One minute some court says we all have to marry gay people (or something like that), and the next minute the sky opens up with massive thunderstorms! Coincidence, or GOD’S PUNISHMENT? We report, you decide.
One minute some court says we all have to marry gay people (or something like that), and the next minute the sky opens up with massive thunderstorms! Coincidence, or GOD’S PUNISHMENT? We report, you decide.
Setting aside the subject matter for the moment;
You realize a Federal judge has just ruled that the people of California cannot amend the state Constitution to return it to it’s historic meaning, even by properly following the appropriate procedure to do so. This was not an attempt to remove some long standing recognized right. This was an attempt to restore the Constitution to it’s original meaning before yet another judge decided the Constitution no longer meant what it used to mean. I condemn this decision as yet another example of judicial activism usurping and overturning the will of the people.
That said:
There is a very clear compromise available concerning the issue of gay marriage. There are millions of us who are willing to have the state sanction civil unions (and make them available to heterosexuals also, to remove stigma if nothing else) that by law have the force of marriage, but who do not support transforming the institution of marriage.
By the way, read a slightly humorous post about this…what are we going to do when bi-sexuals or hermaphrodites demand the right to marry a man and a woman?
Yeah, that damn activist judge* who is so big a fan of gay marriage that he issued a stay so that the reversal wouldn’t go into affect until AFTER any appeals have been exhausted.
Please point me to where the Constitution of California USED to mean that only straight people were allowed to marry. I must have missed that clause that was removed at some point or other.
*where activist judge means “didn’t rule the way I wanted”.
Also, cut this “will of the people” bullshit. The majority isn’t the end all be all of determining things in this country, if it was we wouldn’t even have the various branches of government, we’d just vote on everything and go with what the majority wants. You might remember that the majority can also be quite wrong at times, our founding fathers did, its why they built a Democratic Republic, not a pure Democracy and why we have things like the Constitution and the federal courts.
Oh this is rich…David K preaching republicanism to me……..
As far as the state cares and should care a marriage is a civil contract. There is nothing religious about it, and no requirement for any religion to impacted by who is allowed to enter said contract.
If you are for civil unions there is no reason other than stupidity to be against marriage between any two consenting adults capable of said consent.
The alternative is simply tying o argue for “separate but equal” and is untenable.
“Oh this is rich…David K preaching republicanism to me……..”
Since you don’t seem to understand it, it seemed like the right thing to do.
If you are for civil unions there is no reason other than stupidity to be against marriage between any two consenting adults capable of said consent.
Why limit it to two people? Seriously..if we are changing the institution why stop?
I must stand up against Brendan singling out individual groups to blame for these thunderstorms.
What if it was the feminists? Or liberals? Or even worse, the HOMO SEXUALS!!!
Oh wait, Brendan already pointed that one out. My bad.
“Why limit it to two people? Seriously..if we are changing the institution why stop?”
Yeah, we should go back to the way it was, where old men married young girls often without their having any say in the matter. And I’ll be damned if i’m gonna let one of them coloreds marry a proper white person!
You still haven’t answered my question.
Because it’s not a serious question. Using that same form of argument you could make that case that restricting marriage to heterosexuals is the first step towards limiting it to, say, white people, then white evangelicals, then white evangelicals who vote republican. Slippery slope for the win!
Because it’s not a serious question.
Yes it is. Walker’s decision has removed any rationale for keeping bigamy illegal.
How long do you think it is going to be before some Muslim files a court case demanding that the state recognize all of his wives? On what basis are you going to rule against him?
The problem with the discussion in this thread is that it seems to be primaily based on the political and personal biases that we all have rather than on the factual evidence as was presented to the court. In the case, each side was given an opportunity to present actual evidence rather than political and personal opinions on the questions at issue. For example, opponents of gay marriage had argued in part that gay marriage was bad for children and could have a negative impact on heterosexual marriage. However, their evidence was not persuasive as the evidence produced at trial apparently (at least in the opinion of the judge) was to the contrary. Consequently the judge found there was no rational basis for California to discriminate between heterosexual and gay marriages.
So to answer gahrie’s last question for example, if a Muslim (or perhaps more likely a Mormon) tries to argue that California should allow him to have multiple wives, then in a court case reviewing that question, evidentiary factors supporting that or opposing that would be heard. One can posit that opponents of such marriages would argue that, among other things, women and children are severely disadvantaged by such marriages. Depending on the proof made at trial, the court would then determine if California had a rational basis for concluding that it could in fact discriminate between those marriages involving two people and those involving more than two people.
gahrie, you do realize that that your argument right there at number 12 is he EXACT SAME argument that was used to argue against interracial marriage. Republicans, using the same xenophobic, racist, sexist, bullshit messages since before I can remember.
Marriage, in a legal and civil sense is not an institution, it is a freaking contract. Get over yourself.
I honestly don’t see how this, allowing any two consenting persons to enter a contract, is a problem. Actually, come to that given the supposed free market independence, get government out of my life etc. bent of the Republican party, I don’t see how you all are actually for the government interfering in what contracts people want to enter into.
The Republican party, get government off the street and into the bedroom.
gahrie, you do realize that that your argument right there at number 12 is he EXACT SAME argument that was used to argue against interracial marriage. Republicans, using the same xenophobic, racist, sexist, bullshit messages since before I can remember.
If this is true, it only proves those making such arguments were right, and supports my contention that the “definition” of marriage will continue to evolve and include bigamy.
Marriage, in a legal and civil sense is not an institution, it is a freaking contract.
Anything that has lasted since the rise of civilization and has been adopted by almost all societies is an institution.
I honestly don’t see how this, allowing any two consenting persons to enter a contract, is a problem
I don’t either. I support civil unions.
The Democratic party, destroying morality and society’s institutions
A Muslim or a Mormon is going to argue that the right to bigamy is based on religious freedom, and thus is subject to a much stricter standard than rational basis.
By the way, I think with a little effort you will find that most Democrats opposed interracial marriage, and I would be willing to bet that a higher percentage of Democrats opposed it than Republicans.
“By the way, I think with a little effort you will find that most Democrats opposed interracial marriage, and I would be willing to bet that a higher percentage of Democrats opposed it than Republicans.”
So? Most of them would vote Republican today, hell most of them (who are still alive) probably DO.
Trying to act like the Republican party of 50 or 100 or 150 years ago (and the Democrats) are identical to today is disingenous.
Abraham Lincoln was willing to got to WAR to support the primacy of the federal gov’t over the states and the rights of those considered, at the time, to be less than equal. Hardly the conservative position of today.
“The Democratic party, destroying morality and society’s institutions”
Oh gahrie, you are so hilarious.
Society’s institutions? Really? Polygamy was an institution in society. Arranged marriages were an institution in society. Slavery was an institution in society. Segregation was an institution in society. Second-class citizenship for women was an institution in society. All but the first of those were institutions in THIS society. Just because it was done IN THE PAST does not mean it should be done today. The past wasn’t this idealistic time period where everyones marriages were based on love and peace and they all lived happily ever after. Young girls were often married to older men through arrangments by their parents. You want to go back to that (and God help you if you do).
If marriage really is the sacred institution you (and yes I) believe it to be then what does the government have to do with it? Religious marriage should be just that, religious. The government of the United States does not create a holy union, God does. If a church wants to define marriage as between a man and a woman only, i fully support and would defend their right to do so. No church should be forced by external forces to change those beliefs. But we are talking about what the GOVERNMENT should recognize. You say you are fine with civil unions. Fine, so am I, so is dcl. The trouble is unless those civil unions are for both gay AND straight couples, it sets up a seperate but equal situation, which as we know from history, never works.
If you are opposing gay marriage on the grounds that you think it is legitimately bad for our society, fine, you are entitled to that view. Now prove it. Provide convincing and overwhelming evidence in favor of your position. Not vague assertions about how someday men might marry cats or some such nonesense, but actual concrete evidence that THIS policy change is going to cause harm.
If you are opposing it because you think that marriage should be left to the churches, synagogues, etc. fine, you are entitled to that view, but you should be arguing for the abolishment of ALL federal recognition of marriage and for civil unions instead FOR EVERYONE.
In this post you can’t seem to decide which you want, so why not make it clear, which position do you support?
Trying to act like the Republican party of 50 or 100 or 150 years ago (and the Democrats) are identical to today is disingenous.
You are the one attempting to tie the present with the past……..
If you are opposing gay marriage on the grounds that you think it is legitimately bad for our society, fine, you are entitled to that view. Now prove it.
Unfortunately, the only way to prove it is to observe the future.
I support the traditional institution of marriage, both as a civil and a religious institution.
I support civil unions, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals (and bigamists by the way)
In California homosexual unions have the same rights and privileges as marriage. The compromise is available. However the Left is not interested in compromise, they would rather destroy our institutions.
By the way, my position on marriage and civil unions was identical to President Obama’s until yesterday.
There is no telling what President Obama’s position is today.
So you support seperate but equal, which doesn’t work? Good plan.
Also, “destroying our institutions”. The only people destroying marriage right now are the straight people through their abysmal behavior indicated by high divorce rates and unfaithfulness. Maybe proponents of saving marriage should focus on the REAL problem. How, exactly, is Steve and Gary down the street having their union recognized on equal footing by the government going to harm your marriage or anyone elses? How is it going to harm the institution of marriage any worse than what straight people are allready doing (if at all).
So you support seperate but equal, which doesn’t work? Good plan.
Nope..I support separate and equal.
Homosexuals and heterosexuals have the right to marry a member of the opposite gender.
Homosexuals and heterosexuals have the right to enter civil unions with whoever they wish.
Also, “destroying our institutions”. The only people destroying marriage right now are the straight people through their abysmal behavior indicated by high divorce rates and unfaithfulness.
Actually I agree with you here. The first step is to abolish no fault divorce. The second step is to restore society to a point where we can once again condemn immoral actions such as adultery.
How, exactly, is Steve and Gary down the street having their union recognized on equal footing by the government going to harm your marriage or anyone elses?
It’s not, unless you insist on calling it “marriage”, which fundamentally changes the meaning of marriage.
DavidKian ‘logic’ strikes again ! “Trying to act like the Republican party of 50 or 100 or 150 years ago (and the Democrats) are identical to today is disingenous.
Abraham Lincoln was willing to got to WAR to support the primacy of the federal gov’t over the states and the rights of those considered, at the time, to be less than equal. Hardly the conservative position of today.”
The second paragraph is especially entertaining, since the conservative side *did* go to war in in the past 20 years in support of those whose rights were recognised as being less than equal – first, in Gulf War I to chase Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait – and then, after the Gulf War I cease-fite was regularly broken by Iraq, with Gulf War I The Sequel (aka Gulf War II) … and that doesn’t include freeing Afghanistan from the Taliban … all three were GOP-led and mostly Dem-opposed …
Still, you do remind us that the Dems are consistent, through their history up into the present … the Dems fought to maintain slave-ownership … they fought against the civil rights movement in the mid-20th century … they fought against the Gulf War(s) except when even they would have been too embarrassed to publicly do so … they even took the US into Vietnam – and then abandoned that part of Asia a little later by defunding efforts there, which led directly to Cambodian killing fields and Vietnames re-education camps … a noble record indeed !
@Alasdair
Let me start by saying, you are an idiot.
The Democrats didn’t oppose either the original gulf war OR the war in Afghanistan. They both enjoyed wide spread support. Many of us even supported the initial invasion of Iraq by George W. Bush.
The problem many of us had with the second gulf war is that it was predicated on false pretenses. It was supposedly about WMD’s and Al Qaeda links to Saddam, neither of which were true. Further it took resources and attention AWAY from the war we SHOULD have kept fighting in Afghanistan. bin Ladin is still out there because of it.
Further proof of your idiocy is that you conflate the Democrats of Lincoln’s era with the Democrats of the modern era, despite VASTLY different, in fact diametrically opposite platforms and policies. If Linocoln ran for office today he would do so as a Democrat because their policies and his are in line.
See, you are apparently too stupid to look beyond the label and to what the groups actually stand for. The southern Democrats who fought against civil rights (which was pushed for and passed under a Democratic President you brain dead fool) have more in common with today’s Tea Party movement than with the Democrats of today. You also ignore the non-southern Democrats who fought FOR civil rights.
You can cherry pick historical points to try and paint your picture, but they fall apart under even the most basic scrutiny. Why? Because you don’t have a f***ing clue what you’re talking about.
All you see is the word “Democrat” and thats good enough for you. North Korea has both Democrat AND Republic in their name, yet they are neither. The Nazi’s had the word “socialist” in their name, yet they weren’t.
You really need to stop and pick up a history book and take a remedial reading class because clearly you lack even the basic understanding to do anything but a surface level reading of whatever you see (typical of the Tea Party movement in general actually, but i digress).
gahrie, do you believe that homosexuality is a choice or that people are simply born that way? If it’s the latter, do you realize that you’re arguing that an institution enjoyed by everybody else is going to be denied to certain people simply because of who they are?
Forgive me if I didn’t pay attention, but is your vision of a “civil union” equal in every way to a “marriage?” If so, are you mainly just arguing over a definition? And if you are, don’t you think that’s kind of pathetic? Is this really going to ruin your life? I understand you might think it’s the principle of the thing, but what is the principle of the thing?
gahrie, do you believe that homosexuality is a choice or that people are simply born that way?
I don’t know. I’ve seen convincing evidence both ways. But I am convinced that homosexuality is a behavior, and humans are able to regulate their behavior. Homosexuality is not a status in the way race and gender are.
Forgive me if I didn’t pay attention, but is your vision of a “civil union” equal in every way to a “marriage?”
Basically, yes. Entirely equal in anyway that interacts with the government. But, for instance I could see allowing people to form civil unions for a finite period of time, say 18 years in order to raise a child.
If so, are you mainly just arguing over a definition? And if you are, don’t you think that’s kind of pathetic?
We’re not the ones “just arguing over a definition”. While Proposition 8 was in place, there were also laws that:
A) Allowed homosexuals to enter into civil unions and register them with the state
B) treated these civil unions exactly the same way as marriages.
So, the pro SSM crowd had already gotten everything they wanted except “the definition”. They are the ones being “pathetic”.
By the way, just to be clear, I am much more upset over the process involved here, rather than the outcome. (though I am opposed to the outcome)
…homosexuality is a behavior, and humans are able to regulate their behavior. Homosexuality is not a status in the way race and gender are.
How about religion?
A Jew or a Catholic can choose not to practice Judaism or Catholicism. Is religion therefore not a “status,” but simply a “behavior”? I’m asking honestly. I assume you’ll say yes, but I just wonder if you’ve considered it.
I would also question the statement that “homosexuality is a behavior.” In fact, come to think of it, I would virulently disagree with it, and declare it to be objectively wrong, because I believe you are confusing sexuality with sex — a common error on the Right when discussing gays and lesbians. Homosexual sex is a behavior, just like heterosexual sex is a behavior. But “homosexuality” is an emotional inclination, no more controllable as a “behavior” than any other set of emotions: the romantic love I feel for my wife, the fatherly love I feel for my children, the sadness I feel when I think about the Gulf oil spill, the arousal I experience when I see Megan Fox checking out the car in “Transformers,” the tingle that goes down Chris Matthews’s leg when Obama gives a speech. Those aren’t “behaviors,” and neither is a homosexual person’s attraction to people of the same sex. Now, of course, a gay person can choose not to act on their emotions, but at that point you’ve already crossed the line from pretending you’re merely imposing a universal regulation on “behavior” to admitting that you’re demanding that a particular set of individuals, with particular uncontrollable characteristics, to alter their “behavior” in ways that others aren’t required to.
None of which addresses whether the opinion was right or wrong, but I couldn’t let that bit of flawed logic/terminology stand unaddressed.
By the way, you’re wrong that civil unions — any civil unions ever proposed, anywhere — are precisely equal in every way to marriage. I don’t have time to go find you a bunch of links on this right now, but it just isn’t so, factually. There’s plenty of literature out there on this. Despite the best intentions of various drafters of civil union laws, there are a ton of rights and privileges (and responsibilities) that ONLY accompany “marriage.”
Furthermore, even if you WERE right, it’s a bit bizarre to claim that, if we’re merely fighting over a label, the “pathetic” ones are the ones who want to be included under the auspices of that label, as opposed to the ones who want those folks excluded from the label, just for the hell of excluding them, despite the total lack of any tangible, identifiable, non-tautological benefit to ANYONE that would flow from excluding them.
Again: not saying the court’s right on the law, just addressing some of your specific arguments (and, more broadly, the outcome, as distinct from the process).
A Jew or a Catholic can choose not to practice Judaism or Catholicism. Is religion therefore not a “status,” but simply a “behavior”? I’m asking honestly. I assume you’ll say yes, but I just wonder if you’ve considered it.
Yes and yes.
But “homosexuality” is an emotional inclination, no more controllable as a “behavior” than any other set of emotions:
There are many “emotional inclinations” that we demand that people control. Take for instance pedophilia. ( I am not comparing homosexuals to pedophiles, I am merely discussing a different “emotional inclination”…I know children don’t consent) People who like to have sex with minors usually insist that they love their victims. As a society we demand that they control their behavior, and when we release convicted pedophiles from prison, we explicitly demand (and implicitly believe it is possible) that they control their behavior.
Brendan and David are making the same mistake. They both demand that I show permanently transforming the institution of marriage will produce a harm.
Rather it is their obligation, as those who are seeking to overturn thousands of years of law and culture, to show that the change will produce no harm.
DavidK #28 – “The southern Democrats who fought against civil rights (which was pushed for and passed under a Democratic President you brain dead fool) have more in common with today’s Tea Party movement than with the Democrats of today. You also ignore the non-southern Democrats who fought FOR civil rights.” …
So the Tea Party movement is the group with the Red Shirts andsubsequently the Klan Robes, is it ? Cuz last time I looked, the Red Shirts were post-Civil War Democrat milita groups … and the Klan Robes were worn by Democrats, not Republicans …
And, more recently, it’s not the Tea Party that has folk in Purple Shirts beating up black men … (and said Purple Shirts arrogant enough and/or dumb enough to be filmed doing it) …
And the civil rights passed under that Democrat President – LBJ – in 1964 got 80%+ of GOP votes and only 60-66% or so of Democrat votes … without the overwhelming GOP support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have been defeated … in the House, the bill got less than 160 Democrat votes out of 420 … if the GOP had not mobilised for the bill, it would have been easily defeated … in the Senate, it got, at best, 46 Democrat votes – again, the GOP could have easily caused it to go down to defeat, but, instead, supported it consistently with 80% plus of GOP votes ..
David – you can try to revise history until you are (appropriately) blue in the face and that won’t change one moment of history – that is well-known by intelligent people ….
And, yes, some Democrats back then, and some nowadays actually fought for civil rights – and, when they did so, they fought their own party …
Back then, as now, the Democrats as a party treated the black population like less-than-full human, requiring a superior elite to help them make their way through Life – as slave-owners at the time of the Civil War up to nowadays with quotas and colour-based legislation …
Back then the GOP as a party worked and fought and died to see the black population freed, and nowadays works to see everyone treated as full people, without quotas, with colour-blind legislation …
So – project all you will – it doesn’t change the reality of the actions of the Dems then or now …
Oh bother, what is so hard for people to understand! To re-iterate:
Marriage is a word that has two separate meanings, one is legal, one is religious. In terms of the legal there is case law around it is not possible to make civil unions equal to marriage in a legal sense. And I do not care about the religious meaning.
Also, please read up on the history of marriage befor you attept to say it’s an institution that’s been around for thousands of years. Your modern conception of marriage is relatively new. It use to be a property agreement amongst men, is this really the institution you are trying to protect?
I really must stop trying to write comments on my
Phone… I meant to say, there is case law that surrounds the legal definition of marriage that cannot be replicated by civil unions which makes civil unions un-equal to marriage, which does make this an equal protection issue.
Alasdair,
Your superficial understanding of history is both laughable and frightening.
Your inability to understand that the GOP of Lincolns time is in no way like the GOP of today is embarrassing.
Your cherry picking of history is pathetic and insulting to people who actually understand it.
You are a brain dead ideologue who doesn’t care about this country. You care only about advancing the Republican agenda regardless of it’s consequences or it’s effects on real people. You are an idiot and trying to reason with you or have a serious discussion with you is like talking to a two year old, except the two year old has an excuse for not understanding the world, you don’t.
Your inability to understand that the GOP of Lincolns time is in no way like the GOP of today is embarrassing.
Oh please, please explain it to us…..
Yeah, David, please explain how a political party of the 1860s is now a very different one a century and a half later. I mean, they have the same name! And the platforms are basically identical! I don’t know where you got this radical notion that things change over time. Did you learn that in some liberal activist socialism class? I think Marx said something about history once. Whoa, wait, are you a Marxist, David? I think you’re definitely a Marxist. Lincoln would never be a Marxist, and would probably disagree with you on everything. Why can’t you be more like gahrie?
kcatnd – I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you forgot your sarc /sarc tags …
David K keeps projecting Democrat behaviour on the current GOP … he insists that the GOP and Dems in Licoln’s time were very different from the GOP and Dems of today … I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that he’s not just parrotting Dem propaganda by giving specific examples of Dem behaviour back then at two different periods that the Dems are exhibiting today …
Yes, the Sun rises in the East … yes the GOP and Dems have evolved as parties in some ways over the years … now how about addressing the specifics ?
Red Shirts … Klan Robes … Purple T-shirts … all Dem supporters … all beating up on black folk …
And yet it’s the GOP that are the racists and always have been ?
kcatnd – *you* are better than that, are you not ?