct culture. As the building blocks of civilization, families are logically prior to society as the parts are prior to the whole. Bricks aren't the result of the building because the building is made up of bricks. You must have the first before you can get the second.
Societies are large groups of families. Since families are constituent of culture, cultures cannot define them. They merely observe their parts...and acknowledge what they have discovered. Society then enacts laws not to create marriage and families according to arbitrary convention, but to protect that which already exists, being essential to the whole.
Why has civilization always characterized families as a union of men and women? Because men and women are the natural source of the children that allow civilized culture to persist. This is the only understanding that makes sense of the definition, structure, legitimacy, identity, and government entitlements of marriage. This alone answers our question, "What is marriage?"
Marriage begins a family. Families are the building blocks of culture. Families--and therefore marriages--are logically prior to culture.
Nice try.
I don't "choose" to be hungry, but I make a conscious decision not to steal bread.
I don't "choose" to be allergic to hazelnuts, but I make conscious decision to avoid eating them.
I may be predisposed to eat ice cream. I "choose" to work out instead.
I knew about sexual urges as a teen. I "chose" to act upon then when I was mature enough to marry and accept the responsibilities that came with them. I have too much respect for myself to ever "dabble" sexually.
Whether one "chooses" their sexuality is irrelevant.
How one acts upon it is.
How one demand others to view it is.
It's just exactly what I said, a forced culture change.
Why is the media so silent on the assaults, violence, and vandalism being committed in California and other places, by the tolerant, diverse left?
They're waiting for someone to defend a Christian church property against an angry mob, and then we'll have nationwide team coverage of the hateful Christians.
And make to mistake, the sodomite uprising is not a "grassroots" movement, it is heavily financed by those who wish to destroy the American culture. Its power eminates from the pit of hell.
"Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned with lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting. Romans 1:27-28
Posted by: Saltherring on November 16, 2008 06:53 AM
Does marriage largely exist for the benefit of the protection of children or does it exist to benefit the adult? In more recent years that distinction has been blurred, much to the detriment of hte children. Stop thinking about what marriage is today and consider what it was before it was watered down to today's standard which opened the argument for homosexual marriage.
If homosexual attraction is "natural" and thus as legitimate as heterosexual, than why is the attraction to a sibling, a cousin, a parent, a minor, an animal and a dead person considered "Unnatural?" If we are all "born" that way, than all sexual proclivities are equally valid. There is then no pathology in sex and no valid reason for society to denounce any form of sexual expression. Public sex should also be allowed.
Posted by: Eyago on November 16, 2008 07:47 AMBut that's just a myth. Right?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 16, 2008 07:52 AMSimple. Because then marriages are no longer defined as society's ideal for raising children. They are nothing more than a social contract in that instance, which any couple can get right now. Marriage has a special recognition in our society because of procreation, which society needs to continue.
There is a reason for this. Ask yourself why does society not allow you to marry your sibling? They are both "consenting adults" and they presumably love each other. The reason is children. This is why there is no inalienable "right" associated with marriage. Society chooses how it is defined, and while healthy relationships are a nice thing, they are not the purpose of marriage. Society has a vested interest in procreation, and ensuring those children are raised in the best manner possible. That's why marriage is defined as it is. And if you argue about childless couples, please re-read #54 again.
Posted by: Palouse on November 16, 2008 08:44 AMYou provide a lot of context for the argument that marriage and families are weaker than they were. I agree with this, and I also agree that it is a problem that we have so many children raised by single parents, such a high divorce rate, and the other associated ills with lessened family ties.
But I don't see a solid connection between gay marriage in particular and marital problems. It seems to me that the strongest argument you put forth is that marriage always has been about procreation and heterosexual reproduction, that homosexual marriage is not about these factors, and that therefore people will regard marriage as less important if homosexuals are allowed to marry. Is this an accurate summation?
The third step in that logic does not automatically follow from the first two and you haven't provided the evidence that we should accept that it does. Among the arguments you put forth that homosexual marriage will lead to a decline in the status of traditional marriage:
-The case of Scandinavia. The fact is, the rate of heterosexuals marriages or divorces in Scandinavia has not plummeted as a result of gay marriage. Further, many countries in Europe allow gay marriage (10 now?) and in many of them marriage rates have gone up since the legalization of gay marriage (I'm not suggesting that gay marriage should get the responsibility for this trend, but rather that it shouldn't be seen as responsible either way). We've seen the same type of reaction in US states where marriage or equal partnerships are recognized.
-The foundation of the problem of gay marriage is undermining the importance of raising children. First, most gays I know who want marriage rights want them specifically for their children. They want to be able to raise children with the rights of health decisions, inheritance, custody, and all the other child-rearing benefits marriage brings. If anything, this should strengthen the idea of marriage as an institution for the purpose of raising children.
You also want to deny both the word 'marriage' and the attendant rights of marriage to gays. Even if you want to reserve the word marriage for what it traditionally means, why we should not "give homosexuals the same rights/benefits we give to heterosexual unions?" In what way does allowing the members of a gay relationship the ability to make health care decisions for the other in the event of a health disaster undermine straight marriage?
As far as the 'slippery slope' argument, that gay marriage opens the door to other sexual deviancies: we restrict and disallow those activities because they harm other people (or animals) or bring significant societal problems. For these other scenarios, there are generally good arguments for their attendant problems, problems that have not been adequately demonstrated for the particular case of gay marriage.
"To accomplish this end homosexual activists are willing to threaten the very foundation of society, rob children of moms and dads, argue that marriage is nothing in particular, and that parents are nothing in particular."
This isn't fair. The vast, vast majority of gay marriage advocates do not want to harm traditional marriage and wish it no ill will, are not in the business of robbing children, want marriage (or at least its rights) precisely because it is something special, and we certainly aren't claiming that parents are unimportant. Comments like these do nothing but polarize both sides, are incorrect, but, I hope, are not the real foundations of your opposition to gay marriage.
"Someone said it in an earlier post, but this is all about power and control, the power to drive organized Christianity from America."
"those who wish to destroy the American culture. Its power eminates from the pit of hell."
"Promoting homosexuality and undermining the traditional family are long stated socialist goals."
Where does this come from? What in the arguments from mainstream gay advocates has led you to believe that we, as a whole, are trying to drive Christianity from America and destroy American culture? Of course there are extremists who would like the abolition of Christianity, but I don't judge conservatives by those few who believe that atheists should be exiled, and you shouldn't judge liberals by the few, vocal extremists either. And again, this is not about destroying traditional marriage, and it certainly has nothing to do with socialism.
When you say things like the quotes above, you are undermining your cause. People like Ragnar present legitimate arguments for why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. I believe those arguments are ultimately wrong, but we can have a discussion about them. Statements like the above suggest that hate is the motivation for opposition to gay marriage; I don't believe this is the case for most opponents of it, but the content and tone of suggesting that I, and those like me, come from the "pit of hell" does nothing to help your argument or further discussion.
Posted by: Icarus on November 16, 2008 08:58 AM"fligthathouse" I suggest you take your comments to HA, the Huffington Post, or the comments section of The Stranger. You'll find a more like minded and appreciative audience.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 16, 2008 09:03 AMYou are under the misconception that all are tempted by the same sin or sins. This is not the case. I was never tempted by homosexuality by by a myriad of others, some of which I have fallen to. But there is hope!
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23
Posted by: Saltherring on November 16, 2008 09:09 AMI think most who oppose gay marriage would agree with me that gays in a committed relationship should be able to enter into a legal domestic partnership. With that the "denying us our rights" argument goes out the window.
The left wont be happy with that though. They'll do what they always do. Throw a temper tantrum until they get what they want.
You'd think they'd get that pushing for gay marriage is not a winning issue. In one of the most liberal states in this most liberal of voting years Prop. 8 won.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 16, 2008 09:21 AMI'm willing to accept that providing the foundation for raising children is at the heart of marriage. But...
"Because then marriages are no longer defined as society's ideal for raising children."
I've already said this, but I want to consolidate my thoughts:
First, for many gays, marriage is about raising children. It's about them wanting to raise children with the same protections married couples have.
Second, I don't understand how this affects the decision of straight couples to have children in or out of wedlock. There are many factors leading to extramarital births, but the logical connection between gays and wanting to have children in a protected relationship and straight people suddenly wanting the opposite is non-obvious. What do you see this connection being?
Posted by: Icarus on November 16, 2008 09:23 AM"I think most who oppose gay marriage would agree with me that gays in a committed relationship should be able to enter into a legal domestic partnership. With that the "denying us our rights" argument goes out the window."
Is that really true? Multiple posters in this thread have explicitly stated they don't believe gays should have equal rights. I, for one, would be satisfied if gays had equal rights under a different name, but I've encountered many opponents of gay marriage who don't want gays to to have access to a legal union similar to marriage.
I hardly think that advocating for gay marriage and suggesting reasons why it should be allowed is throwing a 'tantrum.' And we certainly don't choose to argue the point because we think it's a winning issue. We argue it because we think it's right.
Posted by: Icarus on November 16, 2008 09:47 AMYou'll have to help me out there,Icarus. I don't have time right now to re-read this entire thread but I don't recall anyone saying that. If someone did, I disagree with them.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 16, 2008 10:01 AMPastor Joseph Fuiten, of Cedar Park Church in Bothell, said the march didn't matter. "I am going to mow my lawn. Their demonstration is of no consequence to me. People walking the streets in Seattle, that is not intelligent, this is juvenile. It's not intellectual discourse, it's a nonevent."Unintellectual? Cue Ron Sims!
"If you are going to talk about immortality, talk about hunger. That is immoral. Talk about war. That is immoral. But do not tell me when two people love each other that's immoral. It is right."
Even assuming "immortality" was a misquote, this is still unintellectual on several counts. He's attacking a straw man by implying that we cannot talk about some "immoral" things while we talk about others. And he's wrong when he says war and hunger are immoral anyway. And not even Ron Sims would say ANY two people loving each other romantically is a "right," and besides, this isn't about love, but legal recognition, and NO ONE has such a right.
I suppose attacking Ron Sims for saying unintellectual things is just a waste of time though. Dude's not the brightest bulb. Not the dimmest either ... but pretty close.
Posted by: pudge on November 16, 2008 10:07 AMThey don't need marriage to do this. It's perfectly legal for gay couples to adopt, and I don't support laws that prevent them from doing so.
the logical connection between gays and wanting to have children in a protected relationship and straight people suddenly wanting the opposite is non-obvious. What do you see this connection being?
I didn't make that connection. As stated, gays are welcome to adopt in my view (although I believe children are better off with a mother and father), and they can get social contracts that give them all of the same inheritance and visitation rights as marriage. But that doesn't mean that society has to provide special recognition to their union. Indeed, it shouldn't, because that union does not produce the offspring that society needs to continue. It is the production of that offspring that's most important, followed closely by raising the children in a stable relationship.
Raising children outside of wedlock should be actively discouraged by society, and that's why marriage is so sacred (not in the religious sense either). It is up to us, as a society, to make the connection between marriage and procreation strong, and unfortunately that's being diluted in our culture with things like "non-traditional" marriage and unmarried parenting.
Posted by: Palouse on November 16, 2008 10:40 AMThis is not true. Contracts can give partnered couples many, but not all, of the same rights as married couples. Some of the important benefits that cannot be obtained through private contracts include:
-joint adoption. Although one member of a gay couple can adopt, without government granting this, gay couples cannot adopt jointly and this severely affects the life of the couple and the child, such as in the event of an accident, saving for college, ability to make educational decisions, passing on custodial trust if the adoptive parent dies, and the availability of social services such as domestic violence protection.
-survivor benefits for pensions, health care, worker's comp, and other areas
-immigration benefits
-tax benefits, especially the ability to file joint tax returns
-ability to make medical and legal decisions in the event that the other partner is incapacitated
These, and many others, cannot be granted by a private contract.
If we want to encourage children to be raised by a family rather than a single parent and we want to allow gay couples to raise children, this is at least a point in favor of allowing gay couples to form a protected family unit.
The idea that allowing this will encourage straight people to have children out of wedlock and avoid marriage is simply unsubstantiated. If you look at places where gay marriage or equivalent unions are allowed, that problem simply hasn't occurred. But even if you are unwilling to accept this on other grounds, I don't see why gays shouldn't have access to an equivalent civil union. While I believe the word 'marriage' should refer to the family unit in question and I use the term that way, I am satisfied with equal rights under a different name and I still don't see how our views of traditional marriages will be negatively impacted by giving gays the same privileges straight couples have when they form a new family. If anything, it should strengthen marriage as more people interested in creating a stable family for their children turn to a committed, recognized relationship as the best path for their children.
Posted by: Icarus on November 16, 2008 11:04 AMNot only this an ignorant question, it is completely and totally irrelevant to the argument. What a Church chooses to sanction as marriage is completely different from what the State recognizes as a legal marriage. The couples you cite above are not prevent from getting married. That a church may or may not choose to perform the ceremony doesn't prevent them from marrying. Conversely, a Church could encourage and perform a marriage between mother and her son, but the State would not recognize it, and in fact would deem it illegal. You do understand that people that practice polygamy in the name of the LDS religion are a) excommunicated from the church, and more important b) arrested for breaking the law!, right? You do know that, right? So, what a Church decides to sanction or not sanction is separate from the State sanctions as marriage. Many churches don't support their members getting abortions, and will in fact excommunicate members for same. That doesn't prevent the person from getting a legal abortion, and the person will suffer no consequences from the State, regardless of what their chosen Church teaches.
@93. "DAVE - I understand you had to decide your sexuality? Can you elaborate on your initial homosexual tendencies. I am intrigued by your statement about choice. Does that mean that you if you wanted you could become a homosexual again by CHOICE. Please provide your personal history on how you made to choice to become straight"
I'm guessing logic and reason is not your strong suit? Please be so kind as to answer my challenge to explain Anne Heche to me, if we are talking about homosexuality being a choice or not. You will, at the same time, have to explain bi-sexuality to me.
There is a long history of using biology to justify inequality as inevitable due to the genetic characteristics of women or people of color. In general, biological explanations serve to delude people into believing that they can't help their choices; that it can be no other way. But while the idea that if gays can't help it because they are born that way seemingly might arrive at their acceptance into society, it also diminishes gays as thinking purposeful beings.
Clearly, there is some biological element to sexuality, but it is limited to the generic desire for sex, in the same manner that hunger is biological which leads us to want to ingest food, as Rangar pointed out so accurately. But what we end up eating is as varied as human cultures are; what we are convinced is nourishing varies as well. . In the United States, during the first part of the twentieth century, a healthy and nourishing diet was considered to be one which included plenty of meat and potatoes; only the poor ate beans and rice and greens. It has now flip-flopped almost completely. Yet, when we crave some food, we feel it is biological. It seems that our body cries out for bagels, perhaps. But if we were Maori tribespeople, our we would not crave bagels, but cow's blood.
In a like manner with sexuality. There are some who believe they were born to have a sexual penchant for wearing lacy silky women's underwear. But, come on, how could that be biological? Would some random Maori have a sexual fetish for underwear from Victoria's Secret any more than he might have a hankering for a bagel with cream cheese and lox? Clearly, however early in youth they perceived their sexual proclivity beginning, there is no gene that codes for Victoria's Secret.
Just because people think they were born a certain way, that is they were that way ever since they can remember, this does not mean it is true. And I also do not agree with the increasingly popular compromise position that maybe for some people it's biological and for others it's not. I see no convincing evidence or plausible explanations that it is biological for anyone, I only see that some people feel they know what its etiology is.
Why do we think that individual people have more insight into their own genetic make-up than science has? Just because something feels fundamental to a person, does that make them an authority on their genetic structure, able to authoritatively interpret their feelings as having biological roots? I think not.
Any homosexual could choose tomorrow to reject homosexuality and attempt to find a partner of the opposite sex. But they don't want to, it would not feel right, they would likely be unhappy. Homosexuals choose to be homosexuals because something about homosexuality appeals to them, they like it, they prefer it to heterosexuality. When this is attributed to biology, any further examination must stop there. Why do some people prefer same sex partnerships over opposite sex partnerships? What seems preferable about it to them? What don't they like about heterosexual relations? That is the rub right there. What if there are reasons that people reject heterosexuality and embrace same sex relations? What reasons would people have to prefer same sex relations over heterosexuality? Calling it biology does not allow us to even ask the questions. Conversely, a lot of heterosexuals don't like heterosexual relationships, either. When Ellen Degenerate came out on the Harpo Show, she told Harpo she tried having sex with men but "something was missing". She didn't feel what she was "supposed to feel". So, she apparently made a "choice" at that point.
I dunno. Why don't you ask Ellen Degenerate? She apparently made the choice, given she did not like having sex with men.
I must assume you comprehended nothing that I wrote previously. Sexual desire is not a choice. We are born with it. How we choose to satisfy it is a choice.
Hunger is a biological need. What you eat is a CHOICE you make. Why do you choose to eat what you eat when you are hungry? What sane person, knowing what we know about trans fats, cholesterol, etc, would choose to eat a double-bacon cheeseburger? I have no desire to eat a dog, but apparently in Korea that is done without a second thought. Why?
When you are thirsty what do you choose to drink? Is it always water? If not, why not? Knowing what we know about the benefits of water to the human body?
Posted by: Dave on November 16, 2008 12:24 PM"Government has established a welter of statutory benefits for married people: tax filing status, surviving spouse pensions, dower rights, inheritance rights. These benefits exist to encourage marriage and to recognize its obligations, particularly the family's role in an ordered society. All of these have a financial cost. Extending marriage beyond man-woman relationships thus threatens the financial stability of these programs."
"It is ironic that activists are now seeking Social Security survivor benefits for homosexual partners, since Congress originally intended them as a way of supporting a very traditional family structure--one in which the husband worked to provide the family's cash income while the wife stayed home to keep house and raise the children. Social Security survivor benefits were designed to recognize the non-monetary contribution made to a family by the homemaking and child-rearing activities of a wife and mother, and to ensure that a woman and her children would not become destitute if the husband and father were to die."
"The Supreme Court ruled in the 1970s that such benefits must be gender-neutral. However, they still are largely based on the premise of a division of roles within a couple between a breadwinner who works to raise money and a homemaker who stays home to raise children."
"Very few homosexual couples organize their lives along the lines of such a "traditional" division of labor and roles. They are far more likely to consist of two earners, each of whom can be supported in old age by their own personal Social Security pension."
"Furthermore, far fewer homosexual couples than heterosexual ones are raising children at all, for the obvious reason that they are incapable of natural reproduction with each other. This, too, reduces the likelihood of a traditional division of labor among them."
"Survivor benefits for the legal (biological or adopted) children of homosexual parents (as opposed to their partners) are already available under current law, so "marriage" rights for homosexual couples are unnecessary to protect the interests of these children themselves."
"The idea that homosexuals are routinely denied the right to visit their partners in the hospital is nonsense. When this issue was raised during debate over the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, the Family Research Council did an informal survey of nine hospitals in four states and the District of Columbia. None of the administrators surveyed could recall a single case in which a visitor was barred because of their homosexuality, and they were incredulous that this would even be considered an issue."
"Except when a doctor limits visitation for medical reasons, final authority over who may visit an adult patient rests with that patient. This is and should be the case regardless of the sexual orientation or marital status of the patient or the visitor."
"The only situation in which there would be a possibility that the blood relatives of a patient might attempt to exclude the patient's homosexual partner is if the patient is unable to express his or her wishes due to unconsciousness or mental incapacity. Homosexual partners concerned about this (remote) possibility can effectively preclude it by granting to one another a health care proxy (the legal right to make medical decisions for the patient) and a power of attorney (the right to make all legal decisions for another person). Marriage is not necessary for this. It is inconceivable that a hospital would exclude someone who holds the health care proxy and power of attorney for a patient from visiting that patient, except for medical reasons."
"As with the hospital visitation issue, the concern over inheritance rights is something that simply does not require marriage to resolve it. Nothing in current law prevents homosexual partners from being joint owners of property such as a home or a car, in which case the survivor would automatically become the owner if the partner dies."
"An individual may leave the remainder of his estate to whomever he wishes--again, without regard to sexual orientation or marital status--simply by writing a will. As with the hospital visitation issue, blood relatives would only be able to overrule the surviving homosexual partner in the event that the deceased had failed to record his wishes in a common, inexpensive legal document."
"All that's going on here is that the State is not granting the same "benefits" of marriage, like higher taxes, to homosexual couples. The State discriminates on these rules because it seeks to encourage certain behavior. Homosexual couples can already have big weddings and I don't attend. I also don't protest them. What homosexuals are seeking is either a) some financial benefits that heterosexual couples receive or b) societal acceptance through the state sanction of their marraige. If they are seeking option a, then we should have a debate as to whether granting those same protections to
homosexual couples is a benefit to society and worth the costs. If they are looking for option b, then they will have to wait until public opinion shifts sufficiently to change the electorate."
Our argument for traditional marriage and against same-sex marriage begins with marriage's purpose, not its participants.
But boy oh boy it's been a busy day cataloging all that "tolerance" by the losers... which by the way IS the topic of this thread.
Prop 8 - Pro Gay Marriage Protest San Diego November 15th 2008... there's even a little commentary for our little pal nj: "NO SIR WE ARE NOT ALL A LITTLE GAY INSIDE."
Gays are all the Rage these Days.
It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple...me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.
Lovely.
Really. How poud you enablers and defenders must be.
The Great National Sissy Hissy Fit
There's an old saying that "you get more flies with honey than vinegar." The folks out in California could stand to be reminded of that.
"Gosh, I Hope My Guy Was Lying To Me!"
First up, who cannot be entertained by all the people pinning their hopes on Barack Obama? They have convinced themselves that he will, indeed, see the justice of their cause and -- with a wave of his hand -- grant them all that they wish. To do so, they have to overlook his public statements opposing gay marriage and supporting the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Prop 8 H8ters lost for simple reasons, they do not recognize Constitutional authority, they do not respect the disagreement of their opponent, they are dishonest with the facts, and they are far less tolerant than what the majority have ever endured from the most homophobic person they've ever met in person.
Can you imagine what would happen if a gang of angry male Christian activists started shouting down and shoving around some nice old lesbian during a religious rally right after ripping her rainbow pride flag from her hands and waffle stomping it?
There is not one single right I have, that Bill has, that anyone else in America has that is not enjoyed by any and all homosexuals.
First, you need to learn the definition of a "right" as defined by the Consitution.
Second, after you do learn it, you need to be honest about the fact that you aren't interested those particular rights, but in special rights.
Third, you need to understand how the laws of this country work and accept them even when they don't suit your agenda.
Fourth, you need to stop whining and screaming like a child not getting the candy bar they WANT (notice, I didn't say "need" or "deserve" or "entitled to") in the check out line.
Your post primarily addresses monetary benefits of marriage, which are one small part of what gays are seeking. The more important benefits include such things as joint adoption, the ability to make medical and legal decisions on behalf of the couple, and making life choices for their child. Additionally, when homosexual couples are jointly raising children, why shouldn't they have the same financial benefits straight couples have when they raise children (although this is comparatively minor)?
As far as hospitals go, the issue is not just visitation - it is the ability to make decisions for an incapacitated partner or child. If someone's partner and child are injured in an accident, the partner should be able to make treatments for the injured ones, something that is not currently guaranteed.
"Our argument for traditional marriage and against same-sex marriage begins with marriage's purpose, not its participants."
So does mine. I'm saying that gays are interested in the same purpose - starting a new family, and the fact that they are different participants shouldn't be significant. All of this, and no good reason to believe that traditional marriage will actually be damaged by any of this - none of my points regarding why gay marriage doesn't threaten traditional marriage and families have been addressed (I understand if you don't have time to read through all the posts in the thread).
---
As far as the behavior of some advocates of gay marriage goes, the actions you've mentioned are clearly not to be tolerated and should be condemned across the board. But this is not a reason to reject gay marriage. The gay community will clearly need to come to terms with this anger and intolerance, but you shouldn't judge the validity of gay marriage based on this behavior any more than I would judge your views and arguments based on people carrying 'God Hates Fags' signs.
I would have like the rallies in Washington state yesterday to recognize the problem and condemn those who have lashed out after Prop 8, but those rallies have also been positive and looking to spreading the message rather than trying to blame others.
Posted by: Icarus on November 16, 2008 01:05 PMMy dad died not long ago. In his dotage and under coercion he gave complete medical authority to my brother who abused it by not allowing my sister and I to have information or input into any medical decisions.
That very same authority can be granted to anyone the patient chooses. AND if only one parent is legally the parent it can be granted to anyone else that parent chooses. A prime example would be a child living with a parent and a STEP-parent. Another would be a living spouse caring for a deceased spouses mother/father/sibling.
I have an aunt by marriage. She and my uncle had no children and since he died she is in effect alone... except that my cousins and I (nieces and nephews of my uncle) care for her. We are technically unrelated to her, but we have complete authority over her medical care when she's unable to make decisions and we have complete authority over her financial business under the same circumstances.
It's nothing new and done all the time.
Perfect. The only issues with that are:
* how easy these rights are to get; and
* how easy these rights are to challenge.
You can scrape together maybe a hundred bucks, get married to someone that you don't even know, and transfer these rights to them. It is a legal instrument that is VERY easy to use. Gay couples? They need to engage in a pretty costly process with a lawyer, and specifically need to get each and every right that married couples have. If you believe that these property rights should be shared, there is no reason why you shouldn't believe that a civil union shouldn't give ALL those same legal rights.
With government programs, I will actually concede to you that there is NO reason why any married couples without children should get entitlement benefits from the government. Legal benefits, yes, but single folks and married couples are just subsidizing healthcare, taxes, etc. for married couples without children. (I mean, why should love give you a break on health insurance?) This should be applicable to rich, married, and childless couples regardless of whether they are gay or straight.
Discussions of how marriage is necessary for society... well, that's great! I completely agree. There is no reason why that shouldn't be the case, but for your religion to define what types of partnerships are acceptable for me to enter into is not appropriate. You and I don't run in the same circles, and while you'd probably not be too welcoming to a married gay couple, I know that we'd all give them the support to make their partnership stronger.
So my solution is VERY simple. Separate the legal, entitlement and societal aspects of marriage. Make the legal rights available to everyone through a civil union, since everyone can transfer them to each other anyway. (Perhaps even make them a little harder to transfer.) Take the entitlement rights away from marriage and transfer them to child-focused programs. Finally, let each religion define that societal role for themselves.
But hey, maybe you can just scream and yell some more about why gay folks don't deserve your respect.
Posted by: demo kid on November 16, 2008 01:22 PMThe arguments put forth about "not being able to see a partner in the hospital" etc., are straw men gays use to push the idea of gay marriage.
As has been said. Gays have the same rights as everyone else.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 16, 2008 01:30 PMHey! How 'bout that!? Another reasoned, unemotional response from the left.
When did I say I was a Christian? Religion has nothing to do with my argument. Again, Church's can choose to sanction whatever unions they want. But, if the State doesn't recognize them, then they are legal. Marriage is NOT A RIGHT. That said, unlike people of color that were denied being able to enter into a legal marriage of someone of the opposite sex based purely on color, no one is denying a homosexual from entering into a legal marriage of anyone of he opposite sex they want, regardless of race, creed, color, or sexual persuasion. The law does not care what your sexual proclivity is, what you emotional attachment is to the person you are marrying, or your attraction. All it cares is that you meet the legal definition of marriage. Gays are not being denied their 14th Amendment rights, or any constitutional rights that I know of, for that matter. If you know of one, please cite it.
I want to drive in the HOV lane whenever I want. My tax dollars paid for that lane as equally as yours did. But, the law says I can't unless I have two or more people in the care, so I'm being discriminated against simply because I choose to not have more people in my car when I drive to work. Why is that fair? Again, I paid for the road just like you did. Well, we tried to get that modified here in Washington. But, the measure was defeated. Now, you don't see everyone that voted to want to modify the HOV lane laws marching in protest, do you? Sure, I thought the people that voted against it were selfish and close minded. But, such is our democratic process.
You want to avoid a democratic vote? Then get your representative to introduce a bill legalizing same sex marriages. What's that you say? It's been tried before and voted down? Gee! I wonder why? Could it be the representatives were voting how their constituency wanted? And could it be they didn't want to get voted out of office if they went against their will? Hmmm...it's a puzzler for sure.
The majority in this country apparently doesn't want to redefine marriage laws. No amount of temper tantrums is going to change their opinions. Gays only hope is to have the courts make up new laws and then enforce them without having the people approve the new law (either through representative govt. or majority vote).
Take your ball and go home.
Posted by: Dave on November 16, 2008 01:53 PMI'm fine with allowing gay couples to form a family unit if they so choose, and I'm also fine with making it as legally easy to obtain visitation and any other medical needs as possible. So you can stop with those straw men. Point is, changing the definition of marriage doesn't need to happen to achieve this goal.
The idea that allowing this will encourage straight people to have children out of wedlock and avoid marriage is simply unsubstantiated.
I disagree, but this is not the salient point. See my previous post on procreation, and society's interest in it. Society has no interest in any other type of union. Society needs babies, and that's why traditional marriage gets special treatment.
Posted by: Palouse on November 16, 2008 02:00 PMStraw dog nitwit and yet another in a long line of unmet challenges for you to prove.
Grow up.
Try hard.
Icarus, I would be interested to know if you have children, specifically school aged children.
The reason is that if you do you would know that amongst the barrage of papers you get when you enroll a child in school is a Consent for Emergency Treatment form. ONE signature by a parent and the school has "medical authority" in the absence of the parent.
Back in the dark ages (before cell phones), when the boys were young we would travel overseas without them. We'd be on planes for long stretches and tended to be nomads in our travels: without specific plans wherever we landed. In other words, unless WE called home we were completely incommunicado.
When we traveled we left the boys with their grandmother. And we simply went to the office supply store, bought a legal document called MEDICAL CARE AND TREATMENT AUTHORIZATION BY PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN and another called CONSENT TO MEDICAL CARE AND TREATMENT OF MINOR CHILDREN. I still have the forms, on my lap as I type this. I suspect you can now find them on the net. Hells bells, you can use the ones from the school as a template. They required only a simple signature, but when we traveled we would get our signatures notarized, FREE at our bank. We got into the habit of using these whenever we were even out for an evening and the boys were left with a babysitter.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 16, 2008 02:00 PM1. As demo kid noted, gay couples should not be forced to go through the process of having to secure each of these rights even if they can be secured after going through the necessary steps. Making sure you have these rights is non-trivial. For instance, giving consent for emergency treatment and giving consent in non-emergency scenarios is different and requires more exacting protocols. If I were in the situation where I wanted to make sure I had everything squared away, I would make sure to visit a lawyer to verify that I had everything covered. Making gay couples pay the cost of this and put in the effort is hugely unequal to marriage, and it is not a straw man argument to note that married couples get these rights automatically and gays don't. Everyone should make a will, but why shouldn't gay couples have the same privilege of getting to make decisions about funeral services and inheritance that married couples have in the absence of a will?
2. There are other areas where, as I said, you cannot cover everything with a private contract even after couples have done as much as possible in step 1. I feel that joint adoption and the inability to make both partners legal guardians of one's biological child is the largest. Not being able to adopt jointly affects the ability of a partnership to pass on custody in the event of death of the custodial partner, the ability to see school records and make educational decisions, and in numerous other areas. Other scenarios where private contracts can't cover the situation include immigration benefits, access to social services that are only available to married couples, and more.
3. Lastly, there are the financial issues. Why shouldn't gay couples with children have the same financial benefits as straight couples? I would suggest that straight couples that adopt should also have those same benefits, and it's worth noting that gay couples often do have a child who is the biological child of one of the partners.
@Palouse: While I would personally prefer marriage to be the term used, I would be willing to accept civil unions as long as ALL rights married couples receive are given to gay couples. Do you agree with that scenario?
Posted by: Icarus on November 16, 2008 03:26 PMJoint adoption, inheritance rights, medical visitation/decisions, I'm fine with making it easy to obtain whatever is necessary for those couples to have these rights at a low cost.
I would suggest that straight couples that adopt should also have those same benefits,
My argument has nothing to do with adoption. I think gay couples should have the same rights to adopt as straight couples.
and it's worth noting that gay couples often do have a child who is the biological child of one of the partners.
True, but this is not reason to change the definition of marriage. As stated several times, there is a reason that traditional marriage is given special recognition and benefits - procreation. Society needs babies, and traditional marriage is the best means to raise them. If people want to have other types of unions or non-unions to raise children, we can all accept that as their choice, but there's no reason we have to call their unions marriage or give them added incentives or benefits.
Posted by: Palouse on November 16, 2008 04:15 PMAnd therefore we should support gay marriage?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 16, 2008 04:44 PMThere's an old saying that "you get more flies with honey than vinegar." The folks out in California could stand to be reminded of that.
A few folks here as well.
PERSONALLY, I hope they continue, loudly, often and in front of cameras.
In 2004 THIRTEEN states limited marriage to one man and one woman by constitutional amendment.
In 2005 68% opposed the idea of same sex "marriage" and 57% favored a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
In 2005, a New Hampshire legislative commission released a report finding same-sex "marriage" is not a civil rights issue.
In 2006, the Supreme Court of Georgia unanimously reversed a lower court ruling that declared Georgia's state marriage protection amendment unconstitutional, despite being approved at the ballot box by 76% of the vote.
In 2006, New York's State Supreme
Court dealt a surprising blow to the efforts of the militant homosexual movement to impose same-sex "marriage" on New Yorkers by judicial fiat. In its 4-to-2 ruling, New York Court of Appeals ruled that the state's law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman was constitutional.
In 2008, California, Florida and Arizona all upheld that marriage is a union of one man and one woman.
Since 1996, forty-five states have passed laws or amendments restricting marriage to one man and one woman. The states have also prohibited recognition of any out-of-state same-sex marriage. The states enacted their laws in response to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Tantrums don't change the facts OR minds.
Kisses back at ya, sweetcheeks.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 16, 2008 05:54 PMAgain! NOT A RIGHT! It's a benefit of the marriage contract. Again, nothing prevents them from following the laws of marriage to obtain the same benefits. The fact that they can't marry someone of the same sex does not deny them a right.
@126, You are an idiot. There is no debate. In fact, I declare you poster child of the lunatic fringe.
Posted by: Dave on November 16, 2008 08:59 PMI think we're disagreeing about what 'right' I'm referring to. To my mind, the key right in question is the right to create a family and/or raise a child with the person of your choosing. The specific benefits like joint adoption are the logical means by which this basic right is protected. You feel that people should only be allowed to exercise this right with members of the opposite sex, but this doesn't mean that I'm not defending something that can reasonably be considered a right. Of course, there are many contexts where we reasonably limit rights, so perhaps your limitation of this right is a valid limitation, but that doesn't invalidate my calling this ability to form a new, protected family a right.
Additionally, hether or not this is legally recognized as a right isn't relevant to its definition - there are many historical examples of groups being denied what we now consider rights where the opponents would say that the item in question wasn't a right and I would put this debate in the same category.
@ Everybody -
Thanks for the civil responses to a hot topic. As far as the not-so-civil responses, I hope that both sides can recognize those as not being representative of either side. I'm not sure I have much more to add that won't be rephrased repetitions of things I've already said.
Posted by: Icarus on November 16, 2008 10:01 PMNo law is preventing gay couples from doing that. Isn't Rosie O'Donnell doing that? Didn't Jodie Foster just do that? You don't need to be married to do that. Just ask Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn
"You feel that people should only be allowed to exercise this right with members of the opposite sex,..."
With all due respect, I've never once said that. If I may have implied that, let me correct that perception now. Quite frankly I'm ambivalent on that particular issue. If gay couples want to adopt, great! I would also have no objection if adoption agencies didn't want to allow that. I really have no strong opinion one way or the other. There are two gay couples in my neighborhood that have done just that. My kids play with theirs, and the couples know they are welcome in our home anytime. I don't see how being able to legally marry in the State's eyes has any impact on adoption. As far as I know, gay couples have been adopting for quite some time. I know of no law they are violating by doing that.
With a unified voice amplified several million-fold through the ballot box megaphone, African-Americans have spoken on the issues of marriage, family and human sexuality. Whether young or old, male or female, Democrat or Republican, blacks are justifiably fed up with the deceptive antics of the self-described and craftily contrived "gay rights movement."
I find it interesting that on one hand we have a black president-elect who supposedly has bridged and healed the racial divide and on the other we have a group exacerbating it again.
As I said somewhere earlier, the liberal problem is the sheer number of the interest groups to which they pander. It was inevitable that eventually one interest group would be at cross purposes to another. And it is ironic (and sad) that it has happened NOW between these particular interest groups.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 17, 2008 12:14 AMFirst, Proposition 8 "outlawed" nothing --- it "banned" nothing.
One activist who helped compile the enemies list told Time magazine: "My goal was to make it socially unacceptable to give huge amounts of money to take away the rights of one particular group, a minority group." Of course, the restaurant owner's $100 contribution to the "Yes on 8" cause was not "huge," but the principle is the same.
As the California activists spewed their fury -- allegedly vandalizing Mormon temples, making terroristic threats toward Catholics, and hurling racial epithets at African-Americans (who voted 3-to-1 in favor of Prop 8, according to exit polls) -- their vitriolic rage highlighted how the progressive rhetoric of "rights" undermines and destabilizes political consensus.
If democracy doesn't work, try anarchy
First, there's the obvious inability of the minority to accept the will of the majority. Californians have spoken - twice through the elections in 2000 and 2008. Nearly every county across the state (including Los Angeles county) voted in majority to amend the constitution in favor of traditional marriage.Nevertheless, bitter activists simply cannot accept the outcome as being truly reflective of the general public. So they have placed the brainwashing blame upon the crusading and misleading zealotry of those religious villains: the Catholics, evangelical Protestants and especially Mormons, who are allegedly robbing the rights of American citizens by merely executing their voting rights and standing upon their moral convictions and traditional views.
No matter one's opinion of Proposition 8, it is flat out wrong and un-American to intimidate and harass individuals, churches and businesses that are guilty of nothing more than participating in the democratic process. Of course activism is anyone's political right, but cruel coercion and repression is not. One can't demand tolerance and show none in return. Sadly, many of these activists have become the very thing they accuse of their opponents: being hatemongers.
It's amazing how those liberals who rant and rave against what they label "McCarthy blacklisting," resort to just that when their ox is gored.
What About This Marriage Thing?
First off allow me to say, I do not care who you love, who you live with, and who you choose to commit to. I may not exactly agree if you marry your car or a dolphin, but that is your choice. I believe in choice, I am an American.Now with that out of the way lets talk about this marriage thing. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman. That is a traditional definition in the United States where 80% of the country is defined as Christian. That is right, the majority of the society sets that definition, if you do not like that tough.
All this bullsh*t over a word. If LGBT's want to be progressive, then they don't need our traditional word. So actually be progressive, quit biting off your nose to spite your face, give up the word marriage (in the legal definition) and for f*** sakes take the rights that belong to you that the majority of people are all too willing to give. Just leave them alone and quit forcing them to see things your way. You don't like it, don't do it to others.
Who do you think you're kidding? Prop 8 banned gays from getting married. Yes, the words of the proposition referred to defining marriage, but banning (= outlawing) gay marriages -- which the state supreme court had ruled were required by the state constitution -- was the single, clear, intended effect of Prop 8.
Posted by: Bruce on November 17, 2008 02:06 PMCalifornia, Arizona and Florida AGAIN defined marriage to mean what its voters want it to mean and what it has always meant: the union of one man and one woman.
Like with the abortion issue, this particular interest group wants to redefine the language to suit themselves, to make what they want more palatable to outsiders.
Once again, the voters said NO!
Not just NO!, but Hell No!
If what the homosexual community actually desires is parity under the law, they already have that. However we all know that's not what they want. They want acceptance and legitimacy of behavior an overwhelming majority of Americans neither endorse nor accept.
And since the election, like spoiled kids when told "No!" they've been having their national tantrum.
Regarding the judiciary, their job is to interpret the law, not to make it, not to circumvent it. They directly circumvented the law that the voters approve ONCE BEFORE in 2000.
How many times in how many places can they be told NO! before they grow up and get the message?
Surely you know that 18,000 gay couples have married in California since the state Supreme Court ruled that the constitution guaranteed that right. Prop 8 banned further such marriages.
Regarding the judiciary, their job is to interpret the law, not to make it, not to circumvent it. They directly circumvented the law that the voters approve ONCE BEFORE in 2000.
Wrong. The Supreme Court's job is also to interpret the constitution, which takes precednce over any law, and the California Supreme Court ruled that the California law violated the California constitution.
They want acceptance and legitimacy of behavior an overwhelming majority of Americans neither endorse nor accept.
Nonsense. What do you mean by "endorse"? Does anyone endorse your personal sexual practices? Most though not all Americans "accept" homosexual behavior in that they have no desire to stop it. But you are right that many people are uncomfortable with it and don't yet accept gay marriage (though that doesn't make them right and in 2 states it's not constitutional).
Posted by: Bruce on November 17, 2008 07:52 PMThe constitution IS the law.
And once again the electorate confirmed by legal vote that they agree/want the constitution to continue to reflect the marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
The peoples voice has been heard, and it has been heard with the very same mandate that gave Obama his presidency. Like it or not, agree with it or not, this is simply not debatable. It is a concern of the people, it was put before the people and the people decided.
And as far as the 18,000...so what? Whatever it is they "got" is absolutely meaningless if the state and the people of it refuse to recognize it. And they have.
Sadly those poor dupes are in a nowhere zone of legality. They fell into a morass of judicial activism outside what the law provided and the people clearly demonstrated tehy wanted...twice now. It would be completely within the right (if not advisable) for the state to revoke whatever they think they "got".
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 17, 2008 08:28 PMRead the language of Prop 8.
PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California
It banned nothing.
It affirmed.
18,000 people in my hometown can dress in battle fatigues and carry guns. That doesn't make them members of the army (with the rights OR responsibilities of the Army).
Touting numbers is silly and desperate.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 17, 2008 08:39 PMWhether those 18,000 couples in California (including some good friends of mine) are still married is a question for the courts, and I see no point in debating it with you. But to claim they were never married, or that the amendment didn't ban gay marriage, is to deny reality.
Posted by: Bruce on November 17, 2008 09:04 PMYou can't.
And regarding my analogy, I already admitted "those poor dupes are in a nowhere zone of legality". Further, it could be argued they shouldn't be surprised because it was clear to just about any rational legal mind that it was a case of judicial activism that flew directly in the face of THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE THAT WAS LEGALLY AND DEMOCRATICALLY ENACTED INTO LAW.
Whether they or not they like it is now irrelevant. What absolutely is relevant is their selfish, hateful, despicable behaviour since the people AGAIN democratically and legally confirmed their will into law.
Instead of betraying the phoniness of their tolerance with their whining and thuggish national tantrum, they would be better served by exemplifying adult reactions to disappointment and then working to get their own initiative on the ballot. Whether or not they can legitimately convince people is another matter. Their despicable bevaviour just about guarantees they won't.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 17, 2008 09:40 PMOne really interesting aspect of homosexuality is the socio-biological take on it, in regards the question of why it is so relatively prevalent in human populations in the first place --(when you might intuit that since gays don't reproduce as such, you might expect the whole thing to die out).
E. O. Wilson suggests (in the book On Human Nature) that groups of humans that included a few homosexuals were likely to have greater reproductive survival rates than groups that didn't include them. He also raises the idea that they could represent or have created the beginnings of altruism in human society, as homosexuals in a clan or group would work to gather food for, or physically defend, children who were not their own, thus modeling and creating behavior that is about the good of the group rather than about self-interest.
Well, regardless, people should relax about this issue and enjoy the liklihood that in our lifetime, hopefully soon, gays and lesbians will be able to marry in many places.
And the big job for conservatives will be to undo the damage to conservatism caused by all the anti-gay hysteria and try to invite gays back to the cause of true conservatism.
Thanks all and best wishes,
New Left Conservative # 1
Posted by: new left conservative # 1 on November 17, 2008 10:23 PMPrevalent?
Hardly.
A 2005 RELEASED REPORT from the Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Health Statistics reveals that only 2.3% of the population considers themselves homosexual. The statistics come from a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and are based on 12,571 interviews with men and women ages 15-44 years of age.
WORLDWIDE, 1-3% of all human populations historically and in the present are homosexual.
Bruce Voeller, a gay activist has admitted in his book, Some Uses and Abuses of the Kinsey Scale that the 10% figure was a myth used to promote the homosexual agenda. According To Voeller: ...after years of our educating those who inform the public and make its laws, that concept that 10 percent of the population is gay has become generally accepted as "fact." ... As with so many pieces of knowledge and myth, repeated telling it made it so...
In short, the 10% urban legend was used by homosexual activists to promote their political and social agenda. They knew it to be false but used it anyway.
http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html
GLBT (gay, lesbian or bisexual) 4,300,000 - 1.51%
gay men 2,000,000 - 0.70%
lesbians 900,000 - 0.32% %
THIRTY states (so far) and the Defense of Marriage Act signed by Clinton do not support that assertion.
Wishing and tantrums will not change that fact.
Nice try,
You're right they WILL be "members" of the army.
However, proclaiming them "members" of the club called "Army" won't make them SOLDIERS, which is what the Army actually consists of.
Proclaiming them "members" of the Army will not magically give them the education, the training, the vacinations, the equipment, the experiences or the hard work that goes into BEING a soldier. Forcing them into the ranks of the guys that met the requirements won't make them accepted AS one of them.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 18, 2008 10:29 AM"reasonable interpretation"
"keeping in view the objects and purposes"
"most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution"
Get it, yet?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 18, 2008 10:38 AMAs for your post #151, Story's comments are the opinions of an individual, not part of the constitution. Anyway, they don't say much as they, too, must be interpreted. Many people, including the majorities of the Supreme Courts of MA, CT, and CA, believed that reasonable interpretation of their state constitutions' words, objects, purposes, intent, etc., required gay marriages to be allowed. The law in CA became legally irrelevant when the Supreme Court determined this. Of course, Prop 8 subsequently changed the constitution to say "only" straight marriages were allowed, which banned gay marriages according to the definition of the word "ban" (which you seem to not understand).
Posted by: Bruce on November 18, 2008 02:47 PMAIDS. What thoughts come to mind?
When in the Army I was a medic and for a time served in the VD arena. At the time all sexual communicable diseases were subject to investigation to determine the source. The idea of course was to prevent or limit the spread of the disease.
It seems that AIDS is hidden. In fact medical records disclosing AIDS in a patient file are only permitted on a need to know basis. This means that a surgeon operating may not be aware that the patient has AIDS. This also means that patients receiving care from a surgeon or dentist may not be aware that the doctor has AIDS and there is a grave risk of transmission. These events have actually occurred.
If the "gay" community is capable of redefining basic survival techniques from sexually communicable diseases then one may only imagine what the gay community is capable of doing for marriage.
Political correctness, what a concept.
Posted by: Snuffy on November 19, 2008 05:33 AMOne reason society guards traditional marriage with a certain jealous care is that marriage orders and regularizes the basic condition of life, namely, the male-female relationship. Society sets boundaries around marriage, establishes rules and rights, lets the parties know what they may expect, and what is expected of them in turn.A second reason: Family is future. A mother, meaning a woman, and a father, meaning a man, bring life into the world. There's no other way to do it. Even in Dr. Frankenstein's experiments, a human body was the starting point.
...Words like "honor" and "truth" -- yes, and "marriage" -- aren't just combinations of vowels and consonants. They have lives of their own. They point to how a thing is, not in opinion merely, but in reality. The joy of renaming a thing, of course, is that of reinventing it, substituting a wholly new "reality."