PDA

View Full Version : progressive civil right vs. conservative civil right


Pages : [1] 2

HunterJim
08-07-2010, 8:39 AM
So the Supreme Court rules on June 28th that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states, and a federal district judge rules against Prop 8 and for a right to gay marriage this week. Then what happened?

Arnold and Jerry are silent about a California right to keep and bear arms, but they are in court immediately asking for gays to marry legally in California.

Why the disparity? If we have to sue in the federal courts to compel local and state officials to comport with the law on keep and bear arms, why don't gays have to do likewise to marry?

So much for the blind justice system.

jim

PatriotnMore
08-07-2010, 9:13 AM
So the Supreme Court rules on June 28th that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states, and a federal district judge rules against Prop 8 and for a right to gay marriage this week. Then what happened?

Arnold and Jerry are silent about a California right to keep and bear arms, but they are in court immediately asking for gays to marry legally in California.

Why the disparity? If we have to sue in the federal courts to compel local and state officials to comport with the law on keep and bear arms, why don't gays have to do likewise to marry?

So much for the blind justice system.

jim

This is not just about CA, Jerry, Arnold, and the courts. This is about every level of government in this country.

The veiled lie concerning justice, law and every branch of our government is slowly being peeled away. I for one, was shocked we had a positive Heller decision, I was expecting a loss, and was one vote shy of that reality.

I was not as shocked by McDonald because, personally I see that as another tool for the Federal government to take more power from the States, and add more control to the Federal Government.

The level of corruption/contamination which has taken control of our system of government by the old boy political machine, banks and big business, and the slight of hand used to deceive the public into thinking we actually have the government given to us by our forefathers, are becoming more and more transparent, to an ever wakening public.

We have been, and are told one thing, and given the other. More and more are saying no, not just no, but hell no. This power struggle will come to a standoff, and a breaking point. If those in leadership cannot deceive, or get away with a lie any longer, they will be forced to become more direct, and demand.

If you could be the fly on the wall in government, away from the camera's, smiles and lies, and actually hear and see the real government that we have, you would reach for the ammo box like our forefathers did, who went to war over a minuscule tax compared to what is being demanded of us today.

My real fear, and unknown to me is, if we lose/ have lost the courts to corruption, and politicians, we will lose what is left of freedom, in any meaningful way.

Gray Peterson
08-07-2010, 10:32 AM
So the Supreme Court rules on June 28th that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states, and a federal district judge rules against Prop 8 and for a right to gay marriage this week. Then what happened?

Arnold and Jerry are silent about a California right to keep and bear arms, but they are in court immediately asking for gays to marry legally in California.

Why the disparity? If we have to sue in the federal courts to compel local and state officials to comport with the law on keep and bear arms, why don't gays have to do likewise to marry?

So much for the blind justice system.

jim

I think you highly misunderstand the RKBA situation versus the Prop 8 situation. Considering the political pedigree of the people involved in the plaintiffs legal team (Ted Olson) and the Judge involved (he was blocked for two years due to opposition from gay rights groups and other progressive/liberal groups), it is not a matter of "progressive civil rights" and "conservative civil rights". It's a matter of civil rights, period.

If some of the folks understood that the key linchpins of legal cases between Heller, McDonald, Lawrence[i] and now, [I]Perry, they would be cheering on Perry.

A little homework and reading:

RECAP Docket of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (http://ia301535.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.cand.215270/gov.uscourts.cand.215270.docket.html)

It is a long read, and originally there wasn't much in the RECAP docket, but a bunch of folks started RECAPing files and pretty much the entire docket is available. Is it too much to ask for the same folk who do great legal analysis of RKBA cases do the same for Perry, and see it for what it is: A case against animus against a defined group of individuals, and it'll help us as gun owners win the case that our 1st amendment rights and our right to equal protection is important.

Prop 8 was a highly unique situation which had never before occurred in American history. Let's do a allegory of what happened with In re Marriage Cases in the California Supreme Court. Let's assume, for a minute, that us gun owners were able to reverse Kasler v. Lockyer, and get our RKBA via Article 1, Section 1 of California's state constitution. They order the sheriffs to issue licenses to carry.

LCAV, the Brady Campaign, and the media machine in California decide that this is an intolerable situation and decide to pass a constitutional amendment to exclude gun ownership from the protections of Article 1, Section 1. They use the unholy trifecta method of scary images about gun owners. They use the following images:

1) Video black and latino gang members holding guns in their hands, with a off screen narrations saying "Do you want California residents to be intimidated and threatened by these people *gun fire sounds*? Vote Yes on Proposition ____" to protect our communities"

2) Video of the "beer swilling redneck" having a can of beer in one hand and pistol in another, with off screen narration "Do you want to make it to where a sheriff has to issue a license to carry to this person? Vote Yes on Proposition ____ to protect our communities".

3) Video of a two kids who attempts to guess the combination of a safe (Yes, this is an actual video that I saw over a decade ago) while casually discussing things, and then taking a gun out of a safe. "Do you want to protect our children from killing themselves? Vote Yes on Prop ____ to protect our children".

No matter how much money the NRA and gun rights groups can muster, regardless of how much we'd outspend the anti-gun cabal.....with the combination of the three above video and radio ads, we will lose. Why? Because people in California do not like blacks and latino "gang bangers" getting guns, they don't like "beer swilling rednecks" getting guns, and they think they're going to "protect their children" by voting for the constitutional amendment. Both the LCAV/Brady Campaign/Handgun control Cabal and ADF/LC/Family Research Council/Yes On 8 Cabal have one thing uniquely in common: They use "For the Children" for their rallying cry. It worked for Prop 8, and it would also work for "exclusion of RKBA from the California constitution", even today.

Do you folks not remember that Nordyke v. King, where there is a 1st amendment and equal protection claim, that Mary King declared that her purpose was to "eradicate the gun culture"? What she espoused is pure animus and bigotry against a specific kind of minority culture (which is us).

AG Lockyer, and then AG Brown, defended Prop 22 in Court. They lost and they accepted the decision.

It was after Prop 8 passed that AG Brown took a stand and said "I am the attorney general of the State of California, and the circumstances of this situation is exactly the same as Romer v. Evans, which the US Supreme Court ruled that animus is not an acceptable reason to discriminate. I thereby decline to defend this law".

Also, Sykes and Peruta filed suits against sheriffs, not the state. Sheriff's will not give up their power to decide who lives or who dies at the hands of criminals, and they will be addressed by the above cases. You notice that AG Brown could have intervened on behalf of the sheriffs after he was notified of the cases against the enforcement of good cause and good moral character, and he refused to intervene?

This is not just about CA, Jerry, Arnold, and the courts. This is about every level of government in this country.

The veiled lie concerning justice, law and every branch of our government is slowly being peeled away. I for one, was shocked we had a positive Heller decision, I was expecting a loss, and was one vote shy of that reality.

You're going to keep getting surprised. Our RKBA right is strong and will continue to get stronger.

I was not as shocked by McDonald because, personally I see that as another tool for the Federal government to take more power from the States, and add more control to the Federal Government.

The 14th amendment, Section 5, gives congress the power to enforce the civil liberties of citizens. I should know because I am using the civil injunction provisions (just like the Perry plaintiffs did in California) of Title 42 United States Code Section 1983, so that I can carry in Denver, Colorado. The 14th amendment is the law of the land, and the states are commanded to respect it, regardless of the "States Rights" perspective.

Bhobbs
08-07-2010, 10:39 AM
It's politically correct to support gay rights. It is not politically correct to support gun rights.

HunterJim
08-07-2010, 10:47 AM
It's politically correct to support gay rights. It is not politically correct to support gun rights.

Bingo, a winner!...jim

Gray Peterson
08-07-2010, 11:15 AM
It's politically correct to support gay rights. It is not politically correct to support gun rights.

If it was politically correct, Obama wouldn't say words like "God is in the mix" to be against same gender couples marrying.

If AG Brown had a situation that I described happen in the same manner as prop 8, he would have been on our side while we sued in federal court to overturn the proposition, considering the animus based bigotry shown by anti-RKBA Proponent supporters in order to win.

Bhobbs
08-07-2010, 11:39 AM
The liberal media has a nice way of putting a spin on things.

Gay rights victory means that everyone is more free.

Gun rights victory means death and destruction will rain from the sky, blood will run through the streets and people will have rolling gun battles all over the city.

bigstick61
08-07-2010, 11:57 AM
Progressives and conservatives have fundamentally different conceptions of rights. The former do not believe in natural rights or anything like that, but they do tend to support certain kinds of freedom that can generally be lumped freedom below the belt but take that further, and they also support the positive rights of collectivities or even of the state. Support for "civil rights" in many cases is just the use of those battles as a political tool to achieve a certain end. They tend to be agnostic or moral relativists affects ethical and moral systems and often means there is none of consequence; what is retained tends to be bits and pieces from a pre-Progressive past that society still embraces.

The conservative conception is largely one based on natural rights/natural law among other things and only supports negative individual rights, although the degree of this varies somewhat among those on the right. The majority also believe in certain systems of ethics and morality and this tends to serve as an underpinning for their overall beliefs including those regarding rights. We're talking about two different strongly opposed views of the world here.

As far as Prop. 8 goes, from a conservative perspective (which I'll do my best to give since that's where I'm at politically), the "gay rights" stuff has nothing to do with civil rights, natural rights, or anything like that. It is nothing other than an effort to impact society in a way to make their lifestyle more widely accepted and supported by the state, this lifestyle being one that conservatives generally view as immoral, wrong, bad for society if widely accepted, etc. Conservatives view this as a battle for society and whether the state is to be used for good or bad ends or none if possible when it comes to the moral realm. Given the definition of marriage and the fact that the rules apply to all regardless of race, orientation, etc., conservatives generally believe there is no rights violation occurring here or unequal treatment by the state.

The RKBA battle, by contrast, is viewed by conservatives as a battle for one of the most fundamental natural rights that they believe is firmly rooted in natural law and this has been the theory on the matter for centuries. To compare it to oxymoronic gay "marriage" is to compare apples and oranges.

jdberger
08-07-2010, 12:34 PM
It's politically correct to support gay rights. It is not politically correct to support gun rights.

Bingo, a winner!...jim

The liberal media has a nice way of putting a spin on things.

Gay rights victory means that everyone is more free.

Gun rights victory means death and destruction will rain from the sky, blood will run through the streets and people will have rolling gun battles all over the city.

Gray takes the time to put together a well thought out defense of the Prop 8 ruling, how it positively impacts us as gun owners and these are his responses....:rolleyes:

The fact is, it's easier to marginalize us, as a group, because we're just engaged in a "hobby".* Homosexuals are wired that way - they're more like people with different colored skin. We could always stop playing with guns - they have no choice.

Arnold and Jerry are silent about a California right to keep and bear arms, but they are in court immediately asking for gays to marry legally in California.


Arnold is silent because it doesn't get him anywhere. Brown, on the other hand has made numerous statements. The day after Heller was decided, he was asked if he though that the 2A really applied to individuals, he responded, "Of course it does. There's no way to read it any other way and remain honest." (I'm paraphrasing).

Quit looking for enemies everywhere - understand who your friends are and don't get distracted. We're winning this fight.


*According to the antis.

CalNRA
08-07-2010, 12:55 PM
Homosexuals are wired that way - they're more like people with different colored skin. ... they have no choice.

eh....okay. Sure, you can say that.

Vox
08-07-2010, 12:58 PM
At one time it was politially incorrect to believe that Blacks and whites were equal. It waspolitically incorrect to believe that Homosexuality wasn't a psychological disorder.

Even if it doesn't further our own personal agenda we should be championing the rights of everyone everywhere in the United States.

Gray Peterson
08-07-2010, 1:04 PM
Progressives and conservatives have fundamentally different conceptions of rights. The former do not believe in natural rights or anything like that, but they do tend to support certain kinds of freedom that can generally be lumped freedom below the belt but take that further, and they also support the positive rights of collectivities or even of the state. Support for "civil rights" in many cases is just the use of those battles as a political tool to achieve a certain end. They tend to be agnostic or moral relativists affects ethical and moral systems and often means there is none of consequence; what is retained tends to be bits and pieces from a pre-Progressive past that society still embraces.

The conservative conception is largely one based on natural rights/natural law among other things and only supports negative individual rights, although the degree of this varies somewhat among those on the right. The majority also believe in certain systems of ethics and morality and this tends to serve as an underpinning for their overall beliefs including those regarding rights. We're talking about two different strongly opposed views of the world here.

Except that "this varies somewhat among those on the right" also includes the ability of the state to tell you what you do with consenting adults in the privacy of your own home. Religious political conservatives still cling to the pre-Lawrence belief that you can ban someone from doing certain kinds of acts in the privacy fo the bedroom.

As far as Prop. 8 goes, from a conservative perspective (which I'll do my best to give since that's where I'm at politically), the "gay rights" stuff has nothing to do with civil rights, natural rights, or anything like that. It is nothing other than an effort to impact society in a way to make their lifestyle more widely accepted and supported by the state, this lifestyle being one that conservatives generally view as immoral, wrong, bad for society if widely accepted, etc. Conservatives view this as a battle for society and whether the state is to be used for good or bad ends or none if possible when it comes to the moral realm. Given the definition of marriage and the fact that the rules apply to all regardless of race, orientation, etc., conservatives generally believe there is no rights violation occurring here or unequal treatment by the state.

Your use of the term "lifestyle" means that you believe that gays are fundamentally "wrong".

Nathanson (one of the defendant's expert witnesses) testified at his deposition that religion lies at the heart of the hostility and violence directed at gays and lesbians......

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=64507&stc=1&d=1281212117

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As religion is at the heart of the hostility and violence (by both the state and private actors) against gays and lesbians, this is an form of religious establishment.

It also prohibits the free exercise of religions which support and affirm marriages between same gendered couples.

Freedom of speech is also effected. Accidentally mark down on some federal form that you're married, even if you have a marriage license to someone on who is the same gender, You will go to prison for 5 years. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001001----000-.html) Ask Martha Stewart what happens when you are believed in any way to be lying by the feds.

The RKBA battle, by contrast, is viewed by conservatives as a battle for one of the most fundamental natural rights that they believe is firmly rooted in natural law and this has been the theory on the matter for centuries. To compare it to oxymoronic gay "marriage" is to compare apples and oranges.

2nd amendment, 9th amendment's right to privacy, and the 14th amendment are part of our constitution too. Ignore them at your own peril.

andalusi
08-07-2010, 1:09 PM
Quit looking for enemies everywhere - understand who your friends are and don't get distracted. We're winning this fight.

I wish everyone who read your post would focus on this sentence and take it to heart. Gun rights advocates can be their own worst enemies sometimes. Just because someone doesn't happen to have the same political party, religion, or stance on things like gay rights or global warming, it doesn't preclude that person from supporting the right to keep and bear arms.

We're all supporters of the Second Amendment here, regardless of whether we voted for Obama, McCain, or Dr. Insano. Some people would rather kowtow to a political line than accept allies from the other side of the spectrum. So stupid. So childish.

bwiese
08-07-2010, 1:17 PM
You cannot split opposition to Prop 8 from gun rights; support of Prop 8 is logically inconsistent with support of gunfights and reflects a statist worldview.

Freedom comes with the burden of having to tolerate things you don't like. This is why I don't shoot people wearing Birkenstocks.

Gray Peterson
08-07-2010, 1:23 PM
You cannot split opposition to Prop 8 from gun rights; support of Prop 8 is logically inconsistent with support of gunfights and reflects a statist worldview.

Freedom comes with the burden of having to tolerate things you don't like. This is why I don't shoot people wearing Birkenstocks.

SIG WORTHY!!! :rockon:

Scott Connors
08-07-2010, 1:39 PM
At one time it was politially incorrect to believe that Blacks and whites were equal. It waspolitically incorrect to believe that Homosexuality wasn't a psychological disorder.

Even if it doesn't further our own personal agenda we should be championing the rights of everyone everywhere in the United States.

+1.

joedogboy
08-07-2010, 1:42 PM
To a gun owner - no matter what your views on homosexuality and/or marriage are, there is a good thing from the prop 8 ruling - one more legal precedent to be cited in suits against California's gun laws.

If DiFi can get a CCW, then every Californian who is not a felon, or insane should also be able to get a CCW - otherwise they are not getting equal protection under the law.

bigstick61
08-07-2010, 1:51 PM
Except that "this varies somewhat among those on the right" also includes the ability of the state to tell you what you do with consenting adults in the privacy of your own home. Religious political conservatives still cling to the pre-Lawrence belief that you can ban someone from doing certain kinds of acts in the privacy fo the bedroom.


Actually you are not quite characterizing it right, but yes, there are some conservatives that believe the approach to virtue should include some state proscription of behavior beyond certain basic things. This has been a debate on the Right for a very long time. I am not part of that group btw.


Your use of the term "lifestyle" means that you believe that gays are fundamentally "wrong".

Nathanson (one of the defendant's expert witnesses) testified at his deposition that religion lies at the heart of the hostility and violence directed at gays and lesbians......

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=64507&stc=1&d=1281212117

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As religion is at the heart of the hostility and violence (by both the state and private actors) against gays and lesbians, this is an form of religious establishment.

It also prohibits the free exercise of religions which support and affirm marriages between same gendered couples.


Yes, I do believe homosexual behavior and lifestyles to be fundamentally wrong. Lord forbid we have any sort of ethics or morals. :rolleyes: Ultimately, I believe that without a virtuous society, liberty cannot survive.

In any case, just because some (I'm sure not all) of those opposed to homosexuality or to altering the definition of marriage to suit their lifestyles have at least some religious justifications for their beliefs does not make this an "establishment of religion." That is quite absurd and a HUGE stretch. What is our official church, btw? I mean, if a religion is being established by the state which one is it? What religious ceremony is being proscribed by said definition for purposes of state licensure and other state-related issues? What is the punishment for a pro-gay religion having a religious marriage ceremony sans license?

Freedom of speech is also effected. Accidentally mark down on some federal form that you're married, even if you have a marriage license to someone on who is the same gender, You will go to prison for 5 years. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001001----000-.html) Ask Martha Stewart what happens when you are believed in any way to be lying by the feds.

Wow, yet another HUGE stretch and a display of utter absurdity on your part. Fraud is not protected by freedom of speech and an accident is an accident. What you describe has nothing to do with free speech. If a person makes a mistake on another form someone is going to take them to task for it regardless of what is has to do with. The solution there is simply to only pursue cases that can be shown to be fraud rather than honest mistakes.



2nd amendment, 9th amendment's right to privacy, and the 14th amendment are part of our constitution too. Ignore them at your own peril.

Not ignoring them at all. I don't believe they proscribe a state from maintaining a defintion of marriage that has existed in the same basic form as long as man can remmeber. I certainly don't think the authors of those amendments had that in mind. This is not an issue of natural rights. Ultimately, a homosexual person can get married under Prop. 8. Unions between two people of the same gender simply do not fit the definition of marriage, whether one or both of the members are straight or gay, and rightfully so. Straight and gay people are being treated equally in this regard.

bigstick61
08-07-2010, 1:55 PM
You cannot split opposition to Prop 8 from gun rights; support of Prop 8 is logically inconsistent with support of gunfights and reflects a statist worldview.

Freedom comes with the burden of having to tolerate things you don't like. This is why I don't shoot people wearing Birkenstocks.

Of course you can split Prop. 8 from gun rights. The comparison is a very poor one. Having marriage be defined as it traditionally has and applying this definition to all comers regardless of race, orientation, etc. equally is completely compatible with recognizing and respecting the natural right to keep and bear arms. One case has to do with rights, the other does not. It also has nothing to do with statism. You could not be more wrong in that regard. Yes, some degree of toleration comes with freedom. People are not being prohibited from engaging in homosexual behvior or many other types of immoral behavior. This case has nothing to do with freedom.

Vox
08-07-2010, 2:00 PM
Of course you can split Prop. 8 from gun rights. The comparison is a very poor one. Having marriage be defined as it traditionally has and applying this definition to all comers regardless of race, orientation, etc. equally is completely compatible with recognizing and respecting the natural right to keep and bear arms. One case has to do with rights, the other does not. It also has nothing to do with statism. You could not be more wrong in that regard. Yes, some degree of toleration comes with freedom. People are not being prohibited from engaging in homosexual behvior or many other types of immoral behavior. This case has nothing to do with freedom.

It has everything to do with freedom. Marriage is more than just a social institution, it's a legal one. The right of the people to decide who they want making decisions for them when they are in the hospital, inheritance, pension, etc. There are more than 1100 legal rights and benefits the come with marriage. You cannot deny these rights to be granted to someone's loved ones just because they love different people then you choose to love.

And what makes you think that homoseuality is immoral?

Gray Peterson
08-07-2010, 2:03 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=64511&stc=1&d=1281213512

In 1968, a year after the US Supreme Court in a 9-0 vote struck down racially based marriage classifications in Loving v. Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia), 73 percent of the population disapproved of interracial marriage. They also argued that interracial marriages were not actually "marriage".

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Perry laid the basis that gender classification in marriage is as completely unsupportable as race was in Loving. The Commonweath of Virginia could offer no reason for banning racial discrimination in marrying, and made nearly the same argument as those against gender discrimination in marriage.

They stated...

"But Richard can marry a white woman and Mildred can marry a black man, so therefor their right to marry isn't abridged! Marriages between blacks and whites is not marriage, you see! It's an abomination against god".

Yeah, that went over like a lead balloon. Heterosexual supremacy is just as unacceptable as white supremacy as a reason to ban me from being able to marry.

Gray Peterson
08-07-2010, 2:19 PM
Of course you can split Prop. 8 from gun rights. The comparison is a very poor one. Having marriage be defined as it traditionally has and applying this definition to all comers regardless of race, orientation, etc. equally is completely compatible with recognizing and respecting the natural right to keep and bear arms. One case has to do with rights, the other does not.

Spoken like a true heterosexual supremacist. Your white supremacist forebears in the 1860's to the 1960's made the same arguments against interracial marriage, that it wasn't truly marriage, and it would lead to devastating consequences for society, the sky would fall, and g-d would smite the nation for allowing such immorality. We are still here.

If we had waited for the people to catch up to the idea of interracial marriage and legalized it through the political process rather than using the constitutional provisions of equal protection in 1967, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas would not have been able marry his current wife when he did in the 1980's. Even if he did, he would have dealt with a situation where his marriage was only valid in certain states.

It also has nothing to do with statism. You could not be more wrong in that regard.

Only because you are basing what the government should do on your personal dislikes.

Yes, some degree of toleration comes with freedom. People are not being prohibited from engaging in homosexual behvior or many other types of immoral behavior. This case has nothing to do with freedom.

Loving v. Virginia-

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Might also point out that up until 2003, the states actually disallowed "immoral behavior" between consenting adults. 9 of those states prohibited for all people, and 4 of them just for same gender relations. Sounds like to me, the way you're saying it, you don't really accept Lawrence. You realize that without Lawrence, Heller would have been weaker in decision?

curtisfong
08-07-2010, 2:30 PM
So let me understand: it is bad if one person selectively picks which civil rights are "good", but if another person does it, it is good?

Gray Peterson
08-07-2010, 2:48 PM
So let me understand: it is bad if one person selectively picks which civil rights are "good", but if another person does it, it is good?

:confused:

Btw, an additional fun fact. On top of being an opponent of our RKBA, Sacramento Sheriff John McGinness, McGinness also supported Prop 8, AND he endorsed one of the lead attorneys (Andrew Pugno) in his run for state legislator.

Birds of a statist feather....

curtisfong
08-07-2010, 2:58 PM
:confused:


Just responding to this puzzler:

It's politically correct to support gay rights. It is not politically correct to support gun rights.

Gray Peterson
08-07-2010, 3:16 PM
Just responding to this puzzler:

Oh, I can answer that:

I'm pointing out that the situations are different. Remember, Jerry Brown defended Proposition 22 and the 1977 state law in the California Supreme Court. He lost and he accepted their ruling. Then Prop 8 happened and a suit was filed in the case of Strauss v. Horton saying it was a revision to the constitution rather than just an amendment. Brown agreed with the plaintiffs that it was a revision, but didn't bring up anything 14th amendment related. Prop 8 was ruled an amendment by the State Supreme Court. Then AFER files a challenge in federal court using the due process and equal protection provisions of the 14th amendment due to the way that Prop 8 passed, under the case law of Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.

The AG looked at this two pieces of case law and determined that the state constitutional provisions are in violation of the US constitution, and refuses to defend (note he doesn't order the Vital Statistics Department to immediately issue marriage licenses, he will wait for a court to determine if his read on Romer in relation to Perry is correct). The court determined that it did, and he accepted the court's ruling.

Contrast this with RKBA, there is very little currently defined by current case law with RKBA and it's effects in Sykes, Peña, and Peruta. Within a year, Alan Gura and Chuck Michel will be able to button that situation up for us. It will be a civil right, and Jerry would be bound to respect that provision both as AG and as Governor. It's just that all of our RKBA cases in California are federal.

Oh, and btw: Since all of the governmental defendants agreed with the plaintiffs and refused to defend, the State of California is not on the hook for attorneys fees and court costs. 'Yes On Eight' is on the hook for it instead. Ted Olson, David Boies, and the folks at their firms are rather expensive.

Jerry Brown just saved the State of California over half a million dollars, minimum. Damn him from being so frugal.

curtisfong
08-07-2010, 3:25 PM
Your answer is entirely too logical and not sufficiently emotional. Please use more partisan terminology like "politically correct", or I can't fit your response into my cognitive dissonance.

Gray Peterson
08-07-2010, 3:44 PM
Your answer is entirely too logical and not sufficiently emotional. Please use more partisan terminology like "politically correct", or I can't fit your response into my cognitive dissonance.

Happy to disappoint you. :D

Apocalypsenerd
08-07-2010, 3:59 PM
Progressives and conservatives have fundamentally different conceptions of rights. The former do not believe in natural rights or anything like that, but they do tend to support certain kinds of freedom that can generally be lumped freedom below the belt but take that further, and they also support the positive rights of collectivities or even of the state. Support for "civil rights" in many cases is just the use of those battles as a political tool to achieve a certain end. They tend to be agnostic or moral relativists affects ethical and moral systems and often means there is none of consequence; what is retained tends to be bits and pieces from a pre-Progressive past that society still embraces.

The conservative conception is largely one based on natural rights/natural law among other things and only supports negative individual rights, although the degree of this varies somewhat among those on the right. The majority also believe in certain systems of ethics and morality and this tends to serve as an underpinning for their overall beliefs including those regarding rights. We're talking about two different strongly opposed views of the world here.


This is arguably the most rational explanation of these two points of view I have seen.

The rest of your post, however, is irrational. You cannot call yourself a conservative and an individualist if you say that to protect society, you need to take away someone else's right. Pretending that what someone does in their own home is not a right doesn't change that fact. You don't have to condone or like their behavior, but to try and control them through law, at the end of a gun or in this case IRS paper trail, means you are willing to create separate classes and destroy liberty.

You cannot split opposition to Prop 8 from gun rights; support of Prop 8 is logically inconsistent with support of gunfights and reflects a statist worldview.

Freedom comes with the burden of having to tolerate things you don't like. This is why I don't shoot people wearing Birkenstocks.

Bwiese, well said.

znode
08-07-2010, 4:11 PM
[I]Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes...

You know, I wonder why we tolerate the government having their paws in ANY marriage, gay or otherwise. Even if we accept the premise that society would stop working if the government couldn't keep track of who was married and who wasn't (a premise full of bull), then it seems to be the government should only be handing out civil unions to everyone, and let marriage be a completely separate thing that churches as private entities can elect to do.

jdberger
08-07-2010, 4:16 PM
You know, I wonder why we tolerate the government having their paws in ANY marriage, gay or otherwise. Even if we accept the premise that society would stop working if the government couldn't keep track of who was married and who wasn't (a premise full of bull), then it seems to be the government should only be handing out civil unions to everyone, and let marriage be a completely separate thing that churches as private entities can elect to do.

Bingo.

Take the State out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religous institution. Let the various religions deal with it. All the State needs to do is recognize the contract.

There.

I fixed it.

Gray Peterson
08-07-2010, 4:53 PM
You know, I wonder why we tolerate the government having their paws in ANY marriage, gay or otherwise. Even if we accept the premise that society would stop working if the government couldn't keep track of who was married and who wasn't (a premise full of bull), then it seems to be the government should only be handing out civil unions to everyone, and let marriage be a completely separate thing that churches as private entities can elect to do.

Bingo.

Take the State out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religous institution. Let the various religions deal with it. All the State needs to do is recognize the contract.

There.

I fixed it.

That would be equality, but civil marriage is extremely ingrained in the mentality of people. Married couples are not going to want to "downgrade" from marriage to civil union just to satisfy equality with their non-hetero brothers and sisters.

The same groups that viciously attack gay couples for seeking the ability to marry would be many times more vicious against any legislator or political group which suggests this as a serious alternative, even if they are told "This would de-escalate the culture war and end it entirely and take it to the religious arena".

Why?

1) ADF, FRC, AFA, and the rest of these groups make a bunch of money and income off of the fear-mongering towards gays, towards minority religions, and people who do not follow their skewed view. When they reached too far with the Terry Shiavo situation (attempting to destroy his next-of-kin status despite the marriage license, just imagine a gay lesbian in Florida, they would have been screwed), they really left a bitter taste in many of the economic conservative's mouths (like Ted Olson). They want the culture wars to continue, and will do anything to make it continue for the decades to come. These people are cultural war profiteers and there will stop at nothing to keep a "peaceful solution" from actually taking place.

2) They would also have practically 80 percent of the heterosexual couples on their side too, because they won't want to be told "You can't get married anymore, because the gays can't have it". People are selfish creatures by nature, and don't want something taken away. We inherited marriage licensing from our common laws of England (1753 Colonial Marriage Acts).

3) Because of these two factors above, gays and lesbians as a community are put into a box. In order to be fully protected in a legal fashion, there cannot be a situation where they need to explain what a "civil union" or a domestic partnership" (is that a business arrangement?) and then get told "Sorry, only married couples are next of kin". That's what happened with the Langbehn-Pond family (http://www.nj.com/parenting/joan_garry/index.ssf/2009/05/mom_and_kids_kept_from_dying_p.html) (lesbian couple of over 15 years who resided in Olympia Washington and took a cruise from Miami Florida). Unimaginable cruelties such as what happened to Clay Greene and Harold Scrull (http://blog.seattlepi.com/stepforward/archives/202464.asp), which in the end cost the tax payers of Sonoma County almost 700 thousand dollars. I could go on and on about thousands of stories similar to this, because governments on all levels and almost all states treat myself and others similarly situated with government sanctioned bigotry and cruelty.

4) Because some of you believe that people like myself are not human beings, or "sinners", or "immorally bad", you support governmental exclusion from the ONLY thing that can fully protect us in terms of respecting our wishes while in emergency situations or distress. It is pure spite and hateful cruelty.

jdberger
08-07-2010, 5:13 PM
Sorry, Gray. Maybe I wasn't clear.

The defining document would simply be a recognition of the civil contract. Marraige, could be conferred by any religious institution.

Think of marraige in the same light as a Bar Miztvah. It holds religious significance, but no legal value.

Yes, this might be tough for some of the more religiously motivated to deal with, but it does clear out the implication that the State is involved in a religious issue.

rugershooter
08-07-2010, 5:55 PM
So the Supreme Court rules on June 28th that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states, and a federal district judge rules against Prop 8 and for a right to gay marriage this week. Then what happened?

Arnold and Jerry are silent about a California right to keep and bear arms, but they are in court immediately asking for gays to marry legally in California.

Why the disparity? If we have to sue in the federal courts to compel local and state officials to comport with the law on keep and bear arms, why don't gays have to do likewise to marry?

So much for the blind justice system.

jim

The issue of gay marrage is different than the 2nd Amendment. Regarding Prop 8, the people of CA wanted the issue to get on the ballot. It got on the ballot and was voted on. It was made a part of the California Constitution. By virtue of being a Constitutional Amendment that was legally passed, it can't be ruled Unconstitutional.
Regarding the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court simply said that it applies to the states via the 14th Amendment.
The people who didn't like the fact that Prop 8 was passed will continue to fight it until they get what they want even though the people have already spoken. It's all politics and money.

a1c
08-07-2010, 6:08 PM
Civil rights are neither conservative nor progressive.

vantec08
08-07-2010, 6:25 PM
The veiled lie concerning justice, law and every branch of our government is slowly being peeled away. I for one, was shocked we had a positive Heller decision, I was expecting a loss, and was one vote shy of that reality.


Right on, Patriot. I sincerely doubt that SCOTUS will tamper much with state's gun regulations.

cbn620
08-07-2010, 6:33 PM
Of course you can split Prop. 8 from gun rights. The comparison is a very poor one. Having marriage be defined as it traditionally has and applying this definition to all comers regardless of race, orientation, etc. equally is completely compatible with recognizing and respecting the natural right to keep and bear arms. One case has to do with rights, the other does not. It also has nothing to do with statism. You could not be more wrong in that regard. Yes, some degree of toleration comes with freedom. People are not being prohibited from engaging in homosexual behvior or many other types of immoral behavior. This case has nothing to do with freedom.

The definition of marriage that applies here is the state's definition. So how does this have NOTHING to do with statism? Rather than letting lexicographers argue over the definitions of marriage to be included in dictionaries, you insist the state should define marriage. BOTH cases absolutely have to do with rights, even if some of them aren't enumerated. You also seem to be under the statist impression that it's the state that gives us our rights if you assume just because there is no amendment saying "gays have the right to marry," that means they don't have such a right. That is a statist belief. Period.

If you want to be a statist, be a statist. But this argument that it is not a statist position is unfathomably disingenuous, and the ultimate exercise in cognitive dissonance.

hoffmang
08-07-2010, 7:08 PM
The majority of Californians believe that carrying loaded firearms in public is immoral. Are we sure we really want to be in the business of letting majorities place morality on the issuances of civil rights related licenses?

Also, for all of you who claim that homosexuality is a choice, can you please tell me why you can't fathom having sex with someone of the same sex? You are asserting it's just a choice after all.

-Gene

Californio
08-07-2010, 7:10 PM
I like what this guy had to say.


David Harsanyi: Time for a Divorce from Gay Marriage
It's time we let private relationships stay, well, private
By David Harsanyi | Published on 08.06.2010


In the 1500s, a pestering theologian instituted something called the Marriage Ordinance in Geneva, which made “state registration and church consecration” a dual requirement of matrimony.

We have yet to get over this mistake. But isn’t it about time we freed marriage from the state?

Imagine if government had no interest in the definition of marriage. Individuals could commit to each other, head to the local priest or rabbi or shaman — or no one at all — and enter into contractual agreements, call their blissful union whatever they felt it should be called and go about the business of their lives.

I certainly don’t believe that gay marriage will trigger societal instability or undermine traditional marriage — we already have that covered — but mostly I believe your private relationships are none of my business. And without any government role in the institution, it wouldn’t be the business of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, either.

As the debate stands now, we have two activist groups trying to force their own ethical construction of marriage on the rest of us. And to enforce it, they have been using the power of the state — one via majority rule and the other using the judiciary (subject to change with the vagaries of public opinion).

If marriage were freed from the state, folks at The New York Times editorial board could avoid having to make claims that gay “marriage is a constitutional right.” (Apparently, anything can be a constitutional right at The Gray Lady, as long as it’s not mentioned in the Second, Fifth or 10th amendments.)

Even new Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recently wrote that “there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” It might be fair and it might be the decent thing to do, but a constitutional “right”?


If marriage were a private concern, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker would not have ruled that California’s Proposition 8 violated the Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process, because Proposition 8 would not have existed.

Walker never would have to sit in judgment of Americans and claim that “moral disapproval alone” was behind this plot to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Moral disapproval alone?

As best as I can tell, support for gay marriage is tepid. A recent CBS poll shows that 42 percent of Americans support marriage rights for gays and lesbians, though no state has been able to pass a referendum to legalize same-sex marriage.

Does that mean that about half of voters — and all 7 million Californians who voted for Proposition 8 — have no logical or legal reason for believing that marriage should be between a man and a woman other than bigotry? Is President Barack Obama, who David Axelrod says opposes same-sex marriage (also subject to change with the vagaries of public opinion, no doubt) a homophobe?

In my world, the answer is: Who cares? Is there any other personal relationship that is defined by government? Other than in legal terms, of course, this one isn’t either.

Yet we have decided that a majority on the Supreme Court or, perhaps, a majority of the voters in your state or, even worse, a majority of the legislators in your state have the power to define what is often the most intimate bond of your life.

In our Utopian vision, no group is empowered to dictate what marriage should mean to another. And one of the great perks would be the end of this debate.

— David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Click here for more information, or click here to contact him.

Gray Peterson
08-07-2010, 7:56 PM
I like what this guy had to say.


David Harsanyi: Time for a Divorce from Gay Marriage
It's time we let private relationships stay, well, private
By David Harsanyi | Published on 08.06.2010


In the 1500s, a pestering theologian instituted something called the Marriage Ordinance in Geneva, which made “state registration and church consecration” a dual requirement of matrimony.

We have yet to get over this mistake. But isn’t it about time we freed marriage from the state?

All right, get the US Congress, and the 50 state legislatures to do it. You'll run into a problem with the ADF and most heterosexual couples. They have a property interest in the license, ya know....

kyanha
08-07-2010, 8:42 PM
Also, for all of you who claim that homosexuality is a choice, can you please tell me why you can't fathom having sex with someone of the same sex? You are asserting it's just a choice after all.


Yeah, please. I'm rather confused.

Then again, since I can't fathom having sex with someone of the opposite sex (primarily because I am male and the female physique does *nothing* for me, so I can't even get an erection, which kinda prevents penetrative sex, which is extremely close to preventing any kind of procreation, which is the 'basis' that the people who tried to defend Prop 8 claimed was the interest of the state -- but at least I've tried sleeping with someone I liked of the opposite gender!), my interest is more than purely academic.

(Not to Gene, but to the same hypothetical reader that Gene was addressing) Have you ever even *tried* having sex with someone of the same gender? How do you know that you chose not to try, rather than being hardwired?

-kyanha

berto
08-07-2010, 9:46 PM
The bill of rights isn't a buffet from which one gets to pick and choose some rights but not other rights for themselves or for others. One day the shoe might be on the other foot and the rights each of us holds most dear may be threatened. Being a half-assed civil libertarian isn't an option.

kcbrown
08-07-2010, 11:08 PM
The bottom line is this:

Either you're for freedom and rights, or you're just interested in creating a set of rules to shape society so that it will look and behave like you want it to.

Which is it?

If you're for freedom and rights then you have no grounds to tell others what to do, or to support legislation that would have the same effect, except to the degree that what they do will violate or result in the violation of the rights of others. Period. And it doesn't matter what actions you're talking about, whether it's gay marriage, keeping and bearing arms, speaking out against the government (or against anyone at all, really), using drugs, buying anything at all, or even committing suicide.

On the other hand, if you can't handle and support what the above implies then you are not a supporter of liberty and rights for all, and should seriously consider whether or not you even belong here in the United States of America, seeing how the country was founded explicitly for the purpose of securing those very liberties and rights for the people.


The common ground between the progressives and the conservatives is that neither support real freedom. Both want to limit freedom in some way so that society will be somehow more palatable to them. But the price of real freedom is that you must allow others to do what you don't want them to do, as long as their actions do not violate the rights or (generally) impede the freedom of others. The end result is that society might not end up looking the way you want it to. Tough cookies. Deal with it.

Vox
08-07-2010, 11:14 PM
The issue of gay marrage is different than the 2nd Amendment. Regarding Prop 8, the people of CA wanted the issue to get on the ballot. It got on the ballot and was voted on. It was made a part of the California Constitution. By virtue of being a Constitutional Amendment that was legally passed, it can't be ruled Unconstitutional.
Regarding the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court simply said that it applies to the states via the 14th Amendment.
The people who didn't like the fact that Prop 8 was passed will continue to fight it until they get what they want even though the people have already spoken. It's all politics and money.

You seriously can't imagine a role reversal? What if 66% of the people of California decided that they should ban all firearms in the state? Would you think the argument still holds water? Of course not because no state can infringe a right that is protected federally. IT doesn't work. It violates the 14th amendment. It was the same argument used in Heller and it can equally be applied to gay marriage.

fn9
08-08-2010, 12:12 AM
The majority of Californians believe that carrying loaded firearms in public is immoral. Are we sure we really want to be in the business of letting majorities place morality on the issuances of civil rights related licenses?

Also, for all of you who claim that homosexuality is a choice, can you please tell me why you can't fathom having sex with someone of the same sex? You are asserting it's just a choice after all.

-Gene

I dont understand that argument:confused:, how about pedophilia, bestiality, rapists, mass murders, necrophiliacs and so on, ARE THEY CHOICES? I cant phathom doing any of them but I still believe they are choices. :eek:

with all due respect WEAK ARGUMENT

kcbrown
08-08-2010, 12:18 AM
I dont understand that argument:confused:, how about pedophilia, bestiality, rapists, mass murders, necrophiliacs and so on, ARE THEY CHOICES? I cant phathom doing any of them but I still believe they are choices. :eek:

with all due respect WEAK ARGUMENT

The question should perhaps have been phrased differently, but the core argument is the same.

Assuming you're a heterosexual male, is your attraction to women something you choose? If it's not, then you have absolutely no grounds to assume that homosexuality is a choice, because it means that your heterosexuality certainly isn't.

I know my heterosexuality is not a choice on my part. I am instinctively attracted to members of the opposite sex. Choice doesn't even enter into it. Choice only enters into the actions I take in order to satisfy my heterosexuality.

We have laws in place against rape, murder, etc., because those are violations of someone's rights. Homosexuality in and of itself violates nobody's rights, nor is any action taken by a homosexual person that would be lawful on the part of a heterosexual person. Because of that, it is not your place to enact, or cause to be enacted, laws which forbid any actions to homosexuals when those very same actions are available to heterosexuals. To do so anyway means that you are not really in favor of real liberty at all -- you're after something else (most likely, "freedom for me but not for thee").

383green
08-08-2010, 12:18 AM
Either you're for freedom and rights, or you're just interested in creating a set of rules to shape society so that it will look and behave like you want it to.

Well-said!

Scarecrow Repair
08-08-2010, 12:25 AM
Having marriage be defined as it traditionally has

Which definition would this be? Which tradition? Polygamy? Would the original Mormon definition fit? How about the current rebel Mormon definition?

Oh, I see. *Your* defnition of traditional.

How do you feel about divorce? Wanna outlaw that while you're at it?

How about remarriage after the spouse dies? Force a widow to marry the dead man's brother? What if said brother is already married?

How about the widow throwing herself on the funeral fire? How about "assisting" her to enforce this traditional definition of marriage?

Please clarify.

Scarecrow Repair
08-08-2010, 12:29 AM
The issue of gay marrage is different than the 2nd Amendment. Regarding Prop 8, the people of CA wanted the issue to get on the ballot. It got on the ballot and was voted on. It was made a part of the California Constitution. By virtue of being a Constitutional Amendment that was legally passed, it can't be ruled Unconstitutional.
Regarding the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court simply said that it applies to the states via the 14th Amendment.

I see you missed the part about state constitutions not violating the federal constitution.

Perhaps you are not aware of these technicalities.

How would you like it if a state constitution outlawed interracial marriages?

How would you like it if a state constitution outlawed the right to keep and bear arms?

Oh wait ....

Meplat
08-08-2010, 12:32 AM
Supporters of gay marriage have two motivations. The first which is the motivation of the vast majority is simply acceptance. They are looking for the acceptance, validation, and respect of society. Unfortunately, it is an empty quest. Those things cannot be legislated, only earned. The second motivation is harbored by an activist vindictive minority. They want to use gay marriage as a bludgeon against those who have personal moral reservations about homosexuality. They want to sue churches, florists, photographers and such who refuse to serv them. This will have exactly the opposite effect wanted by the majority. Sorry folks but gay marriage is a lose/lose endeavor wether it's upheld or not.


Except that "this varies somewhat among those on the right" also includes the ability of the state to tell you what you do with consenting adults in the privacy of your own home. Religious political conservatives still cling to the pre-Lawrence belief that you can ban someone from doing certain kinds of acts in the privacy fo the bedroom.



Your use of the term "lifestyle" means that you believe that gays are fundamentally "wrong".

Nathanson (one of the defendant's expert witnesses) testified at his deposition that religion lies at the heart of the hostility and violence directed at gays and lesbians......

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=64507&stc=1&d=1281212117

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As religion is at the heart of the hostility and violence (by both the state and private actors) against gays and lesbians, this is an form of religious establishment.

It also prohibits the free exercise of religions which support and affirm marriages between same gendered couples.

Freedom of speech is also effected. Accidentally mark down on some federal form that you're married, even if you have a marriage license to someone on who is the same gender, You will go to prison for 5 years. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001001----000-.html) Ask Martha Stewart what happens when you are believed in any way to be lying by the feds.



2nd amendment, 9th amendment's right to privacy, and the 14th amendment are part of our constitution too. Ignore them at your own peril.

a1c
08-08-2010, 12:38 AM
Supporters of gay marriage have two motivations. The first which is the motivation of the vast majority is simply acceptance. They are looking for the acceptance, validation, and respect of society. Unfortunately, it is an empty quest. Those things cannot be legislated, only earned. The second motivation is harbored by an activist vindictive minority. They want to use gay marriage as a bludgeon against those who have personal moral reservations about homosexuality. They want to sue churches, florists, photographers and such who refuse to serv them. This will have exactly the opposite effect wanted by the majority. Sorry folks but gay marriage is a lose/lose endeavor wether it's upheld or not.

Do you actually know any of the people you're talking about?

kcbrown
08-08-2010, 12:51 AM
Supporters of gay marriage have two motivations. The first which is the motivation of the vast majority is simply acceptance. They are looking for the acceptance, validation, and respect of society. Unfortunately, it is an empty quest. Those things cannot be legislated, only earned. The second motivation is harbored by an activist vindictive minority. They want to use gay marriage as a bludgeon against those who have personal moral reservations about homosexuality.


You entirely miss a third category of people who support gay marriage: people who believe in true liberty for all.

I support gay marriage. I don't give a cr*p about whether or not society "respects" or "accepts" homosexuals, just like I don't give a cr*p about whether or not society "respects" or "accepts" gun owners. It is irrelevant. What I do care about is whether or not society "respects" or "accepts" freedom and rights. This society above all others should do so, because that's what the country was founded upon and why the country exists in the first place!

Furthermore, I don't give a cr*p whether other people believe homosexuality is morally "wrong" or not, just like I don't give a cr*p about whether or not they believe keeping and bearing arms in public is morally "wrong" or not. I do care about whether or not they believe it is their business to enact legislation specifically targeting or excluding those people. As members of a freedom-loving culture, it is our duty as individuals to respect the rights of others to do as they please, to believe what they please, and to be as they please as long as they do not violate the rights of others in the process.


If you can't get behind that, then why in the world are you still here? There are plenty of other countries that have similar "respect" for the rights of others. Which is to say, there are plenty of other countries in which a person's rights depend on who they are and what they believe. But don't try to turn this country into another one of those. We've gone way too far down that road already.



They want to sue churches, florists, photographers and such who refuse to serv them.
Do they really? Most people who favor gay marriage don't have any such desire to do any such thing. They simply want the state to recognize marriage between homosexual partners in exactly the same way as it recognizes marriage between heterosexual partners. You know, that whole "equal protection under the law" thing that you almost certainly claim to cherish?

Do you really think those people would be stupid enough to belong to a church that would refuse to grant them marriage??


If you insist on judging a group by the actions of its most controversial members, then don't b*tch when others judge us by our most controversial members.

Equal treatment's a b*tch, ain't it?

znode
08-08-2010, 12:52 AM
Supporters of gay marriage have two motivations. The first which is the motivation of the vast majority is simply acceptance. They are looking for the acceptance, validation, and respect of society. Unfortunately, it is an empty quest. Those things cannot be legislated, only earned. The second motivation is harbored by an activist vindictive minority. They want to use gay marriage as a bludgeon against those who have personal moral reservations about homosexuality. They want to sue churches, florists, photographers and such who refuse to serv them. This will have exactly the opposite effect wanted by the majority. Sorry folks but gay marriage is a lose/lose endeavor wether it's upheld or not.

Supporters of gun rights have two motivations. They want to use gun ownership as a bludgeon against those who wants to be safe on the streets. They want to intimidate families, mothers, children who refuse to own them. Sorry folks but gun rights is a lose/lose endeavor whether it's upheld or not.

How do you sleep at night knowing you're a hypocrite?

When you have a society that runs the way YOU (you being any one person) like, a society that never makes you uncomfortable, then guess what you don't have a free society.

Meplat
08-08-2010, 12:57 AM
Do you actually know any of the people you're talking about?

Yes.

a1c
08-08-2010, 1:13 AM
Yes.

I find it very hard to believe.

BTW, gays don't have to "earn" your respect or your acceptance. They really don't.

rugershooter
08-08-2010, 1:24 AM
I see you missed the part about state constitutions not violating the federal constitution.

Perhaps you are not aware of these technicalities.

How would you like it if a state constitution outlawed interracial marriages?

How would you like it if a state constitution outlawed the right to keep and bear arms?

Oh wait ....

I don't see anything in the U.S. Constitution that protects gay marriage. The only way that it's even possible to say that it protects it is through the 10th Amendment's unenumerated clause. But the Constitution also says that powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to it are reserved to the states and to the people. The states have already put the issue on the ballot and people voted on it. By virtue of being a Constitutional amendment, it can't be Unconstitutional.

Meplat
08-08-2010, 1:25 AM
Jeez! Don't stroke out. Where did I ever say whether or not I supported GM?

I simply pointed out some unfortunate truths about the dilemma faced by the gay community. No need to shoot the messenger.

I did in fact ignore that third group though. Please not that I addressed two groups but never said there were not more. I am sure there are even more than three.



You entirely miss a third category of people who support gay marriage: people who believe in true liberty for all.

I support gay marriage. I don't give a cr*p about whether or not society "respects" or "accepts" homosexuals, just like I don't give a cr*p about whether or not society "respects" or "accepts" gun owners. It is irrelevant. What I do care about is whether or not society "respects" or "accepts" freedom and rights. This society above all others should do so, because that's what the country was founded upon and why the country exists in the first place!

Furthermore, I don't give a cr*p whether other people believe homosexuality is morally "wrong" or not, just like I don't give a cr*p about whether or not they believe keeping and bearing arms in public is morally "wrong" or not. I do care about whether or not they believe it is their business to enact legislation specifically targeting or excluding those people. As members of a freedom-loving culture, it is our duty as individuals to respect the rights of others to do as they please, to believe what they please, and to be as they please as long as they do not violate the rights of others in the process.


If you can't get behind that, then why in the world are you still here? There are plenty of other countries that have similar "respect" for the rights of others. Which is to say, there are plenty of other countries in which a person's rights depend on who they are and what they believe. But don't try to turn this country into another one of those. We've gone way too far down that road already.


Do they really? Most people who favor gay marriage don't have any such desire to do any such thing. They simply want the state to recognize marriage between homosexual partners in exactly the same way as it recognizes marriage between heterosexual partners. You know, that whole "equal protection under the law" thing that you almost certainly claim to cherish?

Do you really think those people would be stupid enough to belong to a church that would refuse to grant them marriage??


If you insist on judging a group by the actions of its most controversial members, then don't b*tch when others judge us by our most controversial members.

Equal treatment's a b*tch, ain't it?

Meplat
08-08-2010, 1:30 AM
Supporters of gun rights have two motivations. They want to use gun ownership as a bludgeon against those who wants to be safe on the streets. They want to intimidate families, mothers, children who refuse to own them. Sorry folks but gun rights is a lose/lose endeavor whether it's upheld or not.

How do you sleep at night knowing you're a hypocrite?

When you have a society that runs the way YOU (you being any one person) like, a society that never makes you uncomfortable, then guess what you don't have a free society.

:rolleyes:

kcbrown
08-08-2010, 1:36 AM
Jeez! Don't stroke out. Where did I ever say whether or not I supported GM?


Sorry, the way you stated things led me to believe that you have some opposition to it. Certainly we've seen more than one person argue against it here in this forum, and what you were saying sounded suspiciously familiar...

Anyway, you have my apologies if I got you wrong, sir!


That said, I do believe my argument still stands on its own, even if it doesn't apply to you specifically. Feel free to use it yourself. :43:



I simply pointed out some unfortunate truths about the dilemma faced by the gay community. No need to shoot the messenger.
I've no doubt that in some areas of the state, at least, the gay community faces the very challenges you point out. Just as we face certain political challenges of our own...



I did in fact ignore that third group though. Please not that I addressed two groups but never said there were not more. I am sure there are even more than three.Well, unfortunately you did say "there are two", not "there are at least two", so please accept my apologies about presuming that you meant "only two"...

Sometimes it doesn't pay to be a pedant at all.... :D

2009_gunner
08-08-2010, 1:38 AM
I dont understand that argument:confused:, how about pedophilia, bestiality, rapists, mass murders, necrophiliacs and so on, ARE THEY CHOICES? I cant phathom doing any of them but I still believe they are choices. :eek:

with all due respect WEAK ARGUMENT

Look up consenting adults.

jdberger
08-08-2010, 2:44 AM
Supporters of gay marriage have two motivations. The first which is the motivation of the vast majority is simply acceptance. They are looking for the acceptance, validation, and respect of society. Unfortunately, it is an empty quest. Those things cannot be legislated, only earned. The second motivation is harbored by an activist vindictive minority. They want to use gay marriage as a bludgeon against those who have personal moral reservations about homosexuality. They want to sue churches, florists, photographers and such who refuse to serv them. This will have exactly the opposite effect wanted by the majority. Sorry folks but gay marriage is a lose/lose endeavor wether it's upheld or not.

Interesting comment. Paul Helmke (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy6CkLzdeP0), Josh Sugarmann (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/mcdonald-gun-case-more-de_b_627688.html) and Robyn Thomas (http://www.lcav.org/content/McDonald-v-Chicago.asp)said something very similar after McDonald was decided. They warned of a flood of frivolous litigation..... The similarity is striking.

I don't see anything in the U.S. Constitution that protects gay marriage.

I'd be interested in the section of the US Constitution that protects heterosexual marraige. :rolleyes:

rugershooter
08-08-2010, 3:06 AM
I'd be interested in the section of the US Constitution that protects heterosexual marraige. :rolleyes:

There isn't anything in the U.S. Constitution that protects heterosexual marraige either. That's why Prop 8 was put to the vote; to legally define marraige in the State of California one way or another. It's the same as anything else that people claim as an unenumerated right. If the Constitution doesn't say anything one way or another about it, the people can vote on it to decide whether that claim of something being a right is legally protected as a right.

wildhawker
08-08-2010, 3:15 AM
There isn't anything in the U.S. Constitution that protects heterosexual marraige either. That's why Prop 8 was put to the vote; to legally define marraige in the State of California one way or another. It's the same as anything else that people claim as an unenumerated right. If the Constitution doesn't say anything one way or another about it, the people can vote on it to decide whether that claim of something being a right is legally protected as a right.

Your comprehension of the mechanics of constitutional questions leaves much to be desired.

Gray Peterson
08-08-2010, 3:25 AM
Supporters of gay marriage have two motivations. The first which is the motivation of the vast majority is simply acceptance. They are looking for the acceptance, validation, and respect of society. Unfortunately, it is an empty quest. Those things cannot be legislated, only earned.

Oh, and you're doing quite well with it I see. Over 55 percent divorce rate, and Britney Spears gets married in Vegas and starts divorce proceedings 3 days later. Yeah, you guys definitely earned the right to marry. :rolleyes:

By law, married spouses are next of kin, automatically, with little to no questioning, especially important during family emergency. The Terri Shiavo situation was a testament to how powerful the marriage license is in terms of court and legal interactions. If Michael and Terri were instead Michael and Terrence, "Terrance" would have been kept in a persistant vegitative state and brain dead for the rest of his life. The autopsy proved Michael was correct and the Schindlers were wrong.

Seven years of legal court battles would have destroyed whatever wills, medical proxies, and powers of attorneys that Michael would have had if he did NOT have that marriage license. In fact, because of Amendment 2 in Florida, the courts are commanded to completely ignore anything but marriage licenses in terms of next of kin decisions.

The second motivation is harbored by an activist vindictive minority.In my area, a full 50 percent of all "hate crime" attacks (both terrorist threatening and actual violent crime) are against gays. Getting beaten, curb-stomped, sexually assaulted by cops for fun, acid thrown in our faces, sort of radicalizes people.

They want to use gay marriage as a bludgeon against those who have personal moral reservations about homosexuality."They just want to use interracial marriage as a bludgeon against those who have personal moral reservations about mixing of the races...."

Exact. Same. Wording.

They want to sue churchesIf interracial couples cannot sue a church for refusing to marry them in their actual church (there are very few churches that actually do that, mostly associated with white supremacist groups), gay couples can't do that either.

Also, why in the living hell would I want to get married in a church that doesn't accept it? And don't give me that bull**** about you knowing gay activists in San Francisco who are "high up in organizations" now who have that goal (correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the last time we had a go around it was you who told us that). San Francisco political activists as a general matter (with exceptions of course, hey Tom!) have very strange ideas about governmental and legal control over churches which don't really exist anywhere else.

Legislatures will never pass it, and there's nothing in state liability code to do what you're talking about.

In fact, just this year, the Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Protection Act (http://dist03.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC=%7BF0DFD1A5-1C7B-4F09-9F09-C48A423D1072%7D&DE=%7B78417563-3A39-4636-BE6F-F61C958D9DA7%7D) was signed into law, doing exactly the opposite of what you're talking about.

Simply put, Meplat, you are making up boogeymen.

florists, photographers and such who refuse to serve them.Tell me, what would happen if these same florists and photographers told an interracial opposite gendered couple that they wouldn't serve them because they have a religious objection to serving those who intermarry with those with the "Mark of Cain"?

They would have faced the same legal consequences under law due to protections based on race. Now, if you want to make the libertarian argument that there should be no anti-discrimination laws on private corporations at all, that's perfectly fine. Under such a scenario, no matter how immutable the characteristic is, they can be discriminated against. The problem here, also, is that the anti-discrimination laws also protect choices, too. Religion is a choice, yet it is still protected.

Either it's all or none. Either choices and immutable characteristics are protected, or none at all. Otherwise, if you support protecting race and religion but not our affection orientation, there can only be one reason: A believe that gays and their relationships are less. From a comment posting at Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/2010/08/07/one-day-in-the-life-of-ivana-denisovich-gallagher/comment-page-4/#comment-900579):

What you and Randy misinterpret as judgment and fear, is really just pity and sadness.
I gather you have a partner and are raising children.I wish you every success and them every opportunity. Jonathan Rauch could make you his poster family — And yet, sadly yes, I am afraid, yours is less — not less worthy. but less. All people are equally worthy and if they love one another their love is always worthy but that equality of dignity does not make them the same or equal in nature in ways that command the same treatment.In a very real and undeniable way, my family is mine in a way that your family is not yours and can never be.And the reason marriage is — is the reason why my family is mine. Yours is not and cannot be in that way — no law can fix that for you — and it is nothing that I nor any State is denying you. You are denied that because of you — whether by choice or nature I could not say — and it really does not matter either way.

The above exactly sums up why the opponents to marriage for same gender couples believe the way that they believe. Because they are heterosexual, they deserve civil marriage. If someone is gay, even if it's by "nature", they are not deserving of civil marriage. They are "less".

As for me? I do not want or need G.R. Mead's or your ****ing pity and sadness, or personal respect. What I want the government at all levels to cease enforcing this irrational animus towards me. Dressing it up as "the people's will" doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.

This will have exactly the opposite effect wanted by the majority. Sorry folks but gay marriage is a lose/lose endeavor whether it's upheld or not.We'll have that debate after I get my equal rights under law. America wasn't destroyed by interracial marriage, despite the fact that 75 percent of the population disapproved and still wanted to have it illegal a year after Loving v. Virginia enforced equal protection on racial classifications in issuing marriage licenses. I suggest listening to the Oral Arguments of Loving v. Virginia (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395) for perspective.

Fyathyrio
08-08-2010, 4:00 AM
I personally think that legislatures really don't want to touch this issue from a financial standpoint. If they legally expand the definition of marriage, then they must offer the same tax advantages for married couples from our current definition. With the debate focused on moral or other grounds, they don't have to address the potential monetary loss to their coffers.

rugershooter
08-08-2010, 8:39 AM
Your comprehension of the mechanics of constitutional questions leaves much to be desired.

Enlighten me, then.

Pvt. Cowboy
08-08-2010, 9:21 AM
You cannot split opposition to Prop 8 from gun rights; support of Prop 8 is logically inconsistent with support of gunfights and reflects a statist worldview.

I think you meant "gun rights", but nevertheless...

... Even if you believe this is true, we cannot hitch the fight for RKBA to the homosexual movement or the medicinal marijuana movement or the immigration/citizenship debate or anything else.

It is inappropriate, distracting, and you're already aware that the overwhelming majority of gun owners don't want to be lead down this path walking hand in hand with some unrelated cultural debate. Whatever scarce benefit you think we'd get from riding in someone else's political haywagon will only hurt us with our own kind.

I appeal this on the grounds that much of the forthcoming debate and court cases -- where all of this will be won or lost -- is entirely Californian in origin. You'll be taking all the states covered by the 9th Circuit Court along with your suits whether they like it or not, and parading the transsexuals and illegal aliens and dreadlocked stoners at the front of the movement will only cause everyone else to start falling away from you and either seek to take control or harm your progress with RKBA.

Revolver
08-08-2010, 9:35 AM
What baffles me is why do Atheists and gays want to get married in the first place. Marriage in this country since its founding has been a religious ceremony. That's why our marriages are performed in churches. Honestly, I never thought the government should have ANY involvement in marriage whatsoever. I believe that if you are atheist or gay or what have you, you should get a civil union that shows hey we are together. I just do not understand why anyone non religious would WANT to get married.

Scarecrow Repair
08-08-2010, 9:42 AM
By virtue of being a Constitutional amendment, it can't be Unconstitutional.

For the second time, I point out that everything in a STATE constitution must be constitutional according to the FEDERAL constitution. Otherwise California, New York, any state which wanted to could ban guns or enable slavery.

Can you not understand that incredibly basic fundamental aspect of law?

Scarecrow Repair
08-08-2010, 9:44 AM
I simply pointed out some unfortunate truths

No, you pointed out your own bias.

[citation needed] if you want to assert that such silly claims are truth.

Tacom
08-08-2010, 9:48 AM
What baffles me is why do Atheists and gays want to get married in the first place. Marriage in this country since its founding has been a religious ceremony. That's why our marriages are performed in churches. Honestly, I never thought the government should have ANY involvement in marriage whatsoever. I believe that if you are atheist or gay or what have you, you should get a civil union that shows hey we are together. I just do not understand why anyone non religious would WANT to get married.

Being gay precludes someone from being religious or believing in a higher power? That's news to me.

Scarecrow Repair
08-08-2010, 9:48 AM
What baffles me is why do Atheists and gays want to get married in the first place. Marriage in this country since its founding has been a religious ceremony. That's why our marriages are performed in churches. Honestly, I never thought the government should have ANY involvement in marriage whatsoever. I believe that if you are atheist or gay or what have you, you should get a civil union that shows hey we are together. I just do not understand why anyone non religious would WANT to get married.

Because "marriage" has legal connotations that "civil union" doesn't. As to why the state gets involved anyway, it's because religious statists of years past wanted the state involved. They wanted the force of law behind "marriage". They got what they wanted. Now their moral descendants have changed their mind. Whoops! We didn't really mean that! We want our marbles back!

lazs
08-08-2010, 9:57 AM
scarecrow is correct.. they do not want to get married except for the bennies that the rest of us will pay for. The state should be out of all marriage but it is not. It has conferred bennies on marriage..

Now everyone wants a piece of the pie. Giving the bennies to gays and no one else makes things less fair for the rest not more fair.

Also.. I still have never understood people who claim to be gun toting liberals.. well.. maybe I understand that part because most liberals like to be exempt from the laws they make but.. If you do believe in individual and inherent rights such as the right to keep and bear arms.. How do you square that with supporting liberal politicians who overwhelmingly not only do not believe in individual rights but stay up nights figuring out new ways to destroy em?

They don't just have an opinion about gun rights.. they actively seek out ways to take away ours. If you vote for them then you certainly are no friend of mine.. gun owner or not.

dragonbait1a
08-08-2010, 10:08 AM
What baffles me is why do Atheists and gays want to get married in the first place. Marriage in this country since its founding has been a religious ceremony. That's why our marriages are performed in churches. Honestly, I never thought the government should have ANY involvement in marriage whatsoever. I believe that if you are atheist or gay or what have you, you should get a civil union that shows hey we are together. I just do not understand why anyone non religious would WANT to get married.

Well there are tax and employment benefits, legal status as next-of-kin, guardianship of children, various corporate policies that empower spouses. (such as Costco Membership Cards).

Not to mention it's a publicly accepted declaration of responsibility and commitment. "Celebrating love in it's most beautiful form, a binding legal contract!"-Homer Simpson.

I'm not particularly religious and my wife is a lapsed Catholic. We were married in a ceremony on Dec 31, 1999. We have 2 kids, I work and she stays at home. Gay Marriage IN NO WAY threatens our "lifestyle."

Even if I were a person who believed that being gay was "sinful," I cannot comprehend how affording them the same civil rights and responsibilities under the LAW would threaten my lifestyle. There are people of other religions who have other marriage beliefs (Muslims come to mind). Saying that one belief is right and all others is wrong is an affront to "Separation of Church and State."

Gray Peterson already pointed out why "removing marriage from the state" won't work. So the answer that is most free is to let Consenting Adults marry how they choose. If consenting adults believe differently why should your rules apply to them? A Similar case would be "Applying the kosher foods laws to ALL food production."

RGB

Tacom
08-08-2010, 10:15 AM
/facepalm. If you think only "liberals" want to take away gun rights then you have had the wool pulled over your eyes. Do you know who the founders of the Brady Bunch are, and who was one of its supporters that urged Congress to pass the Brady Bill? Also who signed the Mulford Act in California? Hint: he is one of the "beacons" of Conservatism to most people.

As to the bolded part, probably the same way people who claim to love freedom voted for conservatives who supported the Patriot Act. Lots of freedom loving in that law.

In other words, don't be fooled by the liberal vs. conservative game.


Also.. I still have never understood people who claim to be gun toting liberals.. well.. maybe I understand that part because most liberals like to be exempt from the laws they make but.. If you do believe in individual and inherent rights such as the right to keep and bear arms.. How do you square that with supporting liberal politicians who overwhelmingly not only do not believe in individual rights but stay up nights figuring out new ways to destroy em?

They don't just have an opinion about gun rights.. they actively seek out ways to take away ours. If you vote for them then you certainly are no friend of mine.. gun owner or not.

dragonbait1a
08-08-2010, 10:16 AM
scarecrow is correct.. they do not want to get married except for the bennies that the rest of us will pay for. The state should be out of all marriage but it is not. It has conferred bennies on marriage..

Now everyone wants a piece of the pie. Giving the bennies to gays and no one else makes things less fair for the rest not more fair.


Most of the benefits conferred by marriage are NOT paid from the public coffers. The tax break isn't "Paid," it's saved. Insurance and employment benefits already have contributions by the members,Next-of-kin and guardianship are free (and can SAVE the government money). I suppose you mean Social Security benefits and similar "survivor" adjustments. Maybe I missed some?

And Again in a previous post Gray pointed out how the majority of married people won't give up their legal status. Getting government out of marriage is a solution, but a very unlikely one.

RGB

missiondude
08-08-2010, 10:25 AM
You know, I wonder why we tolerate the government having their paws in ANY marriage, gay or otherwise. Even if we accept the premise that society would stop working if the government couldn't keep track of who was married and who wasn't (a premise full of bull), then it seems to be the government should only be handing out civil unions to everyone, and let marriage be a completely separate thing that churches as private entities can elect to do.


Bingo, we have a winner... My wife and I would be first in line to trade in our marrage for a civil union. Get government out of the business of religion altogether.

lazs
08-08-2010, 10:31 AM
dragon.. to say that most of the bennies are not paid for by us is the same as saying taxing business will have no effect on the price of the goods it produces.

And of course the government is not going to get out of the marriage business. I realize that but.. since we already have to live with that.. Why make it worse by adding another group (of many) to the list?

The idea is that marriage, like education.. is good for us.. all of us.. I do not agree but.. that is the thinking and the justification.. A man and a woman create a child and raise that child for the rest of us.

If we have to add groups to the list who get the bennies then we would be much better off adding say polygamists.

Myself.. I don't want to add anyone. Adding gays made things less fair not more fair.

And.. who else will benefit? obviously divorce lawyers. Who will get hurt? Most likely churches.. I think gays have been holding back on the lawsuits for the big kalifornia payday. What happens when Bruce and chad go to the church and ask to be married there? If the pastor or priest or whatever is honest.. then it would seem Bruce and Chad have a damn good case in court.

bwiese
08-08-2010, 10:59 AM
/facepalm. If you think only "liberals" want to take away gun rights then you have had the wool pulled over your eyes. Do you know who the founders of the Brady Bunch are.....

In other words, don't be fooled by the liberal vs. conservative game.


In CA, LCAV often uses ABAG (Assn of Bay Area Gov'ts) staff as their moles.

Many of these are Republicans.

And Republicans provided the key votes to pass CA AW bans.

dunndeal
08-08-2010, 11:05 AM
PS
Using the word "bennies" is annoying.


"bennies" are small white pills that keep you awake for extended periods and make most people who use them extremely irritating.

CalBear
08-08-2010, 11:23 AM
I'll just put in my 2 cents. I am generally for granting as many rights to people as possible. I have no interest in denying gay people the right to marry. I don't think anti-gun folk should have an interest in denying people the right to keep and bear arms.

The 2A arguments are fine for the courts, but using 2A to argue your views on guns when dealing with an anti-gun person will get you nowhere. Most have made up their mind that it is a militia-only right. What is far more effective is attacking the very core of their philosophies.

I think it's safe to say that, on average, most extremely anti-gun people are at the same time pro gay marriage. The constitutional contradiction there is funny, but going after their blind prejudice is the best way to give them a dose of their own medicine.

Most of them will tell you it's a lack of familiarity and experience with gay people that makes people so prejudiced against them. There is some truth to this -- I've commonly found that when a person knows several gay people and has friends who are gay, they see that they aren't just corrupt heathens, and that they are good people too.

By the same token, I think most anti gun people have little to no experience with guns, besides what they see in the media. Let them know how their blind prejudice against guns parallels the anti-gay crowd. Really embarrass them with this comparison. Show them they are carrying out the same gross bigotry as anti-gay people. Tell them they are capable of blind hate, irrational disdain, distrust and bigotry.

Maybe if guns were not so abstract to them, they would not be so biased against them. Once you actually take gun safety, use guns, and know gun owners, you see that the gun world is not just made up of a bunch of beer guzzling rednecks who leave their guns on the floor for their infant to play with. I urge anyone who has a discussion with a progressive about gun rights to invoke these points. These people are VERY proud of their acceptance of everyone and everything. Let them know how shameful it is that they don't apply this to guns!

Californio
08-08-2010, 11:29 AM
All right, get the US Congress, and the 50 state legislatures to do it. You'll run into a problem with the ADF and most heterosexual couples. They have a property interest in the license, ya know....

I know Gray, but in the big picture, Government derives it's power over us by all these contrivances of the Public Good crap. My Father is 91 and just was treated like crap by the Bureaucrat at the DMV for a renewal, $31.00 please. Funny when he started driving you did not even need to have a Drivers License to operate a motor vehicle.

Once in California we needed a blood test for a Marriage License, now nothing, $$$ please. Its a TAX on peoples right to Contract. I am for dismantling the TAX structure that Government uses in every facet of our lives. The big marriage scam revolves around Inheritance Tax, right of survivorship, its a money game. I think it is time to end the game.

I would like to see domestic unions, contracts, for the Legal System to be happy with survivorship/property issues/dissolution and Marriage which in my day was a Religious Sacrament kept in the Church of your choice, if you choose to add it.

Government has wrapped it money grabbing tentacles around a purely Religious issue, time for a Divorce.

Monte
08-08-2010, 11:48 AM
Prop 8 is about the "same gender" marriage, not "gay marriage" and, strictly speaking, does not fall under gay rights or discrimination against protected groups. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is, e.g., when a person applies for a job and the outcome is different based on the sexual orientation alone (gay =go fish, straight=you are hired).

Consider "gay marriage". Technically, it is currently completely legal - any straight or gay man can marry any straight or gay woman. Now consider "same gender" marriage. Two same gender persons cannot get married whether they are straight or gay. In both cases, the outcome of whether one can marry or not is independent of that person's sexual orientation, which by definition means that the policy does not discriminate based on the sexual orientation - one cannot discriminate on the attribute that is not taken into account.

If the "same gender" marriage was to be accepted (Prop 8 struck down), it would apply equally to gay and straight persons. Certainly no gay person would imply that two straight men or women would not be allowed to marry. For example, two college buddies could get married so that one gets the green card. Or, a straight guy with a good job could marry an unemployed straight friend so that he can lower his taxes while putting his buddy on his health insurance policy.

The 2A infringements are much more fundamental than anything Prop 8 addresses. The former is a right that existed forever (but was just recently recognized as having existed forever), which is being affected by bureaucrats. The latter creates a new privilege which is highly desired (and rightfully so) by the gay community, but is non-discriminatory either way (whether Prop 8 is struck down or not). The majority does not have a say in rights; the majority does have a say in privileges.

If I were cynical I would say that extending the definition of marriage to include same gender couples is like extending the definition of a child to include a gun in order to bypass the GFSZ (you must be allowed to take your kid to school). Since I am not cynical, I am not going to say it. But if I was…

It sounds as though you're saying that gays are not discriminated against because they can always marry someone they would have no interest or desire to marry: that being someone of the opposite sex. That's like saying that DC's newly enacted gun laws (or any other number of ridiculous restrictions around the country) don't infringe on 2A rights. Sure, you may technically be able to partially exercise your rights, once you jump through enough hoops, but the end result is the same. De facto bans are still bans.

As for marriages of convenience, you act as though they're not already happening between straight couples every day.

sandman21
08-08-2010, 11:50 AM
Well there are tax and employment benefits, legal status as next-of-kin, guardianship of children, various corporate policies that empower spouses. (such as Costco Membership Cards).

The whole freedom argument does not really hold any water with me, since marriage has always created a different class of people, gay couples simply want those privileges. However a couple who is not married cannot receive the same privileges, unless they have the state sign off on their partnership.
I wonder how long until polygamist's sue for multiple partner marriage?

P.S. I think this thread should be moved?

dragonbait1a
08-08-2010, 12:12 PM
dragon.. to say that most of the bennies are not paid for by us is the same as saying taxing business will have no effect on the price of the goods it produces.

And of course the government is not going to get out of the marriage business. I realize that but.. since we already have to live with that.. Why make it worse by adding another group (of many) to the list?

The idea is that marriage, like education.. is good for us.. all of us.. I do not agree but.. that is the thinking and the justification.. A man and a woman create a child and raise that child for the rest of us.

If we have to add groups to the list who get the bennies then we would be much better off adding say polygamists.

Myself.. I don't want to add anyone. Adding gays made things less fair not more fair.

And.. who else will benefit? obviously divorce lawyers. Who will get hurt? Most likely churches.. I think gays have been holding back on the lawsuits for the big kalifornia payday. What happens when Bruce and chad go to the church and ask to be married there? If the pastor or priest or whatever is honest.. then it would seem Bruce and Chad have a damn good case in court.

What benefits that we pay for are going to increase because of gay marriage? Other then Social Security survivor benefits, I cannot think of any, and I'd like to know.

Health insurance etc are paid by employer and employee contribution. Is your position is that increasing the number eligible for these benefits is going to raise prices? I don't see that change being a significant part of inflation.

Why increase the numbers of people who have the option of getting married? Equal treatment and personal freedoms. If consenting adults want to engage in the civil contract that we shorthand as "marriage" they should be able to regardless of ethnicity, religion (or lack thereof) or sexual orientation. If there is genuine assent and contractual capacity, they should have the ability to get married.

Marriage is voluntary, if people wish to enter into it they may, if not there is no law forcing them to. Marriage is different from compulsory education in several respects. Not the least of which that compulsory education applies to minors and marriage applies to adults. The raising of children is but one of the marriage rights and issues. It is not the totality of marriage, or a reason to prohibit marriage to a couple. Example. A quadriplegic man and a woman get married. His injuries prevent procreation. Their marriage rights are unrestricted.

It has already been explained by more knowledgeable people then me how this will give committed couples the legal tools to protect themselves. I have nothing better to add to that point. Also a link was posted above on a CA law that PREVENTS churches from being sued because of whom the may or may not marry. As long as there is a civil alternative any such lawsuit would be groundless. Not to mention there are churches and ordained individuals that will provide this service.

RGB

Mofo-Kang
08-08-2010, 12:22 PM
I wish everyone who read your post would focus on this sentence and take it to heart. Gun rights advocates can be their own worst enemies sometimes. Just because someone doesn't happen to have the same political party, religion, or stance on things like gay rights or global warming, it doesn't preclude that person from supporting the right to keep and bear arms.

We're all supporters of the Second Amendment here, regardless of whether we voted for Obama, McCain, or Dr. Insano. Some people would rather kowtow to a political line than accept allies from the other side of the spectrum. So stupid. So childish.

Bingo. I'm as liberal as the day is long, and I own a gun and support the idea of "shall issue" CCW permits statewide. And I'm not the only one, not by a long shot. Some of you guys who bristle at the attempts to stereotype gun owners ought to take a long, hard look at the stereotypes you perpetuate yourselves.

dragonbait1a
08-08-2010, 12:31 PM
The whole freedom argument does not really hold any water with me, since marriage has always created a different class of people, gay couples simply want those privileges. However a couple who is not married cannot receive the same privileges, unless they have the state sign off on their partnership.
I wonder how long until polygamist's sue for multiple partner marriage?

P.S. I think this thread should be moved?

The issue there is one of choice. It's pretty difficult to assign these rights and responsibilities to a couple without the contract saying they want them. How do couple that want these rights and responsibilities get them? By MARRYING! Otherwise the relationship exercises their right to NOT be bound by the responsibilities (and rights) of marriage by NOT getting married.

No one is saying that unmarried relationships are bad or wrong, but there is a difference. The difference is one of legal contract. Allowing that contract to be between two people of the same gender doesn't change the difference for people without a contract.

It's similar to business organization. There are both Sole Proprietorships and Partnerships (for reasons of clarity I'm omitting all forms of corporation). Any person can start a sole proprietorship, your assets are the companies assets and the companies liabilities are your personal liabilities. If you decide to take a Partner into your business then you are responsible for their liabilities and they are responsible for yours. Marriage is the same. A business may have a relationship with another individual that is not a partnership. It could be a purchase, job, employment or investment. These are like other relationships individuals could have.

(the above is greatly abridged for reasons of clarity, consult your attorney before starting a business)

RGB

Mofo-Kang
08-08-2010, 12:35 PM
Yes, I do believe homosexual behavior and lifestyles to be fundamentally wrong. Lord forbid we have any sort of ethics or morals. :rolleyes: Ultimately, I believe that without a virtuous society, liberty cannot survive. .

Something tells me you would never in a million years accept an argument by fundamentalist muslims that the state should ban shaving beards on similar grounds. "Why, it's my choice whether or not I should shave! Who are these guys to use the state to enforce their own religious morals? It doesn't hurt any of them if I shave my beard, so I should be free to do so!"


In any case, just because some (I'm sure not all) of those opposed to homosexuality or to altering the definition of marriage to suit their lifestyles have at least some religious justifications for their beliefs does not make this an "establishment of religion." That is quite absurd and a HUGE stretch. What is our official church, btw? .

It doesn't take the creation of an official church for the government to have violated the Establishment Clause. The government providing support to or bias against one religious viewpoint over others is what that clause is all about.

Not ignoring them at all. I don't believe they proscribe a state from maintaining a defintion of marriage that has existed in the same basic form as long as man can remmeber.

Except that historically, there HAVE been societies with same-sex marriages, and the "traditional" (even BIBLICAL, if you want to go there) definition of marriage for most of humanity's existence has been a man with multiple wives. You cool with using THAT definition?


I certainly don't think the authors of those amendments had that in mind. This is not an issue of natural rights. Ultimately, a homosexual person can get married under Prop. 8. Unions between two people of the same gender simply do not fit the definition of marriage, whether one or both of the members are straight or gay, and rightfully so. Straight and gay people are being treated equally in this regard.

Yeah, just like the law equally bans millionaires and the homeless from sleeping in the park. And the same argument can be applied to laws banning interracial marriages (hey, interracial couples can still get married--just not to each other!). And they fail the constitutionality test for the same reasons.

Mofo-Kang
08-08-2010, 1:01 PM
The issue of gay marrage is different than the 2nd Amendment. Regarding Prop 8, the people of CA wanted the issue to get on the ballot. It got on the ballot and was voted on. It was made a part of the California Constitution. By virtue of being a Constitutional Amendment that was legally passed, it can't be ruled Unconstitutional.

It can't be ruled unconstitutional in context of the state constitution. If it violates the federal constitution, however, it can be.


The people who didn't like the fact that Prop 8 was passed will continue to fight it until they get what they want even though the people have already spoken. It's all politics and money.

Yes, because so many people stand to get rich if gays are allowed to marry...

Vox
08-08-2010, 1:03 PM
Prop 8 is about the "same gender" marriage, not "gay marriage" and, strictly speaking, does not fall under gay rights or discrimination against protected groups. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is, e.g., when a person applies for a job and the outcome is different based on the sexual orientation alone (gay =go fish, straight=you are hired).

This is definitely discrimination based on sexual orientation. A gay person can't marry someone they love because you believe their love is immoral in some way. That's denial of a right (the right to marry who you love) based on orientation.

Consider "gay marriage". Technically, it is currently completely legal - any straight or gay man can marry any straight or gay woman. Now consider "same gender" marriage. Two same gender persons cannot get married whether they are straight or gay. In both cases, the outcome of whether one can marry or not is independent of that person's sexual orientation, which by definition means that the policy does not discriminate based on the sexual orientation - one cannot discriminate on the attribute that is not taken into account.

This is the same argument from Loving v. Virginia. "Well she could marry a black man and he could marry a white woman, there's nothing stopping them from doing that, interracial marriage just isn't marriage. it's an abomination"

If the "same gender" marriage was to be accepted (Prop 8 struck down), it would apply equally to gay and straight persons. Certainly no gay person would imply that two straight men or women would not be allowed to marry. For example, two college buddies could get married so that one gets the green card. Or, a straight guy with a good job could marry an unemployed straight friend so that he can lower his taxes while putting his buddy on his health insurance policy.

In spite of what you saw in "I know pronounce you Chuck and Larry" I don't think that happens as much as you might want to believe.

The 2A infringements are much more fundamental than anything Prop 8 addresses. The former is a right that existed forever (but was just recently recognized as having existed forever), which is being affected by bureaucrats. The latter creates a new privilege which is highly desired (and rightfully so) by the gay community, but is non-discriminatory either way (whether Prop 8 is struck down or not). The majority does not have a say in rights; the majority does have a say in privileges.

The right to marry is also a right which has existed forever but is only now being accepted for certain people. Yeah, back in the day people would marry somone ofthe opposite sex in order to hide who they really are but do you really think we should keep doing that?

If I were cynical I would say that extending the definition of marriage to include same gender couples is like extending the definition of a child to include a gun in order to bypass the GFSZ (you must be allowed to take your kid to school). Since I am not cynical, I am not going to say it. But if I was…
That argument just doesn't make a lick of sense.

sandman21
08-08-2010, 1:07 PM
The issue there is one of choice. It's pretty difficult to assign these rights and responsibilities to a couple without the contract saying they want them. How do couple that want these rights and responsibilities get them? By MARRYING! Otherwise the relationship exercises their right to NOT be bound by the responsibilities (and rights) of marriage by NOT getting married.
No one is saying that unmarried relationships are bad or wrong, but there is a difference. The difference is one of legal contract. Allowing that contract to be between two people of the same gender doesn't change the difference for people without a contract.
RGB
A piece of paper should not allow a set of people to have more rights than another. That is the only difference between married and non-married couples. A marriage license does not give more responsibilities it only gives them more rights. I am not arguing against same sex marriage, I just don't like the idea that people are given privileges for submitting their marriage to the state.

P.S. I also don't people it to be a choice.

mtptwo
08-08-2010, 1:17 PM
Yes, because so many people stand to get rich if gays are allowed to marry...

Well, it was estimated by the state that California would loss 100 million a year in fees and taxation of marriages between same sex couples. ;)

rugershooter
08-08-2010, 1:18 PM
For the second time, I point out that everything in a STATE constitution must be constitutional according to the FEDERAL constitution. Otherwise California, New York, any state which wanted to could ban guns or enable slavery.

Can you not understand that incredibly basic fundamental aspect of law?

I agree that the state Constitution must not conflict with the US Constitution. But what specific section in the US Constitution prohibits legislation like Prop 8 and protects homosexual marraige?

Vox
08-08-2010, 1:26 PM
Just as when arguing with the faithful about the existence of god, or to more accurately describe the situation, when being hassled by a believer for not believing in their deity, I have yet to see an argument posed here with any validity. They are all based on absurd notions that gays are diseased/immoral, that gays can marry opposite sex gays or that marriage isn't really a civil right.

These arguments are all from straight out of the handbooks of the faithful and until I can see a better argument they should be as wholly dismissed as the idea that a pistol grip makes a rifle more more dangerous but a bullet button makes it safe again.

For a minute let's take a look at the real legal argument here. To preface, I'm not a lawyer, I have no legal training just an above room temperature IQ and too much time on my hands.

First. Marriage is a civil right. That is a fact of law. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) ["Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival"]

Second, in order for civil rights or fundamental freedoms of United States Citizens to be infringed upon by the government they need to pass a test of scrutiny evaluating the government's need to accomplish a legitimate end to counterbalance rationally the infringement on that right. Most basically this is called the "rational basis review". United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938). It requires that the infringement is done while pursuing a legitimate government end. However with regards to marriage there is no legitimate government end to be pursued in denying any two people the right to marry. If there is a legitimate government end to be achieved that argument has not been made.

Banning gay marriage fails the Rational Basis test and should therefore be, itself, prohibited government action. However when dealing with a "Suspect classification," that is a group with a history of being targeted for discrimination as with homosexuals further scrutiny is required, this test is called "Strict Scrutiny"

In order to pass "Strict Scrutiny" it must pass three tests. The law must serve a "Compelling government interest" which requires it be more then just a legitimate government ends as with rational basis. It must be narrowly tailored to achieve that end and it must be the least restrictive means of achieving that end. In order for it to pass the second two parts of the test we have to first know what the "compelling government interest" is. Since there isn't even a legitimate government end there can be no compelling interest so we can't narrowly tailor anything nor can we be sure it is the least restrictive means to achieve that goal. In failing the rational basis test it clearly fails strict scrutiny review and is therefore an illegal prohibition under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States' Constitution.

Until we can see a legitimate government purpose, let alone compelling interest, the we cannot legally prevent gays from marrying. And by the way "it's icky" isn't compelling interest.

Again, I'm not a lawyer or even a law student but I believe that adequately sums up the situation here.

dragonbait1a
08-08-2010, 1:29 PM
A piece of paper should not allow a set of people to have more rights than another. That is the only difference between married and non-married couples. A marriage license does not give more responsibilities it only gives them more rights. I am not arguing against same sex marriage, I just don't like the idea that people are given privileges for submitting their marriage to the state.

P.S. I also don't people it to be a choice.

Hmmm... responsibilities of marriage. Responsibility for debt, alimony (if divorced), responsibility for household. There are more.

Marriage is the personal equivalent of a business Partnership. Assets and Liabilities are shared between the participants, as illustrated in my previous post.

It sounds to me like your argument is a more extreme variant of "Get government out of marriage." And you're welcome to your opinion, but the issue here is that there are legal rights and responsibilities granted to people who enter into a contract. The law also creates different tax liability and other rights and responsibilities to business owners. Abandoning this structure would destroy all Partnerships, Corporations and any form of business other then the Sole Proprietorship.

RGB

2009_gunner
08-08-2010, 1:34 PM
I agree that the state Constitution must not conflict with the US Constitution. But what specific section in the US Constitution prohibits legislation like Prop 8 and protects homosexual marraige?

According to the judge, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause) from the US Constitution.

More is interpretation of the decision is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger#Decision).

Mofo-Kang
08-08-2010, 1:35 PM
Now everyone wants a piece of the pie. Giving the bennies to gays and no one else makes things less fair for the rest not more fair.

I'm sorry, you seem to be under the impression that making it legal for gays to marry makes it illegal for straights to do so.


Also.. I still have never understood people who claim to be gun toting liberals.. well.. maybe I understand that part because most liberals like to be exempt from the laws they make but..

Oh, ho ho!


If you do believe in individual and inherent rights such as the right to keep and bear arms.. How do you square that with supporting liberal politicians who overwhelmingly not only do not believe in individual rights but stay up nights figuring out new ways to destroy em?

You're not describing me or any liberal I know of.


They don't just have an opinion about gun rights.. they actively seek out ways to take away ours. If you vote for them then you certainly are no friend of mine.. gun owner or not.

I guess I'll just have to find some way to sleep at night...

Mofo-Kang
08-08-2010, 1:42 PM
And.. who else will benefit? obviously divorce lawyers. Who will get hurt? Most likely churches.. I think gays have been holding back on the lawsuits for the big kalifornia payday. What happens when Bruce and chad go to the church and ask to be married there? If the pastor or priest or whatever is honest.. then it would seem Bruce and Chad have a damn good case in court.

No church will be required to marry anyone. Right now, if Jim and Bertha go to a catholic church and ask to be married, but aren't even nominally catholic, they'll be turned away just like a gay couple would be. They can't be sued for doing THAT, either.

You REALLY think there are gay couples out there who are just poised to go try to marry in a gay-hating church so they can get turned down and file a lawsuit? Really? Maybe there are...just like all those jewish couples who are filing lawsuits in droves as they're turned down for marriages in mosques.

Mofo-Kang
08-08-2010, 1:48 PM
If the "same gender" marriage was to be accepted (Prop 8 struck down), it would apply equally to gay and straight persons. Certainly no gay person would imply that two straight men or women would not be allowed to marry. For example, two college buddies could get married so that one gets the green card. Or, a straight guy with a good job could marry an unemployed straight friend so that he can lower his taxes while putting his buddy on his health insurance policy. …

And yeah, I guess that might just happen a little less often (straight guys not wanting people to assume they're gay, generally) than platonic male/female couples marry for immigration, tax or insurance benefits. It hardly ever happens. In the case of immigration, there are interviews and investigations and harsh penalties to prevent it happening. For taxes and insurance, it hardly ever happens because the complications and headaches involved make it not worth the trouble.

Hunt
08-08-2010, 2:14 PM
You cannot split opposition to Prop 8 from gun rights; support of Prop 8 is logically inconsistent with support of gunfights and reflects a statist worldview.

Freedom comes with the burden of having to tolerate things you don't like. This is why I don't shoot people wearing Birkenstocks.
well you can't call it a free country if only some people can have freedom.

Gray Peterson
08-08-2010, 2:44 PM
I personally think that legislatures really don't want to touch this issue from a financial standpoint. If they legally expand the definition of marriage, then they must offer the same tax advantages for married couples from our current definition. With the debate focused on moral or other grounds, they don't have to address the potential monetary loss to their coffers.

The Congressional Budget Office disagrees with you. (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5559) Read the effects of outlays section and you'll see what I'm talking about.

If it isn't money, then what is it?



And.. who else will benefit? obviously divorce lawyers. Who will get hurt? Most likely churches.. I think gays have been holding back on the lawsuits for the big kalifornia payday. What happens when Bruce and chad go to the church and ask to be married there? If the pastor or priest or whatever is honest.. then it would seem Bruce and Chad have a damn good case in court.

What in the hell are you talking about? (http://dist03.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC=%7BF0DFD1A5-1C7B-4F09-9F09-C48A423D1072%7D&DE=%7B78417563-3A39-4636-BE6F-F61C958D9DA7%7D)

UPDATE: Btw, I just noticed that SB906 hasn't actually been signed yet. My bad. My understanding is that this bill will be voted on in the Assembly next week and it'll go to senate for a quick concurrence, and then go to the Governor. The bill isn't constitutionally necessary, but makes it more clear and codified in statute, and even if repealed, wouldn't remove the constitutional protections.

You didn't have a problem before, and even more so after this legislation is passed. If interracial couples cannot force churches to marry them in the churches, then why do you think gay couples will have more success in this regard?

Monte
08-08-2010, 3:14 PM
The Congressional Budget Office disagrees with you. (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5559) Read the effects of outlays section and you'll see what I'm talking about.

If it isn't money, then what is it?

As a friend often points out, legalizing same-sex marriage could even be good for the economy (note that I haven't read all of the CBO analysis, so forgive me if I'm repeating something already mentioned). Weddings are big business!

cmaynes
08-08-2010, 3:18 PM
It's politically correct to support gay rights. It is not politically correct to support gun rights.

Arnold is against Gun Rights too-

As to gay rights, if anyone would like to post ANY mention of restrictions of rights due to sexual preference from the Constitution I would say you might have a leg to stand on- Prop 8 BANNED as in prevented, same sex marriage in California. It is unconstitutional in the same way banning inter-racial marriage is unconstitutional. Using the same logic, gun ownership could be denied to sub sections of the population on unconstitutional grounds. I am surprised that people don't see that....

cmaynes
08-08-2010, 3:21 PM
Freedom comes with the burden of having to tolerate things you don't like. This is why I don't shoot people wearing Birkenstocks.


SIGLINE>>>>

Gray Peterson
08-08-2010, 3:48 PM
I want to thank everyone who has participated in this thread who has for the most part kept this discussion above board and therefor kept the thread from getting zapped. Good work.

Gray Peterson
08-08-2010, 3:48 PM
Arnold is against Gun Rights too-

As to gay rights, if anyone would like to post ANY mention of restrictions of rights due to sexual preference from the Constitution I would say you might have a leg to stand on- Prop 8 BANNED as in prevented, same sex marriage in California. It is unconstitutional in the same way banning inter-racial marriage is unconstitutional. Using the same logic, gun ownership could be denied to sub sections of the population on unconstitutional grounds. I am surprised that people don't see that....

I made that argument I believe either in the first or second page of this thread.

cmaynes
08-08-2010, 4:10 PM
The whole freedom argument does not really hold any water with me, since marriage has always created a different class of people, gay couples simply want those privileges. However a couple who is not married cannot receive the same privileges, unless they have the state sign off on their partnership.
I wonder how long until polygamist's sue for multiple partner marriage?

P.S. I think this thread should be moved?

perhaps it should be looked at- (polygamy) the history of the Conflict between the LDS and US Govt is a violent one....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds–Tucker_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_Order

berto
08-08-2010, 4:48 PM
What baffles me is why do Atheists and gays want to get married in the first place. Marriage in this country since its founding has been a religious ceremony. That's why our marriages are performed in churches. Honestly, I never thought the government should have ANY involvement in marriage whatsoever. I believe that if you are atheist or gay or what have you, you should get a civil union that shows hey we are together. I just do not understand why anyone non religious would WANT to get married.

There's no option for gays or atheists to get civil unions as the actual license issued and accepted by the state is called a marriage license. Change the name so everybody gets a civil union license and there should be little problem. Note though that folks will say they're married regardless of the license's name change or where the ceremony was performed. I'd wager those most upset with the idea of gay marriage will still get upset if gays in civil unions refer to themselves as being married.

Meplat
08-08-2010, 5:19 PM
Oh, and you're doing quite well with it I see. Over 55 percent divorce rate, and Britney Spears gets married in Vegas and starts divorce proceedings 3 days later. Yeah, you guys definitely earned the right to marry. :rolleyes:

"You people", who people? Not only does this sound like a person demanding to be taken aboard a boat he knows is sinking, it sounds like a bigot demanding to be taken aboard a boat filled with people he hates that he knows is sinking. This is desperation deserving of pity.

By law, married spouses are next of kin, automatically, with little to no questioning, especially important during family emergency. The Terri Shiavo situation was a testament to how powerful the marriage license is in terms of court and legal interactions. If Michael and Terri were instead Michael and Terrence, "Terrance" would have been kept in a persistant vegitative state and brain dead for the rest of his life. The autopsy proved Michael was correct and the Schindlers were wrong.

Seven years of legal court battles would have destroyed whatever wills, medical proxies, and powers of attorneys that Michael would have had if he did NOT have that marriage license. In fact, because of Amendment 2 in Florida, the courts are commanded to completely ignore anything but marriage licenses in terms of next of kin decisions.

Reason tells me you are casting a ridiculously large and exaggerated loop hear. But I will not spend the next month researching every law in every state to prove it. I do know that CA law allows many vehicles and interments to address these concerns quite satisfactorily; it’s an expensive legal hassle and is wrong. But then so is CCW, with less chance of being successful. I se GM a lot like I do UOC in that regard, I understand it, I support those that feel they need to do it, I just hope they are not biting off more than they can chew. In both cases I think being less provocative would be the better long term strategy at the time. And as with UOC or CCW, I DO NOT support any who would use it to infringe the rights of others. "I admire your courage, but I question your judgment." ( Don Meredith)

In my area, a full 50 percent of all "hate crime" attacks (both terrorist threatening and actual violent crime) are against gays. Getting beaten, curb-stomped, sexually assaulted by cops for fun, acid thrown in our faces, sort of radicalizes people.

Yes, and I understand the whole extremism in defense of liberty thing, but I think you will have to admit it has been getting better, less frequent. This will make it worse. It will be a one step forward and three steps back thing. Don't let the radicalization actually harm your cause.
"They just want to use interracial marriage as a bludgeon against those who have personal moral reservations about mixing of the races...."

Exact. Same. Wording.

And if a preacher doesn’t want to marry an interracial couple he shouldn't have to. Or cater their wedding. Or anything else. It's called freedom of association. Live and let live. There has already been a case in Colorado where a gay couple destroyed a mom & pop photography business for declining to record their wedding. That's wrong and you know it. That's not liberty. And there is an element in the GM movement that will happily do this over and over again for spite and profit. I am a libertarian and that and the backlash it will bring on the gay community, at least short term are may only reservations about GM.

If interracial couples cannot sue a church for refusing to marry them in their actual church (there are very few churches that actually do that, mostly associated with white supremacist groups), gay couples can't do that either.

You are mincing words, *****footing and obfuscating here and I think you know it. Any pastor who is willing to do generic wedding services like the one performed on a CA beach last week end for my nephew and his new bride, can be sued if he declines to do a ceremony for a gay couple. Beyond that, florists, caterers, wedding planners, photographers, have no protection at all. That's just plain wrong. It will happen. It HAS happened. And it will happen again. It will be a tiny fraction of the gay community that will be that vindictive and stupid but the whole community will suffer the backlash. I hope you have a plan to get these folks under control, but I'm not holding my breath.

You Also, why in the living hell would I want to get married in a church that doesn't accept it? And don't give me that bull**** about you knowing gay activists in San Francisco who are "high up in organizations" now who have that goal (correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the last time we had a go around it was you who told us that). San Francisco political activists as a general matter (with exceptions of course, hey Tom!) have very strange ideas about governmental and legal control over churches which don't really exist anywhere else.

You are wrong. I don't know any 'high ups’ in SF and have never claimed to. I know so little about that world that I would never have a prayer of pulling of such a load of BS, even if I wanted to. I know gay people but most are friends or family, I'm sure I know more that I don’t know 'about'. The ones I know 'about' are naturally out of the closet, at least to friends and family. Which I think is a normal thing. I mean I might tell my brother or a buddy that I took Viagra (I don't), but I wouldn't announce it to the people on the buss! I expect most gays are like that, they just want to be left to peruse their lives in peace. Most are not particularly paranoid about others finding out but they don't drive around with queer nation bumper stickers either.

I expect you are pretty normal and would not want to get married in a church that didn't want you or hassle a florist, you would just go somewhere where they wanted to do the job for you and give your money to someone who wanted to do a great job and make your marriage a big success. But you know damn well that there is that one percent +/- that out of revenge, or payback for past transgressions, or whatever, will use it to harm others.


Legislatures will never pass it, and there's nothing in state liability code to do what you're talking about.

It's called the civil rights act.

In fact, just this year, the Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Protection Act (http://dist03.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC=%7BF0DFD1A5-1C7B-4F09-9F09-C48A423D1072%7D&DE=%7B78417563-3A39-4636-BE6F-F61C958D9DA7%7D) was signed into law, doing exactly the opposite of what you're talking about.

Simply put, Meplat, you are making up boogeymen.

I will check out the link but at this point I stand by my comments.



Tell me, what would happen if these same florists and photographers told an interracial opposite gendered couple that they wouldn't serve them because they have a religious objection to serving those who intermarry with those with the "Mark of Cain"?

They would have faced the same legal consequences under law due to protections based on race. Now, if you want to make the libertarian argument that there should be no anti-discrimination laws on private corporations at all, that's perfectly fine. Under such a scenario, no matter how immutable the characteristic is, they can be discriminated against. The problem here, also, is that the anti-discrimination laws also protect choices, too. Religion is a choice, yet it is still protected.

Either it's all or none. Either choices and immutable characteristics are protected, or none at all. Otherwise, if you support protecting race and religion but not our affection orientation, there can only be one reason: A believe that gays and their relationships are less. From a comment posting at Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/2010/08/07/one-day-in-the-life-of-ivana-denisovich-gallagher/comment-page-4/#comment-900579):

Multiple wrongs don’t make a right! Freedom of association is trump. Anyone who wants to force someone else to serve them against their will is despicable, and you are not going to cow me with the race card. And you don't even know why. LOL

What you and Randy misinterpret as judgment and fear, is really just pity and sadness.
I gather you have a partner and are raising children.I wish you every success and them every opportunity. Jonathan Rauch could make you his poster family — And yet, sadly yes, I am afraid, yours is less — not less worthy. but less. All people are equally worthy and if they love one another their love is always worthy but that equality of dignity does not make them the same or equal in nature in ways that command the same treatment.In a very real and undeniable way, my family is mine in a way that your family is not yours and can never be.And the reason marriage is — is the reason why my family is mine. Yours is not and cannot be in that way — no law can fix that for you — and it is nothing that I nor any State is denying you. You are denied that because of you — whether by choice or nature I could not say — and it really does not matter either way.

The above exactly sums up why the opponents to marriage for same gender couples believe the way that they believe. Because they are heterosexual, they deserve civil marriage. If someone is gay, even if it's by "nature", they are not deserving of civil marriage. They are "less".

As for me? I do not want or need G.R. Mead's or your ****ing pity and sadness, or personal respect. What I want the government at all levels to cease enforcing this irrational animus towards me. Dressing it up as "the people's will" doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.

We'll have that debate after I get my equal rights under law. America wasn't destroyed by interracial marriage, despite the fact that 75 percent of the population disapproved and still wanted to have it illegal a year after Loving v. Virginia enforced equal protection on racial classifications in issuing marriage licenses. I suggest listening to the Oral Arguments of Loving v. Virginia (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395) for perspective.

I have no animus toward you that concerns in any way your orientation, or your support for gay rights. I support gay rights. But I support everyone’s rights. GM is not going to bring down the nation. I just think it will be used badly by some from a standpoint of liberty.

I would be a liar if I told you I hold no animus at all. It's only a tiny bit and it was generated by being pounced and pummeled by someone who really did not have a clue what I believe or what I was saying. It seems as if you catch the slightest whiff of decent in the air you go into a rage and start transposing the statements and opinions of every dissenter you ever met upon a person who is just trying to have a reasonable discussion. True the abuses you describe can and will radicalize, but you seem to be too intelligent to be allowed to let that radicalism blind you to the greater cause. I am an honest to god fence sitter on this thing. Libertarians, at least good ones, put one hell of a lot of thought and contemplation into the balancing of rights. This, like abortion is one of the issues that make our heads hurt. I'm still sifting this thing, and if I find convincing evidence that I am wrong about the coming retaliation against the rights of others, I'm going to be with you. But quite frankly, the way you came on could have lost you the argument with a lot of people you could have converted otherwise. Would you rather rant or would you rather win. BTW, my kids are grown, my wife is gone, and this is not my first rodeo.

Finally:

"Think you used enough dynamite there Butch?" (The Sundance Kid):43:

Meplat
08-08-2010, 5:57 PM
I think you meant "gun rights", but nevertheless...

.

I thought of several cute quips for that. But I don't need to start a battle of whits, because I would be the unarmed man.:D

Meplat
08-08-2010, 6:00 PM
I believe that if you are atheist or gay or what have you, you should get a civil union that shows hey we are together. .

That would be fine if all rights and privileges accrued thereto.

andalusi
08-08-2010, 6:05 PM
What baffles me is why do Atheists and gays want to get married in the first place. Marriage in this country since its founding has been a religious ceremony.

They get married because unlike you, they are aware that it's not a religious ceremony. It comes with a bundle of legal rights and is also a profound symbol of commitment and love in this society (as well as many others). Religion only enters into it if you want it to.

That's why our marriages are performed in churches.

Funny, I could have sworn *I* got married in a mosque. And my sister-in-law got married on her grandmother's property in a lovely outdoor ceremony. And come to think of it, you can still get married by a Justice of the Peace---just like people have been able to do in the US since the beginning. Hey, some states have common law marriage: they don't even need to leave their home or apartment to get married.

Meplat
08-08-2010, 6:08 PM
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/357084.aspx

Net effect. A setback for gay unions in New Mexico.



No, you pointed out your own bias.

[citation needed] if you want to assert that such silly claims are truth.

Meplat
08-08-2010, 6:46 PM
that gays can marry opposite sex gays.....


WOW! Dictionary deffinition of "disfunctinal Family".:43:

dragonbait1a
08-08-2010, 6:48 PM
RE: contract v. fundamental enumerated right.

The Right to enter into contracts is also fundamental (and unenumerated). A contract must have Agreement (including Genuine Assent), Consideration, Legality and Contractual Capacity. Under current law same sex marriages are illegal. Thus same sex couple cannot have a valid marriage contract. Removing unconstitutional laws changes that. Thus allowing people to exercise their right to enter into a contract. This means that generally we are trending towards liberty (And that's a good thing).

2A v gay marriage coverage. To the layman watching TV guns are scary and dangerous. It takes careful wording to illustrate our point that firearms freedom won't result in "blood in the street." OTOH, gay marriage is MUCH easier to defend. And marriage is something EVERYBODY understands.

As I see it...
Mala in se is inherently bad or wrong. I see it as somebody gets hurt (murder, rape, theft), or the public is endangered (keeping toxins and/or explosives in your fridge for example). Mala Prohibitum (sp?) are technical violations. Things are are illegal that aren't necessarily wrong or bad. The NFA, GFSZ and gay marriage fall in here. If you build an SBR (say by putting a pistol upper on a rifle lower) you didn't hurt or endanger anyone. If you carry a gun in an unlocked case to your car within 1000' of a school, you didn't hurt or endanger anyone. Gay marriage is the same. All it will do is allow people to enter into a personal contract. That personal contract, like ALL others will give the contractees certain rights and responsibilities.

RE lawsuits:
It seems to me that these lawsuits could already be enacted for denial of service for commitment ceremonies or other "non-marriages." That there is ONE that has been referenced does not lead me to believe that the businesses will be destroyed by a flood of lawsuits. It sounds the same as when the news says "the streets will run with blood" about a new CCW law. It seems to me that MOST gay couples that would get married have probably already had a commitment ceremony of some kind. Again MOST of these ceremonies probably were catered and had florists etc. I'll bet that the "wedding industry" is generally chomping at the bit for this in hopes for a larger market. but I don't know for sure.

I'm no lawyer, so I could be wrong. I've gathered these understandings from a Business Law class and reading online. I've been waiting for some evidence that gay marriage will somehow infringe on the rights of others. So far the closest thing I've heard is that businesses and churches will be sued into destruction. I don't think this is likely, but granting it the benefit of the doubt: Churches are/will be protected by the law linked above. Beyond that churches are private groups that don't have government funding, current case law as I understand it will side with them. Businesses will be in a more actionable position. there was a thread a while ago about businesses and the right to discriminate. Many people on the thread said that businesses won't (in general) because the bad advertising and loss of customer base is too damaging. Wouldn't that apply here?

RGB

a1c
08-08-2010, 6:50 PM
All good points. However, the "playing the system" argument is just to demonstrate that marriage is not just about "two people loving each other", but a social contract that provides additional privileges and responsibilities.

As a side issue, since you touched on it, the INS would have to change significantly how it determines immigration scams once the definition of a marriage is fundamentally changed. Do two people still have to live together? Can they date other people? Do they just have to demonstrate love, but can be pretty liberal in their dating habits?

The USCIS (since the INS doesn't exist anymore) wouldn't have to change much in the way it does things if gay marriage were to be recognized by the federal government.

I've gone through that process, and so have several of my friends. I cannot envision for one minute how a gay couple would be any different to investigate than a heterosexual couple.

sandman21
08-08-2010, 7:14 PM
perhaps it should be looked at- (polygamy) the history of the Conflict between the LDS and US Govt is a violent one....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds–Tucker_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_Order

Anyone with bets on how long until a lawsuit is filed?

hoffmang
08-08-2010, 7:20 PM
There has already been a case in Colorado where a gay couple destroyed a mom & pop photography business for declining to record their wedding. That's wrong and you know it.

Cite please. My memory is that the photographers won.

-Gene

Revolver
08-08-2010, 7:27 PM
Ok well since Gays can get married and soon polygamists, then can I marry my dog? I love my dog and people are discriminating me for loving my dog.

a1c
08-08-2010, 7:29 PM
Cite please. My memory is that the photographers won.

-Gene

Actually that was New Mexico, and the photographer did lose in the state Human Rights Commission court and was ordered to pay the $6,000 in legal fees racked by the plaintiffs. The state considered photography was a "public accommodation" service and therefore the company couldn't invoke any first amendment rights - kinda like restaurants can't discriminate against customers on the basis of race.

a1c
08-08-2010, 7:29 PM
Ok well since Gays can get married and soon polygamists, then can I marry my dog? I love my dog and people are discriminating me for loving my dog.

You must be one sick puppy not to know the difference between a human and an animal. I feel sorry for your dog.

Revolver
08-08-2010, 7:33 PM
You must be one sick puppy not to know the difference between a human and an animal. I feel sorry for your dog.

Hahah I'm joking but the point I'm getting at is a domino effect if you will.

a1c
08-08-2010, 7:36 PM
Hahah I'm joking but the point I'm getting at is a domino effect if you will.

Gay marriage is about consenting adults.

An animal or a child cannot consent. Period. So don't worry about other people's pets.

And frankly, if some guy wants to marry a tree, I personally don't give a crap. It's not like he's going to threaten my own marriage.

Revolver
08-08-2010, 7:37 PM
Gay marriage is about consenting adults.

An animal or a child cannot consent. Period. So don't worry about other people's pets.

And frankly, if some guy wants to marry a tree, I personally don't give a crap. It's not like he's going to threaten my own marriage.

He could maybe if the tree told him to go kill your wife.

CalNRA
08-08-2010, 7:40 PM
Gay marriage is about consenting adults.

An animal or a child cannot consent. Period. So don't worry about other people's pets.

what's a child? In many countries the legal age of consent is as low as 12.

a1c
08-08-2010, 7:43 PM
what's a child? In many countries the legal age of consent is as low as 12.

OK, first of all, we're talking about the US here.

Second, the age of consent for marriage is already defined. I don't see how gay marriage would change anything.

The slippery slope argument is retarded. Remember that the antis used the same stupid tactic to argue that all firearms should be banned, since if you start allowing people to buy large caliber rifles and handguns, pretty soon they'll be able to buy RPGs and flamethrowers and portable nukes.

a1c
08-08-2010, 7:57 PM
funny, every time another country legalizes gay marriage, the US is compared with as proof that "we" need to get up to speed with those countries.

I personally don't care.

see Sharia law. Once we accomadate one group, it will be wrong to deny another group based on their beliefs.

and Sharia law is already being used as legal basis in the US to allow men to rape their ex-wives:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=329455

You need to do your research this a little better on this particular case. Sounds like you haven't even bothered reading the story until the end.

a1c
08-08-2010, 8:05 PM
the hole is already there:

eg, a future case where the couple signed an agreement that can supercede US court authorities.

What do you think a prenup is?

Bhobbs
08-08-2010, 8:10 PM
So let me understand: it is bad if one person selectively picks which civil rights are "good", but if another person does it, it is good?

I never said that. But if you asked all the people that fought to over turn prop 8 to vote on banning AWs and most other scary guns I bet a large majority would.

The majority of people pick which rights they want to vote for and which ones to vote against. Very few people are for rights 100%. That is why we are stuck with Democrats and Republicans in office.

Gray Peterson
08-08-2010, 8:27 PM
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/357084.aspx

Net effect. A setback for gay unions in New Mexico.

That photographer would have gotten hit with a similar suit if she used her religion to justify not photographing an interracial couple. Dressing it up as "two wrongs don't make it right" doesn't change the fact that private business do have to comply with anti-discrimination laws, and until the entire idea of anti-discrimination laws against private business is gone or declared unconstitutional, situations like the above will continue to happen.

Also, New Mexico doesn't have marriage equality anyway, or even civil unions.

Gray Peterson
08-08-2010, 8:29 PM
I personally don't care.



You need to do your research this a little better on this particular case. Sounds like you haven't even bothered reading the story until the end.

Correct. The New Jersey Appellate Court overturned the district court and literally tore the district court judge a new one.

fn9
08-08-2010, 8:35 PM
Look up consenting adults.

How about one man and a few women:D , how about two men and two women, and so on????? ALL CONSENTING ADULTS

a1c
08-08-2010, 8:42 PM
prenup is always a contract presided over by a religious court?

Obviously not in most cases, but it can be.

A contract is legally binding as long as it doesn't violate law.

CalNRA
08-08-2010, 9:00 PM
That photographer would have gotten hit with a similar suit if she used her religion to justify not photographing an interracial couple. Dressing it up as "two wrongs don't make it right" doesn't change the fact that private business do have to comply with anti-discrimination laws, and until the entire idea of anti-discrimination laws against private business is gone or declared unconstitutional, situations like the above will continue to happen.

Also, New Mexico doesn't have marriage equality anyway, or even civil unions.

so they can be sued for not choosing to shoot an event that is not legal in New Mexico the same way as refusing to serve an inter-racial marriage(which is legal there)?

Meplat
08-08-2010, 9:05 PM
I screwed up, it was New Mexico. And if the photogs won it was like the Blackwaterops win.

Cite please. My memory is that the photographers won.

-Gene

CaliforniaLiberal
08-08-2010, 9:09 PM
Marriage has been in a constant state of change over the last couple of hundred years. It wasn't very long ago that divorce was impossible or at least very difficult. Men in most places had legal control of their wives bodies and property. There was no such thing as spousal rape or domestic abuse. It was scandalous and shocking for a woman to seek a college education or to work outside the home. Married women could not enter into binding contracts. No women could vote. It was illegal - with many times an informal death penalty - to marry outside of your race.

And how many of these changes were supported by established religion at the time?

These are recent changes to marriage, all of them for the better, all of them highly controversial, all of them against the established moral code at the time.

There is no difference between accepting all these recent changes to marriage and accepting marriage between same sex couples.

Times change. Established customs and morals change. Popular support for various Civil Rights change. Laws change too.


Color me unreasonably optimistic, but I think that we are also in a time of increasing support for restoring 2nd Amendment Rights to their proper honored place. California just happens to be lagging behind the rest of the Nation on this Civil Rights issue.

Vox
08-08-2010, 9:12 PM
WOW! Dictionary deffinition of "disfunctinal Family".:43:

I know a family like that....

znode
08-08-2010, 9:16 PM
How about one man and a few women:D , how about two men and two women, and so on????? ALL CONSENTING ADULTS

Funny, polygamy would definitely meet the "traditional definition" of marriage you all love so much, a la Ex 21:10, Deut 21:15, Judg 8:30, 1 Sam 1:1-2.

znode
08-08-2010, 9:19 PM
Color me unreasonably optimistic, but I think that we are also in a time of increasing support for restoring 2nd Amendment Rights to their proper honored place. California just happens to be lagging behind the rest of the Nation on this Civil Rights issue.

I agree with this, actually, which is why I've said that I don't spend time defending gay rights. Even though they also seem to be a minority they have the member base and the legal grounds to defend themselves. My time is much better spent on RKBA.

Vox
08-08-2010, 9:21 PM
I'm still curious where the legitimate government interest in prohibiting ANY two people from marrying is. I made a much longer post on the subject a page ago but it's as yet unaddressed.

Meplat
08-08-2010, 9:25 PM
Bull Scat.

I never said that. But if you asked all the people that fought to over turn prop 8 to vote on banning AWs and most other scary guns I bet a large majority would.

The majority of people pick which rights they want to vote for and which ones to vote against. Very few people are for rights 100%. That is why we are stuck with Democrats and Republicans in office.

Meplat
08-08-2010, 9:28 PM
That photographer would have gotten hit with a similar suit if she used her religion to justify not photographing an interracial couple. Dressing it up as "two wrongs don't make it right" doesn't change the fact that private business do have to comply with anti-discrimination laws, and until the entire idea of anti-discrimination laws against private business is gone or declared unconstitutional, situations like the above will continue to happen..

That does not make it right!

hoffmang
08-08-2010, 9:40 PM
That does not make it right!

Take it up with NM law. That case fails in most states and certainly in Federal Court.

-Gene

TempleKnight
08-08-2010, 9:43 PM
Yeah, please. I'm rather confused.

Then again, since I can't fathom having sex with someone of the opposite sex (primarily because I am male and the female physique does *nothing* for me, so I can't even get an erection, which kinda prevents penetrative sex, which is extremely close to preventing any kind of procreation, which is the 'basis' that the people who tried to defend Prop 8 claimed was the interest of the state -- but at least I've tried sleeping with someone I liked of the opposite gender!), my interest is more than purely academic.

(Not to Gene, but to the same hypothetical reader that Gene was addressing) Have you ever even *tried* having sex with someone of the same gender? How do you know that you chose not to try, rather than being hardwired?

-kyanha

If gun porn doesn't give you wood, you are in the wrong forum.

Gray Peterson
08-08-2010, 9:45 PM
Can we still back to the original subject at hand, rather than delving into issues of Sharia law?

Meplat
08-08-2010, 9:51 PM
so they can be sued for not choosing to shoot an event that is not legal in New Mexico the same way as refusing to serve an inter-racial marriage(which is legal there)?

If you really thnk about it, this is all stateist bull****.

Meplat
08-08-2010, 10:00 PM
Not yet.Take it up with NM law. That case fails in most states and certainly in Federal Court.

-Gene

Meplat
08-08-2010, 10:04 PM
Whatever floats you boat.;)If gun porn doesn't give you wood, you are in the wrong forum.

Gray Peterson
08-08-2010, 10:12 PM
so they can be sued for not choosing to shoot an event that is not legal in New Mexico the same way as refusing to serve an inter-racial marriage(which is legal there)?

Slightly more complicated than that. For example, the wedding photographers could state that they would only do weddings for those who are legally marrying. The problem with that, however, is that in order to prove that, they would have to state that they check for the marriage licenses before signing a contract.

However, weddings are usually planned many months in advance, and the license themselves usually is gotten a week or so before the wedding so that the wedding officiant can sign it, and usually those "temporary licenses" are only valid for a period of time. So the reason isn't that they only do photography of "legal weddings", as it would cut into their business strategy.

When the same gender couple emailed the photographer, as they don't require a valid proof of marriage before signing a contract. They suddenly did for them because of their orientation. That is what got the photographers in trouble in New Mexico. What they did was law violation under New Mexico Revised Statutes. Rather than attacking the entire anti-discrimination law as generally violative of their associative civil rights, they used their religion as a shield against the particular people they refused service as a public accommodation too.

Oh, I found the case. It's Elaine Photography v. Willock. District court ruled against Elaine Photography, and it's being appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.

That does not make it right!

But it calls into question the reasons YOU are against it, and the reasons why the folks at Elaine Photography did what they did. I know a lot of folk who are for equality in marriage for gay couples, but do not support anti-discrimination laws generally. I have respect for them even if I may not agree with them. I count them as among my friends, and we work together on a lot of things involving sheriffs abusing their power, states refusing my right to travel, and so on.

What I do not have respect for are people who use the private anti-discrimination laws and the abuses associated with them and then conflate them with the treatment of GOVERNMENT against a specific group of individuals in our society, and then use that as a bludgeon to say "Don't allow them to marry or churches will be forced to do sacraments under threat of lawsuits", which has been proven false.

dfletcher
08-08-2010, 10:31 PM
Prop 8 is about the "same gender" marriage, not "gay marriage" and, strictly speaking, does not fall under gay rights or discrimination against protected groups.


I think this bears repeating because folks keep casually using the phrase gay marriage. If the court decides in favor I'd presume it will be based on same gender marriage being OK and not on something that could be viewed (notice I said could be, not is or must be) as transitory or based on choice or behavior. It would seem to me that if decided on gender a straight male would in theory be able to marry another straight male for purely economic reasons as would a woman; a gay man would likewise be able to marry a straight man.

I think the eventual decision is going to be rather interesting.

hoffmang
08-08-2010, 10:39 PM
Not yet.

That's a content free response. I suggest that means either you don't understand the law or don't like to admit your argument is unsupported.

-Gene

Mofo-Kang
08-08-2010, 10:53 PM
Ok well since Gays can get married and soon polygamists, then can I marry my dog? I love my dog and people are discriminating me for loving my dog.

Go ahead. Why would I care? The one teeny, tiny little difference is the issue of informed consent. Leaving that aside entirely, exactly who does it hurt if you do so? I mean, except for the busybodies who just can't abide someone doing something they disapprove of.

Vox
08-08-2010, 11:05 PM
Morality represents a personal value system - if some people think that it is immoral, it is to them. You can disagree, but it does not make it absurd.

The gays can indeed marry the opposite sex gays - this is a fact. They do not *want to*, which is also a fact. In real life it is irrelevant whether they can marry someone they don't want to marry, but in a discussion on the legality of such arguments it makes a world of difference. If they *couldn't*, it would indeed be a "sexual orientation discrimination" and would be protected. This argument is far from absurd, as it is factually supported and addresses the "sexual orientation discrimination" issue, which is the core of the challenge to the Prop 8.

Civil right or not. Let's say it is a "fundamental civil right" and let's say it is "strict scrutiny" all the way. Both the right and the scrutiny apply to the "marriage" as defined, not to "marriage as one might have defined it". The definition of the "marriage" in this particular civil right, based on the thousands of years of case law, is "a man and a woman" - this is the version that gets the protection of the strict scrutiny. To apply the version you suggest, one would first have to modify the meaning of the term "marriage" to read "one person and another person" (which is not supported by either history or the case law), then apply the strict scrutiny to such *modified* definition. You cannot apply the logic of "modified civil right" + "strict scrutiny" in order to expand an existing civil right with something that is not a part of that civil right.

In short, you are correct that Prop 8 would not pass much of any scrutiny if the same gender marriage was part of the original meaning of "marriage", but it is not. To go this route, the society as a whole must first *accept* the modified meaning of the marriage such that it becomes a natural interpretation of the "marriage" concept. Only then would the "strict scrutiny" apply as you envision.

Morality is irrelevant when it comes down to an argument of civil rights and the interpretation of law. Marriage hasn't been solely defined as "between a man and a woman" until it was seen as necessary to do so because same sex couples wanted to engage in it.

Marriage is about letting people who love each other into each other's lives. I don't really think the arguments about people who are only friends marrying for mutual economic benefit are relevant here because in most cases there are laws against that sort of abuse of the system. People get married because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. The argument that same sex marriages aren't real marriages because they aren't between opposite gendered people isn't valid until you post a reason WHY they're not valid rather than just saying "it hasn't been so so it shouldn't be so".

Slavery was the law of the land and blacks were inherently inferior to whites for legal purposes for centuries. Women were considered chattel for the vast majority of human history, I guess because it was so, so shall it be? No. We are an evolving civilization and the civilized among us understand that two people with the same naughty bits can fall in love with each other and there's no legal, logical reason to deny them from the same rights, privliges and responsibilities that any other two people who love each other should have.

The comparison to interracial marriage is valid here because for the longest time interracial marriages were viewed as invalid because "it wasn't tradition" we evolved then, we should evolve now. Again, there's no legal reason (moral reasons aren't relevant here) to not let them get married

in closing, Oliver Wendell Holmes, widely believed to be the greatest American Jurist is attributed to saying "I always say, as you know, that if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It's my job." We may not always agree with what our fellow citizens want, we certainly don't have to participate in it, but so long as it doesn't pick your pocket or break your leg we should certainly let them do it.

Bhobbs
08-08-2010, 11:09 PM
Bull Scat.

So you honestly believe a majority of gay rights activists would support gun rights?

Mofo-Kang
08-08-2010, 11:16 PM
All good points. However, the "playing the system" argument is just to demonstrate that marriage is not just about "two people loving each other", but a social contract that provides additional privileges and responsibilities.

As a side issue, since you touched on it, the INS would have to change significantly how it determines immigration scams once the definition of a marriage is fundamentally changed. Do two people still have to live together? Can they date other people? Do they just have to demonstrate love, but can be pretty liberal in their dating habits?

As far as I know, INS doesn't care about those things. When my brother and his wife (a Canadian) were going through the process, the interviews asked them various intimate questions about one another that would be fairly easy for two people in love to answer, but difficult for two friends trying to fake it. Questions about their first date, questions about how they live when they're together--which side of the bed does she prefer? etc, etc. Date other people? I guess if she said one thing and he said another, that would send up red flags...

And hey, if two straight guys decided to tie the knot to help one of them out with insurance or something...well, so what?

dfletcher
08-08-2010, 11:25 PM
Marriage is about letting people who love each other into each other's lives. I don't really think the arguments about people who are only friends marrying for mutual economic benefit are relevant here because in most cases there are laws against that sort of abuse of the system. People get married because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. The argument that same sex marriages aren't real marriages because they aren't between opposite gendered people isn't valid until you post a reason WHY they're not valid rather than just saying "it hasn't been so so it shouldn't be so".



Perhaps I didn't make it clear and I know it wasn't the focus of the post, but I wasn't using that as an example of why same sex marriage should be prohibited nor do I think the practice would be common. But why would those folks marrying as described for economic advantage or to gain the other benefits of marriage be an abuse of the system or prohibited. I'm not aware of any law that currently prohibits a man & woman from marrying for those reasons, if there are it seems to me they are easily worked around and difficult to enforce.

Gray Peterson
08-08-2010, 11:38 PM
So you honestly believe a majority of gay rights activists would support gun rights?

It depends on what you define as activist, and how wide or narrow of a net you're talking about. Gay rights activists in seattle area tend to be supportive of RKBA if they are actually raised in Washington State. The gay rights activists who moved in from places like...say...Maryland, California, New York, New Jersey, or Northern Illinois tend not to be.

Bhobbs
08-08-2010, 11:40 PM
It depends on what you define as activist, and how wide or narrow of a net you're talking about. Gay rights activists in seattle area tend to be supportive of RKBA if they are actually raised in Washington State. The gay rights activists who moved in from places like...say...Maryland, California, New York, New Jersey, or Northern Illinois tend not to be.

I mean in the situation of Prop 8.

jdberger
08-09-2010, 12:07 AM
I'm not making a value judgement, here - but has anyone noticed the large number of members with just a few posts who are involved in this thread?

That's kinda interesting.....

Gray Peterson
08-09-2010, 12:13 AM
I'm not making a value judgement, here - but has anyone noticed the large number of members with just a few posts who are involved in this thread?

That's kinda interesting.....

kyanha is a lurker who rarely posts. He is a good friend of mine and is legit. He is one of the friends I go visit while I'm in the Bay area.

Vox
08-09-2010, 12:31 AM
Again, there is no need to justify it if it is a fact. The word "marriage" has never meant "same gender". In this context, saying "it hasn't been so" is more than sufficient - it is just how it has been, even if there is absolutely no reason. All of this is just defining the "starting positions" - there is no inference about what is right or wrong or what should or shouldn't be; it merely defines the term that is being used in the discussion.

The issue here is about getting additional rights that come with the secular recognition of the marriage by using a modified definition of the marriage as a starting point. The legality of that approach is what is in question, as this is what is being done with respect to Prop 8.

Just because it hasn't been so is no reason to keep it that way now.

Do you have a personal belief that same sex unions (calling them whatever the hell you want) are immoral?

If you don't then there isn't any reason to not let them get married. If you do, why? If the only answer is your religion then that answer is legally invalid.

As for the question of law mentioned in the second quoted paragraph, the only legal reason to prohibit same sex marriage, or ANY other act at all is because there is some legitimate government need to do so. IN legal philosophy the appropriate terms here are "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum" that is, "wrong because it is evil" such as murder and theft or "wrong because it is prohibited" such as driving on the wrong side of the road.... how does prohibiting same gender marriage meet either guiding principle?

Vox
08-09-2010, 12:32 AM
I'm not making a value judgement, here - but has anyone noticed the large number of members with just a few posts who are involved in this thread?

That's kinda interesting.....

I have been a member since late 2009 but I've really only started posting in any threads here in the last couple of weeks really my membership date should be something closer to mid june 2010

Gray Peterson
08-09-2010, 12:47 AM
I mean in the situation of Prop 8.

Well, here's the issue here with making comparisons, especially anything involving Prop 8. Since Perry was filed, there have been two camps of the gay community on the issue of Prop 8:

1) There are those who believe that Perry was a mistake to even file, and they had deeply harbored suspicions about Ted Olson because he was a conservative. This is because the California gay community tends to be multi-issue due to the influences of the San Francisco/Los Angeles political communities. That is why there were early attempts by Equality California and the ACLU of Northern California to intervene in the case and the plaintiffs were able to get that turned back.

2) Camp #2 was the folks that saw this as the right time and believed that Ted Olson and David Boies were professional lawyers and brought the massive constitutional experiences both attorneys have that the lawyers for the gay equality groups did not.

When the trial started occurring in January and the Defendent-Intervenors Yes On Eight started doing so horrifically bad, that's when a lot of folks started to shift from camp 1 to camp 2. Of course, when Perry was won last week, almost everyone shifted to 2. People love a winner.

California's gay community is influenced on RKBA by several factors:

1) California has never had a right to keep and bear arms provision. This makes the gay folks who were raised in California never experienced in a modern form the ability to carry or any sort of right to arms. Consider also that the federal government considered it a collective right too up until Ashcroft.

2) The gay immigrants from other more culturally anti-gay states (primarily the mountain west, the midwest, and the south), are usually pushed out of their homes by their families while in their late teens, told they are going to hell for being what they are. Many of these families own guns, so from the teenage/young adult mindset, they move to California and completely reject the political mindset of the parents who heaped abuse on them. If they are pro-gun, they would be reflexively anti-gun and hold to those beliefs. Sometime later, after a physical attack on them, they may re-evaulate their opinion on gun rights (the San Francisco Pink Pistols and their outreach efforts are great for that).

Btw, everyone, Ted Olson was on Fox News Sunday for a 14 minute interview (http://video.foxnews.com/v/4305716/ted-olson-on-fns/). He makes the conservative case for equality of marriage on the basis of gender.

Rossi357
08-09-2010, 1:12 AM
Ok well since Gays can get married and soon polygamists, then can I marry my dog? I love my dog and people are discriminating me for loving my dog.

Dating out of your species, are ya?

Rossi357
08-09-2010, 1:14 AM
It was New Mexico.

I googled "gay couple photography refused" and got these:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/25/artist-hit-for-refusal-on-beliefs/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

the alleged hate speech:



the most recent development I could find:



I'll look for more recent development later.

If they just said no, there would be no basis for any legal action. They said they don't do same sex weddings. Big mistake.

Meplat
08-09-2010, 8:34 AM
I'm not against it. I would have shot the damn wedding. But no one should be forced by law to serve another no matter what their reason for declining. With the possible exception of a public utility or other government created monopoly, which should not be allowed to exist, but that's a whole other topic.

Private laws??? You'r going to have to clarify that one for me.:rolleyes:

I never said anything about churches or sacraments.


But it calls into question the reasons YOU are against it, and the reasons why the folks at Elaine Photography did what they did. I know a lot of folk who are for equality in marriage for gay couples, but do not support anti-discrimination laws generally. I have respect for them even if I may not agree with them. I count them as among my friends, and we work together on a lot of things involving sheriffs abusing their power, states refusing my right to travel, and so on.

What I do not have respect for are people who use the private anti-discrimination laws and the abuses associated with them and then conflate them with the treatment of GOVERNMENT against a specific group of individuals in our society, and then use that as a bludgeon to say "Don't allow them to marry or churches will be forced to do sacraments under threat of lawsuits", which has been proven false.

Meplat
08-09-2010, 8:42 AM
That's a content free response. I suggest that means either you don't understand the law or don't like to admit your argument is unsupported.

-Gene

I'm just saying that it has not failed yet. While I greatly respect your opinion on legal matters, it is thus far, only that, an opinion.

lazs
08-09-2010, 8:47 AM
State sponsored marriage is wrong. Adding one more group makes it more wrong not less.

Nothing to do with morality unless you believe that it is immoral for the state to take one persons money and give it to another person.

Meplat
08-09-2010, 8:54 AM
So you honestly believe a majority of gay rights activists would support gun rights?

I went back and looked and I think I must have misunderstood your post. I think it is safe to say you are right. How much relevance that has is another question. Personally, I try to suppress the natural inclination to devalue the rights of others just because they disrespect mine.

Meplat
08-09-2010, 9:02 AM
Well, come for the gay rights and stay for the gun rights. That's OK by me.:p
But make a donation to CGF.

I'm not making a value judgement, here - but has anyone noticed the large number of members with just a few posts who are involved in this thread?

That's kinda interesting.....

ironpegasus
08-09-2010, 10:27 AM
In CA, LCAV often uses ABAG (Assn of Bay Area Gov'ts) staff as their moles.

Many of these are Republicans.

And Republicans provided the key votes to pass CA AW bans.

You know, I think that's intellectually dishonest for you to say that Repbulicans provided the key votes. Let's take a look at that statement for a moment. The assembly consists of 80 members, the state senate 40. Historically Democrats have outnumbered Republicans in both houses of the legislature by a margin of about 2:1. This has been true for a long time.
The Assault weapons ban passed by a single vote. Assuming that there are no 3rd party members of either house (which actually makes the numbers look more favorable when you consider that the 3rd party legislators in California often have views that are not supportive of the 2nd amendment), you come up with a split of 52-28 in the Assembly and 26-14 in the Senate. In either case, no Repbulican votes needed. Not let's say that some Democratss actually had a belief in the people's RKBA and said "I won't vote for that" and a few Republicans swap places. The law passes with only one vote to spare.
The point still stands that more Democrats voted for it than Republicans. Any vote could have been the key vote to have passed the law. Since more Democrats voted for the passage of the law, they are just as complicit if not more so because a larger bloc of Democrats voted to restrict your second amendment rights than Republicans. Yes those Republicans were wrong to vote the way they did. So were the Democrats. You can't just pawn it off as a Republican betrayal because you expect left-leaning Democrats to vote that way - no elected official should vote against the constitution. Period. So please don't turn it into something partisan - any single person who voted for that law was the responsible party.

Pvt. Cowboy
08-09-2010, 10:36 AM
that's my problem with the whole thing as well. They got sued for refusing to do something that was not legal in New Mexico at the time, and in essence they got sued for telling the truth.

Being a photographer that works on site is a whole different story than running a racially discriminatory lunch counter in case someone wants to pull the Civil Rights Movement card.

It's outrageous.

"I demand that you cross the ocean to paint a majestic scene of my illicit pagan hand bonding ceremony!"

To some, politely refusing this command is 'discrimination'.

Gray Peterson
08-09-2010, 11:10 AM
I'm not against it. I would have shot the damn wedding. But no one should be forced by law to serve another no matter what their reason for declining. With the possible exception of a public utility or other government created monopoly, which should not be allowed to exist, but that's a whole other topic.

That train has left the station many decades ago on that issue. Perhaps the US Supreme Court will decide this issue again but until someone is willing to put up with fighting it, that is the way it's going to be. Elaine Photography v. Willock may be that vehicle.

Private laws??? You'r going to have to clarify that one for me.:rolleyes:I said "private anti-discrimination laws", or shorthand for "Anti-discrimination laws that apply to private businesses that hold themselves out to be public accommodations". Does that make it clearer?


I never said anything about churches or sacraments.Eh, you said something about "general wedding services" where your brother is a minister. I believe that the SB906 deals with the issue in a more succinct and understandable manner, but without knowing full details of the business, I cannot 100 percent say for certain.

"I fear what will happen to private businesses" is a common refrain by the Cultural War Profiteers to get money from the flock. So when I see someone making a similar argument, the hair on the back of my neck stands on end because I know it's been used as "code words" to the people that have been raised to have animus against gay people. Many of these people, however, have no issue with anti-discrimination laws against on the basis of race, so it is not a matter of purely libertarian intentions, but it is purely a matter they have animus against gay people.

dragonbait1a
08-09-2010, 11:11 AM
If the contract was just between the two consenting adults, it would boil down to who finds it moral/immoral and any restrictions indeed would likely not pass the legal muster.

However, the marriage contract automatically grants numerous privileges which were all drafted, evaluated, tested and implemented at the time when it was absolutely positively clear that "marriage" implied a single woman and a single man. This includes who can adopt children (orphans are in the care of the society and the society still decides what is acceptable), sharing of the medical insurance (the idea being that one of the spouses could stay at home and raise children), communal property (if one spouse raises the children he/she should not be penalized), discount insurance premiums based on the measured risks associated with families with children, etc. These privileges were not based on the assumption that two people love each other (hence cohabiting couples do not get them), but on the assumption that married people will start families.

Should all of this be automatically extended to the same gender couples? Or should the married couples *without* kids be treated the same as cohabiting couples?

However, this thread is about 2A - expanding liberties is good, but takes back seat to the existing infringement of the fundamental rights.

Yes, it should be extended to same sex couples who enter into the contract. If they choose to get married (contract) then the rights and responsibilities should be the same. If a couple (Hetero or not) do NOT choose to get married, they are not subject to the rights and responsibilities. It's that simple.

The only thing on that list I see that would be measurably different is the insurance premiums. There are married, hetro couples that never have children. Insurance companies know this and adjust the actuarial tables accordingly. They may have to adjust again to correct for the lower (not zero) rate of child-rearing among married, gay couples. I doubt this will be a large adjustment. Most families in the US now are two (or more) income families, the insurance companies know this. Also there can still be stay-at-home-dads/moms among married gay couples.

Having a larger base of suitable adoptive parents is a Good Thing, there are more foster children and orphans then adoptive families in the USA. Background check as usual, good to go.

Communal property is more then just a one income issue. It is also something that can be adjudicated by prenuptial agreements. Some people have a Communal property household (Both incomes may be spent by either spouse) some people keep their property separate. This ins not any different in a same sex relationship.

I understand that there are other fundamental rights being infringed on. The gun laws here in CA are an example. But the courts don't decide issues in any particular order. A case is brought up, it fits the docket, it is heard. CGF and other gun rights organizations are not spending time or money on it. But more freedom in general is good. This falls into that category.

Also, compared to the VAST majority of the world, we've got it pretty good. Things aren't perfect, they may never be, But compare CA to England, France, Canada, Mexico any place you choose outside of the US and, on the whole, we've got it good.

RGB

Gray Peterson
08-09-2010, 11:14 AM
State sponsored marriage is wrong. Adding one more group makes it more wrong not less.

Nothing to do with morality unless you believe that it is immoral for the state to take one persons money and give it to another person.

Exactly, I'm paying more taxes to subsidize heterosexual's marriages in advantages on taxes.

Again, I encourage anyone who takes such pure intention to write to the Legislature and ask them to convert all civil marriages to civil unions, and to Congress. Let's see if they're willing to take on such a project.

A hint: it'll go over like a lead balloon, because heterosexual couples as a general rule will not accept their "marriage being devalued" just to satisfy the equal protection provisions of our constitution.

a1c
08-09-2010, 11:20 AM
Exactly, I'm paying more taxes to subsidize heterosexual's marriages in advantages on taxes.

Again, I encourage anyone who takes such pure intention to write to the Legislature and ask them to convert all civil marriages to civil unions, and to Congress. Let's see if they're willing to take on such a project.

A hint: it'll go over like a lead balloon, because heterosexual couples as a general rule will not accept their "marriage being devalued" just to satisfy the equal protection provisions of our constitution.

You do NOT need to do that.

But states should no longer delegate the power to marry to non-government officials. All marriages should be performed by mayors or other state representatives only.

Then people who want a religious or otherwise ceremony can have it if they wish.

That's how most countries do it. First you get a civil marriage, then, if you wish, you get a religious marriage - the latter having no legal value.

Californio
08-09-2010, 11:38 AM
Gray, your extremely articulate explanations are much appreciated.

In society we always have fringe groups like the FLDS that hide their mistreatment of minors under the cloak of Religion. I have no problem with consenting adults doing whatever but society has a compelling reason to protect minors.

I will assume plural marriage will again become legal, surely hope that keeps their multiple relationships from scamming the welfare system, once all the unions are legally recognized.

With rights come responsibility, under the new marriage laws could you discuss the issues that minors may face and if we need any new laws to protect them, once the law recognizes unions of all kinds.

Bhobbs
08-09-2010, 11:40 AM
You do NOT need to do that.

But states should no longer delegate the power to marry to non-government officials. All marriages should be performed by mayors or other state representatives only.

Then people who want a religious or otherwise ceremony can have it if they wish.

That's how most countries do it. First you get a civil marriage, then, if you wish, you get a religious marriage - the latter having no legal value.

Why should the state be performing any marriages? What reason is there that the state needs to be doing it? The state should NOT be performing marriages and leave it up to the churches or other organizations outside the government.

Californio
08-09-2010, 12:19 PM
An evil thought to stick it to the Man.

I will assume the SCOTUS grants same sex marriage. See no reason why pluralists would not be able to sue for the same rights. So, Nullification of Inheritance Taxes, marry your parents in a plural marriage and when they die the Estate becomes yours tax free.:D Only available for the only child, more than one, SOL.

dragonbait1a
08-09-2010, 1:44 PM
As a personal view, this is the only issue that prevents me from supporting expansion of privileges to the same sex couples. The studies that I have seen establish very little. If I were to referee them, they would fail on the consistency of the data analysis alone. The burden of proof is on the gay community if we are talking about extending the right, much like it would be on the straight community if the meaning of the term "marriage" inherently applied to the same gender couples.

So the burden of proof for a couple to adopt is on the entire community? It seems to me that the couple adopting are the issue, not their "community." If they are a stable household without disqualifying issues (drug abuse, history of violent crime etc), what the swingers in another part of town (or another town altogether) do is irrelevant. Assuming due diligence (applied with an equal standard as to hetero couples) by the supervisory agency, where is the issue?

RGB

Gray Peterson
08-09-2010, 3:09 PM
These are are very good points, but the argument is circular. The couple is not eligible to adopt unless they are married,

That's news to me. Gay couples have been adopting without marriage in some states for many years.

They cannot get married until the definition of "marriage" is expanded to include the same gender couples, but the definition cannot get expanded until the gay community as a whole demonstrates that the privileges of marriage (in this case the right to adopt) would readily be applicable.It is not a "privilege", it is a fundamental right.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. - Loving v. Virginia

Clearly, if the original definition included same gender couples there would be no issue. Since it does not, one must start from the beginning: change the social definition of "marriage". Alternatively, loby for acceptance of "civil union" same gender couples as adoptive parents, then use as an argument that "civil unions" are de facto marriages. Either way it requires persuading those with differing opinions, rather than litigating them. If we did what you suggested, because your cultural forebears suggested that "the definition of marriage doesn't allow blacks and whites to mix", Justice Clarence Thomas would not have been able to marry his wife in her home state of Virginia in 1987 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Lamp_Thomas). They would have had to wait until 2000. The 14th amendment's equal protection and due process clause isn't subject to the whims of a paranoid electorate who are scared easily by scary TV advertisements. Judge Walker did his job. Ted Olson (the Conservative) and David Boies (the Liberal) literally steamrolled the defense witnesses. The witness chair is a lonely place to lie, and the defense witnesses were not subject to that sort of legal scrutiny ever when before they regularly attacked gays and lesbians as dangerous to children in TV advertisements and the echo chamber that is the Cultural War Profiteering machine.

Compare this to 2A. The right has already existed, and is now just being broadly recognized. In a perverted way, those who now oppose the gun rights are bigots and intolerant, while those who oppose same sex marriage are not (this explicitly applies only to the same sex marriage, not the proper gay rights issues).Who are you to tell gay people what a "proper gay rights issue" is?

wash
08-09-2010, 3:11 PM
I'm sorry to break it to everyone here but gay marriage is happening every day, it's even sanctioned by churches.

The important parts of marriage are commitment and love and there's no proposition or constitutional amendment that can stop two people from loving or committing.

All of this argument is over the unimportant parts of marriage and prop. 8 was mostly about bigots who are pissed off that they can't wedge their way in on the important parts.

Gay marriage is an example of equality and rights that have been expanded rather than restricted through the courts. There are really good reasons why Prop. 8 was unconstitutional, reasons that we may be able to use to expand gun rights.

If you like your guns, you should be happy about prop. 8 being struck down.

Gray Peterson
08-09-2010, 3:37 PM
I'm sorry to break it to everyone here but gay marriage is happening every day, it's even sanctioned by churches.

The important parts of marriage are commitment and love and there's no proposition or constitutional amendment that can stop two people from loving or committing.

All of this argument is over the unimportant parts of marriage and prop. 8 was mostly about bigots who are pissed off that they can't wedge their way in on the important parts.

Gay marriage is an example of equality and rights that have been expanded rather than restricted through the courts. There are really good reasons why Prop. 8 was unconstitutional, reasons that we may be able to use to expand gun rights.

If you like your guns, you should be happy about prop. 8 being struck down.

What Wash is talking about is the fact that animus played a large role in getting Prop 8 stricken from the books. Nordyke v. King's equal protection and first amendment claim is based on ANIMUS towards a defined group of individuals.

Meplat
08-09-2010, 3:42 PM
That train has left the station many decades ago on that issue.



True, but I'm not on it because it is going the wrong way. I may have to put up with stupid divisive laws, but that does not keep me from speaking out against them.


Perhaps the US Supreme Court will decide this issue again but until someone is willing to put up with fighting it, that is the way it's going to be. Elaine Photography v. Willock may be that vehicle.


I don't know much about it but I don't think it is going much of anywhere. I don't think civil rights groups will waist money on a looser like that, and I don't think Elaine Photography has the resources or backing to take it far if they did. What say you Gene?




I said "private anti-discrimination laws", or shorthand for "Anti-discrimination laws that apply to private businesses that hold themselves out to be public accommodations". Does that make it clearer?

Yes. But I disagree with the concept of 'public accommodations'. Unless they actually are 'public'. If you won't serve me because I'm fat, bald, black, brown, or green, fine I'll take my money to the lunch counter down the street.




Eh, you said something about "general wedding services" where your brother is a minister. I believe that the SB906 deals with the issue in a more succinct and understandable manner, but without knowing full details of the business, I cannot 100 percent say for certain.

No I said generic. No particular dinomination involved, and not performed in anyones church. It was my nephew. And it was a non-denominational christion service. It was performed by his uncle who occasionally performs generic christion weddings outside the relm of his pastoral duties, usually pro-bono as he likes weddings. Whether or not he would do a mono-gendered wedding, I have no clue. But he should not be compeled to.



"I fear what will happen to private businesses" is a common refrain by the Cultural War Profiteers to get money from the flock. So when I see someone making a similar argument, the hair on the back of my neck stands on end because I know it's been used as "code words" to the people that have been raised to have animus against gay people. Many of these people, however, have no issue with anti-discrimination laws against on the basis of race, so it is not a matter of purely libertarian intentions, but it is purely a matter they have animus against gay people.

See! Maybe that's my problem. I was never raised to hate anybody! I have never in my life eaten at a restaurant or gone to a theater that would not accommodate any human being. I was told stories of how an old Chinese herb doctor saved my grandmother's life when the white Dr. gave up on her. And how a black family had taken in one of my other grandparents along with their siblings when their mother abandoned them and their father was off on a cattle drive. It must be hard to live in a world of code words and oppression, and some of it is even real. But don't you see? To keep liberty you must give it! Equal rights for all.

Vox
08-09-2010, 3:50 PM
You are mixing way too many concepts. Let's concentrate on Prop 8.

I'm not mixing too many concepts I was being comprehensive.

It was established that prop 8 DOES take rights away. The only reason to deny marriage would be to deny the rights and responsibilities inherent therein to a group. To require they use a second name is discriminatory in that in every way but their genitals is their union the same as anyone else's it creates a separate classification of marriage based on something rather arbitrary.

The argument that marriage is for procreation is not valid because that would mean infertile opposite gender couples wouldn't be granted marriage licenses or couples who dont have children by a certain point would have their marriages automatically voided, as would vasectomies and hysterectomies void your union.

Marriage is widely understood to be a union of two consenting adults who want to spend their lives together. Aside from the idea of tradition which has already been beaten to death (unless you consider your wife chattel) why prohibit this type of union? Only thing I can think of is that you find it "icky"

CharAznable
08-09-2010, 3:53 PM
Ok well since Gays can get married and soon polygamists, then can I marry my dog? I love my dog and people are discriminating me for loving my dog.

I suppose...if you can prove that your dog can consent. In other words:

1) He/she understands completely what marriage is and
2) He/she wants to marry you

If both of those are true, then sure. However, if both of those are true then you shouldn't own your dog. Ownership of sapient beings is probably wrong.

CharAznable
08-09-2010, 3:55 PM
You cannot split opposition to Prop 8 from gun rights; support of Prop 8 is logically inconsistent with support of gunfights and reflects a statist worldview.

I'm gonna hope you meant gunrights, there...:)

Vox
08-09-2010, 4:15 PM
I suppose...if you can prove that your dog can consent. In other words:

1) He/she understands completely what marriage is and
2) He/she wants to marry you

If both of those are true, then sure. However, if both of those are true then you shouldn't own your dog. Ownership of sapient beings is probably wrong.

just "probably"? If we discovered another sentient creature I suppose I'd have to become an abolitionist.

rugershooter
08-09-2010, 4:25 PM
According to the judge, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause) from the US Constitution.

More is interpretation of the decision is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger#Decision).

I don't know why I didn't think of that...stupid of me not to. You're right

kcbrown
08-09-2010, 4:29 PM
Yes. But I disagree with the concept of 'public accommodations'. Unless they actually are 'public'. If you won't serve me because I'm fat, bald, black, brown, or green, fine I'll take my money to the lunch counter down the street.


And if there is collusion (either explicit or through societal pressure) amongst them all to refuse to serve you, then where will you take your money?

Society-wide discrimination is not uncommon. The civil rights movement happened precisely because the individual choices of individual business owners due to their own prejudices added up to area-wide unavailability of service, among other things.

So what do you suggest? That each minority build its own interlocking business infrastructure, all the way from raw materials gathering to manufacture to end-customer distribution? Because in the face of society-wide prejudice, that's precisely what it would take in the absence of anti-discrimination laws.



See! Maybe that's my problem. I was never raised to hate anybody! I have never in my life eaten at a restaurant or gone to a theater that would not accommodate any human being. I was told stories of how an old Chinese herb doctor saved my grandmother's life when the white Dr. gave up on her. And how a black family had taken in one of my other grandparents along with their siblings when their mother abandoned them and their father was off on a cattle drive. It must be hard to live in a world of code words and oppression, and some of it is even real. But don't you see? To keep liberty you must give it! Equal rights for all.Yes, I agree that in order to keep liberty you must give it, but you must realize that most people are herd animals. That has been the case throughout history. How else do you explain that the vast majority of governments throughout history have been totalitarian in nature? If the desire to be independent and free outweighed the desire to "fit in" then history would be dominated by governments built around protecting liberty. Instead, we see very much the opposite case: history is dominated by governments that suppressed liberty. Even today, there is an abundance of governments which suppress liberty, and a strong argument can be made that ours is one of them (at least to a nontrivial degree).

We fight for liberty because we care about it more than the average person. The U.S. was set up as a republic in large part because rights are often exercised most and cared about most by minorities.

CharAznable
08-09-2010, 4:42 PM
just "probably"? If we discovered another sentient creature I suppose I'd have to become an abolitionist.

Well, dogs *may* be sentient. They are not sapient. (For some reason folks seem to use sentient when they mean sapient.)

dragonbait1a
08-09-2010, 5:25 PM
These are are very good points, but the argument is circular. The couple is not eligible to adopt unless they are married, they cannot get married until the definition of "marriage" is expanded to include the same gender couples, but the definition cannot get expanded until the gay community as a whole demonstrates that the privileges of marriage (in this case the right to adopt) would readily be applicable.

Clearly, if the original definition included same gender couples there would be no issue. Since it does not, one must start from the beginning: change the social definition of "marriage". Alternatively, loby for acceptance of "civil union" same gender couples as adoptive parents, then use as an argument that "civil unions" are de facto marriages. Either way it requires persuading those with differing opinions, rather than litigating them.

Compare this to 2A. The right has already existed, and is now just being broadly recognized. In a perverted way, those who now oppose the gun rights are bigots and intolerant, while those who oppose same sex marriage are not (this explicitly applies only to the same sex marriage, not the proper gay rights issues).

We have a difference of perspective. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that since same sex couples haven't had the right to marry before that they must prove themselves worthy as a group. In contrast to gun owners as for 200+ years we've had a recognized right to arms.

My perspective is not historical. Currently a specific minority is barred from entering into a specific legal contract with extensive rights and responsibilities. This ban is based on a religious belief and affects those who do not adhere to that religion. Thus the ban is a violation of the separation of church and state and equal protection.

The enumeration and historical recognition of a right doesn't determine if the right exists. When cars were invented we (as a society) weren't required to prove our worthiness to drive. The only "You proved unworthy of this freedom," laws I can think of are the NFA, employment law (wage and hour, health and safety) and Environmental law (dumping, toxic waste etc). Note in ALL of them freedom was ASSUMED until proven guilty. The law was passed to restrict an existing freedom. In the case of gay marriage (and a large amount of bigoted "Jim Crow" type laws), rights were denied before they were granted. People were excluded before they had a chance to prove unworthy of the right.

In addition, is is possible that historically homosexuals have been denied even the chance to petition for equal rights and cultural recognition because coming "Out" meant systemic discrimination and a high likelihood of death? Makes it difficult to fight for your rights when your very existence is wrong by the highest authority in the land.

RGB

Canute
08-09-2010, 7:31 PM
What I don't like about the "liberals" is that they want the government to keep anyone from living in need.
The "conservatives" want everyone to be safe from "them". Where "them" is Arabs, Hispanics, gays, gangbangers, so forth.
But nobody can afford to pick up the tab. And the "conservatives" think we can have a perfect police state that only goes after "them" without having to personally pay a price in second, or fourth, etc. amendment rights. Or paying for the trillion dollar domestic police and military industrial complex in taxes.

Canute
08-09-2010, 7:40 PM
Well, dogs *may* be sentient. They are not sapient. (For some reason folks seem to use sentient when they mean sapient.)

I think animals as far down as birds have been shown to have some level of self awareness. Some birds can even have conversations with us. (http://www.alexfoundation.org/). Primates have been proven to have empathy for others as well as preen themselves in mirrors.
I'm still not becoming a vegan. We were meant to be meat eaters.

dantodd
08-09-2010, 8:44 PM
In society we always have fringe groups like the FLDS that hide their mistreatment of minors under the cloak of Religion. I have no problem with consenting adults doing whatever but society has a compelling reason to protect minors.

I will assume plural marriage will again become legal, surely hope that keeps their multiple relationships from scamming the welfare system, once all the unions are legally recognized.

With rights come responsibility, under the new marriage laws could you discuss the issues that minors may face and if we need any new laws to protect them, once the law recognizes unions of all kinds.

You sound as backwards as those who assume that just because gay people are not stoned that we have to somehow a bunch of gay men are going to start roaming the streets and molesting boys. Yes, there is abuse in relationships of many different types. That doesn't mean you outlaw or add oversight to certain "types" of relationships just because they are somehow more evil. Sounds alot like what people try to do with certain types of guns. Gotta keep an eye on those people who want to have "evil black rifles" or "Saturday Night Specials" it's probably best that we put new laws in place to protect the children from those sorts of guns.

Meplat
08-09-2010, 9:07 PM
I will assume plural marriage will again become legal, surely hope that keeps their multiple relationships from scamming the welfare system, once all the unions are legally recognized.



Last I looked you didn't have to be married to collect welfare? Don't see the tie-in there.

GuyW
08-09-2010, 9:09 PM
Fundamental rights in the Constitution are limited to those where a "practice 'is fundamental . . . to ordered liberty,' within the context of the “Anglo-American” system." (Says the US Supreme Court)

Fundamental Constitutional rights are not new rights, not new concepts - but those that are time-tested traditional concepts of society.

You can find discussions of this in the recent US Supreme Court decisions of Heller and McDonald, among others.

Gay marriage has no anglo-american roots or history - it is an entirely new and radical concept foisted upon the American people. (By the way - what were those anglo-american roots? anti-sodomy laws for one)

And this argument is not about equal rights (since civil union laws provide the same protections) - it is about fundamentally changing the concept of "marriage" to grant additional perception of normality and public approval to homosexual acts.

This Judge is an activist Judge who is trashing the Constitution.

.

kyanha
08-09-2010, 9:09 PM
It depends on what you define as activist, and how wide or narrow of a net you're talking about. Gay rights activists in seattle area tend to be supportive of RKBA if they are actually raised in Washington State. The gay rights activists who moved in from places like...say...Maryland, California, New York, New Jersey, or Northern Illinois tend not to be.

I was born and raised in Washington State, and I was never taught that guns were bad -- I was only taught that they should be respected for the killing machines that they are.

Now I live in Santa Clara County. :(

Meplat
08-09-2010, 9:13 PM
Only available for the only child, more than one, SOL.

Why only child if polygamy is allowed?

GuyW
08-09-2010, 9:14 PM
Homosexuals are wired that way - they're more like people with different colored skin.

Nope - some people don't like milk, or vegetables, or ... Often they couldn't tell you why.

Does that means they were born hating cows milk? Or did they make a subconcious choice?

.

GuyW
08-09-2010, 9:22 PM
Nathanson (one of the defendant's expert witnesses) testified at his deposition that religion lies at the heart of the hostility and violence directed at gays and lesbians......


Wow - a defendant's "expert" who was either a) paid, or b) a political sympathizer, or c) both, opined in support of defendant's position? Stunning!

But, the evidence says he's a liar.

Are the _criminals_ who physically attack gays, actually religious?

Were they, to invoke merely one stereotype - actually altar boys? Did they leave their yamulkes (sp?) at the scene of the crime??

No, they are, like most criminals, actually irreligious people merely looking to justify their violent actions.

Actions which they would undertake anyway.

Actions for which they should be prosecuted and punished.

This is nothing but the liberal thought police imposing their code of silence on religious people.

.

hoffmang
08-09-2010, 9:22 PM
Gay marriage has no anglo-american roots or history - it is an entirely new and radical concept foisted upon the American people. (By the way - what were those anglo-american roots? anti-sodomy laws for one)

Just exactly like interracial marriage before Loving v. Virginia. The anglo-american tradition was that blacks were property and free black men could be hung for kissing a white woman (http://www.afrostyly.com/english/afro/diverse/lynching.htm) - much less marrying her. As such your metaphor isn't a correct parallel.

The right is marriage - not gay marriage and not interracial marriage.

-Gene

Meplat
08-09-2010, 9:28 PM
I'm sorry to break it to everyone here but gay marriage is happening every day, it's even sanctioned by churches.

The important parts of marriage are commitment and love and there's no proposition or constitutional amendment that can stop two people from loving or committing.

All of this argument is over the unimportant parts of marriage

A lot of truth here!;)

curtisfong
08-09-2010, 9:28 PM
No, they are, like most criminals, actually irreligious people merely looking to justify their violent actions.


There is no evidence that such a correlation exists. Your asserting that it does smacks of another kind of thought policing.

GuyW
08-09-2010, 9:31 PM
You cannot split opposition to Prop 8 from gun rights; support of Prop 8 is logically inconsistent with support of gunfights and reflects a statist worldview.


Rediculous - at the very same time that the Founders were documenting RKBA, they were NOT creating gay marriages.
.

dantodd
08-09-2010, 9:33 PM
support of gunfights and reflects a statist worldview.


Do they sell tickets or do we have to volunteer to put our own name in the hat to enter the coliseum?

Gray Peterson
08-09-2010, 9:36 PM
No need for personal attacks. This discussion has been very civil. The case you present is racial discrimination and as such is protected. It is also quite different from the same sex marriage.

Only because you say so.

Here are two explicit questions that are at the core of the disagreement:

(1) Where is the discrimination based on the *sexual orientation* occurring in the definition of the marriage that says "one man one woman"?Remember, the "definition of marriage", for LEGAL purposes, has changed tremendously. A woman in a marriage before beginning of the 20th century were considered for all intents and purposes non-persons. This is why Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony fought very hard for womens rights and equality. The very last thing in terms of that equality was all fixed up by 1993, when every state had a law banning spousal rape (yes, it was legal before 1975 in every state for a man to rape a woman if one was married to them).

Before 1868, African-descended Americans were generally NOT allowed to legally marry at all, whether they were slaves or free. When the 14th amendment passed, they were allowed to marry, but they couldn't marry white people. See Pace v. Alabama (1883), which was overturned by Loving v. Virginia (1967).

Subrogation is no longer a part of the marriage contract. Therefore, there is no fundamental difference between the partners of the marital contract, and thus men and women must be equal when it comes to their choice of partners, and their partners must alike be equal whether they're chosen by men or women.

(2) If we were both to present a view on what the word "marriage" means, assuming the only difference in the views is the gender of the participants, how could you establish with, say, preponderance of evidence (50+1) that it indeed applies to the same gender couples against a claim that it does not?Those pro-supposes a ethical equivalency between both perspectives, which to me there isn't one to me because I believe in my point, and the other side will never agree either. I could ask the same about interracial marriage, because three quarters of the American people in 1968 believed it was not actually marriage, that it was wrong and intrinsically disordered to love someone of a different race.

The political process for gay couples and gay people in general in many states is as hopeless as the political process for gun owners in California, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, DC, and Massachusetts. When gays go for the "brass ring" that is marriage, and it is put to the vote of the people of a state, gays always lose, and when we do win in states where we convinced the Legislatures, the only time we win long-term is when the state constitution doesn't allow referendum votes. Maine's Question 1, is a great example of our political powerlessness.

Do you realize that in early American history, persons found out to be gay were considered perverted and summarily executed? During the late 19th century and early 20th century, we were put into institutions and had various experiments done on us, and if we didn't "turn straight", we would have been lobotomized or subject to electric shock treatment? Do you realize that in the 1950's, gays were considered to weaken the moral fiber of our nation, where we were not allowed to hold ANY job in the US government in any form, also in nearly every state government, and many states which licensed occupations also banned "sexual perverts" from getting licenses? Gays were considered communist sympathizers because of their "lack of morality". We were also blacklisted from ANY private employment. As recently as 1967, a KISS between two gay people resulted in a charge where you had to register as a sexual offender (California had such a list for "perverts" long before Meagan's Law).

This is because being gay in our history going back, our country has oscillated back and forth between treating it as an executable offense or life sentences to using lobotomies and shock treatment.

Pre-Stonewall List of Actions of the LGBT movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pre-Stonewall_LGBT_actions_in_the_United_States)

Thirteen states States required the complete celibacy of gay and lesbian couples until Lawrence v. Texas came along just SEVEN YEARS AGO.

How are we not considered a suspect class in a similar way that race is? Being gay is not a damned choice. If it is merely a choice, then there would be no executions of gays in the middle east, because no one would choose to die....


A hostile comment. Nonetheless, gay people do not own the gay rights and anyone can define their own "proper gay rights".Uh...say what?! You certainly don't "own the issue" if you're trying to put us in a box and say "this far no further".

I was certainly not pushing it on anyone, nor was I trying to make you agree with me. Again, it has been a civil and respectful discussion.It's pushed on me every day that I am inferior, that I am less, and that I am malevolent and evil.

GuyW
08-09-2010, 9:43 PM
The bottom line is this:

Either you're for freedom and rights, or you're just interested in creating a set of rules to shape society so that it will look and behave like you want it to.


Yeah - everybody here was all excited when the Heller and McDonald decisions adopted some version of a "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution for the RKBA, based in part on the concept and context of the Constitution as a historical "Anglo-American system of ordered justice."

Now, the libertarians here want to ignore that basis and have a living Constitution.

Hypocrites
.

Gray Peterson
08-09-2010, 9:46 PM
And this argument is not about equal rights (since civil union laws provide the same protections) - it is about fundamentally changing the concept of "marriage" to grant additional perception of normality and public approval to homosexual acts.

This Judge is an activist Judge who is trashing the Constitution.



Yet that same "activist judge" is probably the absolute best judge we could have on the Northern District of California federal court bench for RKBA cases. Doesn't that tell you something there? Think about this for a minute: If the Nordyke case is remanded back to District Court, which judge gets the case? Because the judge who originally heard Nordyke retired to become a state appellate court judge, that usually falls to the Chief Judge of the US District Court to resolve.

"Activist Judge" is a common smear on both sides of the political spectrum for disagreeing with decisions they don't like, regardless of whether or not their position is correct constitutionally. You know that, right?

kyanha
08-09-2010, 9:51 PM
Fundamental rights in the Constitution are limited to those where a "practice 'is fundamental . . . to ordered liberty,' within the context of the “Anglo-American” system." (Says the US Supreme Court)


er, [citation needed] -- I don't disbelieve you, I simply want to understand the context of the quote.


Fundamental Constitutional rights are not new rights, not new concepts - but those that are time-tested traditional concepts of society.

You can find discussions of this in the recent US Supreme Court decisions of Heller and McDonald, among others.


Indeed. In fact, it was partially Heller that made this possible.


Gay marriage has no anglo-american roots or history - it is an entirely new and radical concept foisted upon the American people. (By the way - what were those anglo-american roots? anti-sodomy laws for one)

And this argument is not about equal rights (since civil union laws provide the same protections)

Er, is it appropriate for someone who has suffered because "civil unions" are not accorded the same status and respect as afforded those who can claim "marraige" to call BULL HOCKEY???!!!!!


- it is about fundamentally changing the concept of "marriage" to grant additional perception of normality and public approval to homosexual acts.


If men and women are equal under the law, that 'equal' extends to *everything*. Women are no longer subsumed into their husbands' legal identity -- "subrogation is no longer part of the marriage bargain", said the marriage historian (you know, on the side where every expert witness was actually *admitted* as expert witness). That means that the parties are equal in the eyes of the law, they both have independent standing to sue.

There is no duty imposed on a "husband", and there is no duty imposed on a "wife". Instead, there is a duty imposed on "spouses" for mutual support.

If they are equal, than they must also be equal for purposes of determination whether a given person, regardless of gender, would be a fit mate. Under that standard, there is no reason to view the old definition of marriage as anything other than "sexist" (women can ONLY choose men and men can ONLY choose women -- sounds like sexism to me if you're forced to choose based solely on gender) and, along with every other piece of law related to gender that doesn't advance a legitimate state interest, must be struck down.


This Judge is an activist Judge who is trashing the Constitution.


This Judge is merely applying the appropriate standard of review for a case which demonstrably harms at the least hundreds of thousands in California, me among them -- and then describing how it fails to meet even the most deferential standard of review. "What rational basis does the state have for limiting recognition of a socially-revered concept due to the gender of the people involved, if the people involved are equal in all other substantive respects under the law?"

I just find it interesting that the plaintiffs didn't press the fact that more married couples would likely mean an increase in near-ideal child-fostering envionments. Their expert witnesses testified that there is no substantive difference between kids that come out of a gay/lesbian-headed family and kids that come out of a straight-headed family, and the kids were equally likely to be gay or straight coming out of both types of families. Considering all the pro-life people who press their kids into having kids that they can't afford and can't effectively raise and put up for adoption... that can really only be *good* for society.

-kyanha

kyanha
08-09-2010, 9:55 PM
Being gay is not a damned choice. If it is merely a choice, then there would be no executions of gays in the middle east, because no one would choose to die....

I agree with everything else you said, but to this: THANK YOU. Finally, someone willing to call a spade a damned spade.

-kyanha

hoffmang
08-09-2010, 10:00 PM
Yeah - everybody here was all excited when the Heller and McDonald decisions adopted some version of a "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution for the RKBA, based in part on the concept and context of the Constitution as a historical "Anglo-American system of ordered justice."

Now, the libertarians here want to ignore that basis and have a living Constitution.

Hypocrites
.

No. You just want your definition of which rights are among the individual rights protected by the 14A to "win" and allow you to express your will through the government to deny some people their rights.

If your version of the right to marriage is correct then you have to explain how Loving v. Virginia is wrong. States historically banned black men from marrying white women until 1967. Why is that unconstitutional since there is no right to interracial or gay marriage in the Constitution - so sayeth you?

I'll be waiting since you ducked it once already. :gene:

-Gene

Meplat
08-09-2010, 10:02 PM
And if there is collusion (either explicit or through societal pressure) amongst them all to refuse to serve you, then where will you take your money?

Society-wide discrimination is not uncommon. The civil rights movement happened precisely because the individual choices of individual business owners due to their own prejudices added up to area-wide unavailability of service, among other things.

So what do you suggest? That each minority build its own interlocking business infrastructure, all the way from raw materials gathering to manufacture to end-customer distribution? Because in the face of society-wide prejudice, that's precisely what it would take in the absence of anti-discrimination laws.


In the fifties and early sixties polititions were running around willy nilly trying to show they were 'doing something' about discrimination. In the process much was done that was not needed and much that actually hampers healing of the wounds of segrigation. I think this public accomodation thing is one of the mistakes.

I think given a chance the market would have solved the problem, for a lot of reasons.



Yes, I agree that in order to keep liberty you must give it, but you must realize that most people are herd animals. That has been the case throughout history. How else do you explain that the vast majority of governments throughout history have been totalitarian in nature? If the desire to be independent and free outweighed the desire to "fit in" then history would be dominated by governments built around protecting liberty. Instead, we see very much the opposite case: history is dominated by governments that suppressed liberty. Even today, there is an abundance of governments which suppress liberty, and a strong argument can be made that ours is one of them (at least to a nontrivial degree).

We fight for liberty because we care about it more than the average person. The U.S. was set up as a republic in large part because rights are often exercised most and cared about most by minorities.

You are correct in a lot of this and it frustrates me no end as I am not a herd animal. When the crowd is heading south I'm going north. Maybe that's my problem.;)

Gray Peterson
08-09-2010, 10:10 PM
Yeah - everybody here was all excited when the Heller and McDonald decisions adopted some version of a "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution for the RKBA, based in part on the concept and context of the Constitution as a historical "Anglo-American system of ordered justice."

Now, the libertarians here want to ignore that basis and have a living Constitution.

Hypocrites
.

The only thing that's really "evolved" here is our understanding of both gender and gays/lesbians. If Rep. John Bingham and Senator Charles Sumner understood now what we now understand (via peer reviewed studies and articles) about gays and lesbians, I have little doubt that they would have supported removing the gender exclusion for marriage, knowing what we know today.

Marriage is a fundamental civil right. People in prison for life can marry someone outside of prison (Turner v. Safley). Deadbeat parents can marry without paying for their debts (Zablocki v. Redhail), this is my personal hot button because I thoroughly hate deadbeat fathers and think they are worthless individuals for their actions towards not paying their children's support, but regardless, their fundamental right to marry outweighs my personal opinion on the matter.

Given now that gender roles itself no longer has ANY role at all in terms of who can get legally married or divorced, what is the reason for the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples? Fundamental rights means strict.

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.

If state and local government doesn't require the ability to procreate to marry, what interest is there? Where is the compelling interest? That's where it fails. 90 year old women and an 92 old man can marry. They cannot procreate.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.

Again, what is the compelling interest again?

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.

They can do other policies to encourage couples to adopt, which they have through child tax credits.

Marriage is a joining of property and families. It is not for the purpose of procreation. During the late 1700's and early 1800's, there was not much of a point of getting a marriage license if you were one of the lower class. It became more important in the mid 1800's on. It was made about love rather than joining of property and families, but it was made for both depending on your class. Religious marriage had a different opinion, the whole "be fruitful and multiply" words in the bible. Religious and civil marriage have been de-coupled from each other in a legal capacity since 1791 for non-state US territories and since 1868 insofar as the states are concerned.

Gray Peterson
08-09-2010, 10:11 PM
You are correct in a lot of this and it frustrates me no end as I am not a herd animal. When the crowd is heading south I'm going north. Maybe that's my problem.;)

That wasn't me that you quoted, btw. That was KCBrown.

kyanha
08-09-2010, 10:27 PM
This is nothing but the liberal thought police imposing their code of silence on religious people.


I may not like what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it -- just say it over *there*, would you?

This isn't a "code of silence on religious people", this is "people who have come to their own conclusions about the existence or nonexistence of any particular manifestations of God being sick to death of being proselytized with a "believe the way I do or you're going to hell" stick."

I'm sick of the debate. I am much more likely aware of and at peace than you might think about my place in all of this, partially because I've taken a gunshot wound to the back and accepted that I am going to die (maybe sooner, maybe later, but the world will go along just fine without me in it), and... really, I don't think it's proper for me to try to explain it to you. If it weren't at least vaguely hypocritical, I'd just thank you for reciprocating the favor, and not tasking my ears or my eyes with the tripe of "Spreading the Good Word".

I'm an ordained minister, though, so it would be hypocritical. What I preach is *not* "God's name is YHVH", but "We really can't know whether we're here for a reason or if this is just something that makes us think that we have free will -- but let's look at the 'what if we behave like our lives mean (nothing|something)' versus the 'what if our lives DO mean (nothing|something)' 2x2 outcome grid. If our lives mean nothing, and we live as if they mean nothing, then no harm is done. If our lives mean nothing, and we live as if they mean something, then no harm is done. If our lives mean something, and we live as if they mean something, no harm is done and we fulfill our purpose on top of that -- but if our lives mean something, and we live as though they mean nothing, there is a potential for harm that I cannot fathom. I prefer not to take the risk for myself, but you're gifted with free will and can make the choice for yourself."

After all, if you're going to claim that the liberals are attempting to stop discussion of religion, it might help if a liberal took you up on such a discussion.

-kyanha

kyanha
08-09-2010, 10:35 PM
Nope - some people don't like milk, or vegetables, or ... Often they couldn't tell you why.

Does that means they were born hating cows milk? Or did they make a subconcious choice?

(the spelling is 'subconscious')

...do they have, perhaps, a lactose intolerance, or (like my younger brother) an allergy to onions?

I've *tried* to have sex with a woman, and I could not get it up. Given that, what the hell is wrong with me actually getting aroused and simple pleasure from the touch of my same gender, versus the opposite? They're equal in the eyes of the law...

...except where marriage is concerned. In your view.

-kyanha

dfletcher
08-09-2010, 10:42 PM
If your version of the right to marriage is correct then you have to explain how Loving v. Virginia is wrong. States historically banned black men from marrying white women until 1967. Why is that unconstitutional since there is no right to interracial or gay marriage in the Constitution - so sayeth you?

I'll be waiting since you ducked it once already. :gene:

-Gene

From Loving:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

That the court references race as an unsupportable basis makes me wonder if the court would consider some other basis as supportable? Are the classifications viewed by the court as arbitrary and open to interpretation?And the court threw in that "without due process of law" remark - if there were some due process of law in place to prohibit a person from marrying, the court would be OK with it? What would that be - something specific to an individual or something applied to an entire group?

Asking - not asserting.

Gray Peterson
08-09-2010, 11:27 PM
From Loving:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

That the court references race as an unsupportable basis makes me wonder if the court would consider some other basis as supportable? Are the classifications viewed by the court as arbitrary and open to interpretation?And the court threw in that "without due process of law" remark - if there were some due process of law in place to prohibit a person from marrying, the court would be OK with it? What would that be - something specific to an individual or something applied to an entire group?

Asking - not asserting.

Deadbeat parents can marry (Zablocki v. Redhail, 1978)

People in prison, even for life, can marry (Turner v. Safley, 1987)

People can marry a person they "abused" assuming both are adults and not too close to each other in terms of bloodline (Mary Kay LeTourneau and Vil Fualaau, 2004, after some questioned if they could be married since LaTourneau is a sex offender and convicted of abusing Vili)

Registered Sex Offenders can marry adults consentually (again, Mary Kay LeTourneau and Vili Fualaau)

The sterile and those who choose to be "childfree" can marry.

No matter what they do, no matter how horrible their crimes, all of these people can marry. The childless and sterile can marry. Regardless of the cost to society, including requiring available space at a prison in visiting area to solemnize the ceremony, opposite gender couples can marry.

Yet gay and lesbian couples, no matter how virtuous or free of criminal offenses, can not marry. Why is this? Every single answer I've gotten is about pro-creation (not required to marry) or religious moralization (violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment).

Meplat
08-09-2010, 11:36 PM
That wasn't me that you quoted, btw. That was KCBrown.
Did I indicate otherwise Gray?

Gray Peterson
08-10-2010, 12:24 AM
Did I indicate otherwise Gray?

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=4746834#post4746834)



Yes, I agree that in order to keep liberty you must give it, but you must realize that most people are herd animals. That has been the case throughout history. How else do you explain that the vast majority of governments throughout history have been totalitarian in nature? If the desire to be independent and free outweighed the desire to "fit in" then history would be dominated by governments built around protecting liberty. Instead, we see very much the opposite case: history is dominated by governments that suppressed liberty. Even today, there is an abundance of governments which suppress liberty, and a strong argument can be made that ours is one of them (at least to a nontrivial degree).

We fight for liberty because we care about it more than the average person. The U.S. was set up as a republic in large part because rights are often exercised most and cared about most by minorities.

This wasn't me.

thayne
08-10-2010, 12:47 AM
I really dont understand all the opposition to gay marriage. If they want to ruin their lives and get married who are we say they cant?

But seriously, I dont want the government telling me what I can or cannot do so why shouldnt they expect the same? People fighting for gun rights, of all people, should understand that. If its against your religious beliefs fine, you can be against it, but the government and law cannot.

Roadrunner
08-10-2010, 1:14 AM
Everything should be fairgame. Drugs, hookers, gay marriage, child pornography, beastiality, who's to say what limits should be placed on anything. After all this is a free country. If a parent wants to put their naked 5 year old on the internet, who am I to argue with that ?

What's that old saying back in the 60's and 70's..."If it feels good, do it".

And while we're at it, we should lower the age of consent to 16, so that girls can have consensual sex with whomever they want.

What about polygamy ? Anyone up for that ? What about two husbands married to a woman ? And those husbands have other wives. How many can everyone have ? Who would put limits on that ? Think of how much that would bring the world together if everyone was married to everyone else.

Hey, I have an idea, lets bring back dueling. That way anyone who has a grievance can permanently settle the argument.

If we want to make the United States truly free, let's get rid of all of the absolutes. Man I feel freer already.

dfletcher
08-10-2010, 8:46 AM
What about polygamy ? Anyone up for that ?


Perhaps a bit off the subject, but on my Yahoo page yesterday, under the big "Same Sex Marriage Debate" banner was a small type liner intro regarding polygamy. I'm guessing, odd as it sounds, there's some sort of SF to SLC conversation going on along the lines of "shut up for now - this is hard enough without you folks piling on". :o

dantodd
08-10-2010, 9:04 AM
People can marry a person they "abused" assuming both are adults and not too close to each other in terms of bloodline (Mary Kay LeTourneau and Vil Fualaau, 2004, after some questioned if they could be married since LaTourneau is a sex offender and convicted of abusing Vili)


I don't believe adult incest can be outlawed in light of Perry either, just like polygamy. Interestingly; I looked and didn't see any prohibitions on incest in California's marriage laws.

dixieD
08-10-2010, 9:17 AM
We could always stop playing with guns - they have no choice.

Not me. I am wired for individual liberty.

Gray Peterson
08-10-2010, 10:09 AM
I don't believe adult incest can be outlawed in light of Perry either, just like polygamy. Interestingly; I looked and didn't see any prohibitions on incest in California's marriage laws.

There's an underlying criminal prohibition against consumating it. On top of that, the government has defenses against such attempts to legalize that they don't have against gay and lesbian couples.

I can also say that the folks who are FLDS as a general rule do NOT like gay couples marrying. It is against their religious tenants. Remember, whereas gay couples can live together in all states and can marry in certain states, there are no states that allow them to legally marry, and there are two states that go farther than that against them and that cannot resist getting involved in the private business and makes "holding oneself to be married" to be a actual criminal offense, even if they do not get any sort of marriage licenses for their "subsequent wives".

They must fight their battles on their own. They must prove that their mere religious calling is somehow the same as people who are wired like myself, and that's going to be extraordinarily tough for them to do. Gender and gender orientation cannot be changed. Religions, however, can.

dantodd
08-10-2010, 10:12 AM
There's an underlying criminal prohibition against consumating it. On top of that, the government has defenses against such attempts to legalize that they don't have against gay and lesbian couples.


I don't believe you are correct. I went looking, admittedly not terribly hard, and found no such prohibitions in CA law. And what "defenses" does the government have against such attempts? Isn't being able to marry the person of your choosing a fundamental right? Why should it matter who the other person (or people) as long as they are an adult?

Vox
08-10-2010, 10:15 AM
I don't believe adult incest can be outlawed in light of Perry either, just like polygamy. Interestingly; I looked and didn't see any prohibitions on incest in California's marriage laws.

I actually agree with this. There's certainly no legal reason to prevent immediate family members from legally screwing, I don't see a legal reason to prevent them from marrying. the only compelling government interest would be that it creates an increased liklihood of certain genetic diseases, however if we open that door it creates a litany of arguments for all types of eugenics laws.

Vox
08-10-2010, 10:16 AM
Perhaps a bit off the subject, but on my Yahoo page yesterday, under the big "Same Sex Marriage Debate" banner was a small type liner intro regarding polygamy. I'm guessing, odd as it sounds, there's some sort of SF to SLC conversation going on along the lines of "shut up for now - this is hard enough without you folks piling on". :o

I don't see the mormons and the gays joining hands to work together.

dantodd
08-10-2010, 10:23 AM
They must fight their battles on their own. They must prove that their mere religious calling is somehow the same as people who are wired like myself, and that's going to be extraordinarily tough for them to do. Gender and gender orientation cannot be changed. Religions, however, can.

Wow Gray. I didn't think you were so set against certain "kinds" of marriage you don't like. I hope you realize this is pretty hypocritical.

One's rights shouldn't be dependent upon how they are "wired." By using that standard it would be easy to outlaw all sorts of behavior unless a "genetic predisposition can be proven. Either the state has the authority to prevent adults from entering into marriage or they don't. If the state doesn't have such a right then incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, interracial marriages, heterosexual marriages and homosexual marriages cannot be outlawed.

I don't know why you seem to have a problem with polygamous marriages. Why does someone choosing to be in a polygamous union harm your right to be married? Why does it harm your marriage if two siblings or first cousins are married? It is difficult to ask people to accept your union which is outside of social norms when you then turn and try to deny the same rights to others.

Vox
08-10-2010, 10:31 AM
Everything should be fairgame. Drugs, hookers, gay marriage, child pornography, beastiality, who's to say what limits should be placed on anything. After all this is a free country. If a parent wants to put their naked 5 year old on the internet, who am I to argue with that ?

That's about consent there. I actually think narcotics and hookers should be legal, taxed and regulated like nevada does with their hookers. Child pornography is about consent from a child, they're too young to give consent so it's abusive. Likewise bestiality. An animal can't give consent. While I think it's absolutely disgusting not all forms of bestiality can be considered cruelty to animals. Those that are should be illegal those that aren't should simply be revolted.

What's that old saying back in the 60's and 70's..."If it feels good, do it".

And while we're at it, we should lower the age of consent to 16, so that girls can have consensual sex with whomever they want.

The age of consent varies greatly from state to state. I'm 21, if I wanted to have sex with a 16 year old girl all I'd have to do would be take her to Nevada, there's it's perfectly legal.

What about polygamy ? Anyone up for that ? What about two husbands married to a woman ? And those husbands have other wives. How many can everyone have ? Who would put limits on that ? Think of how much that would bring the world together if everyone was married to everyone else.

The limits need to be logical. But hell, Polygamy is perfectly legitimate in the biblical world view and much of the world that has failed to progress like you're asking us to.

Hey, I have an idea, lets bring back dueling. That way anyone who has a grievance can permanently settle the argument.

If we want to make the United States truly free, let's get rid of all of the absolutes. Man I feel freer already.

While I have no problem with dueling I figure you should just pay for the medical care and burial costs before starting the duel...

The point is that We have an evolving view of morality. Humanity always has. It's not longer acceptable to cut off someone's hand for steeling, it IS, however, now acceptable to renounce your faith without being shunned. If we fail to evolve culturally in what is permissible then we become some international pariah with whom no one wants to do business all because of an immature obsession with other people's naughty bits.

dantodd
08-10-2010, 10:40 AM
If we want to make the United States truly free, let's get rid of all of the absolutes. Man I feel freer already.

You actually have it completely backwards. By removing prohibitions on 99% of the crap we have prohibitions on it doesn't get rid of absolutes, it strengthens absolutes. Having 100,000 laws proscribing various activities, many of which are completely ignored or even laughed at (having to sign for Sudafed at the drug store), dilutes those things that should be considered absolutes. If we are to pare down statutorily prohibited acts those that remain are viewed with greater reverence rather than less. Hell, there are so many laws restricting our rights today we can't possibly even know them all so how can they be absolutes?

If you want to make laws better respected and viewed as absolutes pass a constitutional amendment limiting the number or laws to some ridiculously low number such that any reasonable person can know and understand all of the demands his government is making of him.

jdberger
08-10-2010, 10:43 AM
Wow Gray. I didn't think you were so set against certain "kinds" of marriage you don't like. I hope you realize this is pretty hypocritical.

One's rights shouldn't be dependent upon how they are "wired." By using that standard it would be easy to outlaw all sorts of behavior unless a "genetic predisposition can be proven. Either the state has the authority to prevent adults from entering into marriage or they don't. If the state doesn't have such a right then incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, interracial marriages, heterosexual marriages and homosexual marriages cannot be outlawed.

I don't know why you seem to have a problem with polygamous marriages. Why does someone choosing to be in a polygamous union harm your right to be married? Why does it harm your marriage if two siblings or first cousins are married? It is difficult to ask people to accept your union which is outside of social norms when you then turn and try to deny the same rights to others.

In Gray's defense, I can see a compelling government interest in preventing siblings from marrying.

Exhibit One....

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_x2nt9AmcZKw/SmXl8GjPoYI/AAAAAAAAB3E/3uj8CvELxZQ/s400/inbreeding3.jpg

Children are innocent.

I could care less about polygamy. I don't exactly get it - one wife exhausts me.... ;)

paradox
08-10-2010, 10:43 AM
And while we're at it, we should lower the age of consent to 16, so that girls can have consensual sex with whomever they want.

The "bible belt" has already done that:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Age_of_Consent.png/800px-Age_of_Consent.png

paradox
08-10-2010, 10:47 AM
Can we still back to the original subject at hand, rather than delving into issues of Sharia law?

Sharia law is actually quite relevant. If it is OK to use the bible to determine which civil rights are acceptable, why wouldn't it be OK to use the Koran, or the Talmud, or the Vedas, or Greek mythology, or Norse sagas, or bad science fiction from a megalomaniac egoist? Who gets to decide what is the proper "religious definition of marriage"?

Roadrunner
08-10-2010, 10:47 AM
You actually have it completely backwards. By removing prohibitions on 99% of the crap we have prohibitions on it doesn't get rid of absolutes, it strengthens absolutes. Having 100,000 laws proscribing various activities, many of which are completely ignored or even laughed at (having to sign for Sudafed at the drug store), dilutes those things that should be considered absolutes. If we are to pare down statutorily prohibited acts those that remain are viewed with greater reverence rather than less. Hell, there are so many laws restricting our rights today we can't possibly even know them all so how can they be absolutes?

If you want to make laws better respected and viewed as absolutes pass a constitutional amendment limiting the number or laws to some ridiculously low number such that any reasonable person can know and understand all of the demands his government is making of him.

Oh but I want to be free. I don't want any restrictions on my life. I want to marry who ever I want, I want to take whatever drug suits me, and I want to go shooting after smoking a bid fat doobie. I mean I want to be relaxed when I go shooting.

Roadrunner
08-10-2010, 10:49 AM
Sharia law is actually quite relevant. If it is OK to use the bible to determine which civil rights are acceptable, why wouldn't it be OK to use the Koran, or the Talmud, or the Vedas, or Greek mythology, or Norse sagas, or bad science fiction from a megalomaniac egoist? Who gets to decide what is the proper "religious definition of marriage"?

Your right, throw them all out. religion is responsible for all of the trouble we have in the world.

Roadrunner
08-10-2010, 10:50 AM
The "bible belt" has already done that:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Age_of_Consent.png/800px-Age_of_Consent.png

Okay, well if those bible thumpers agree with that, then there has to be something wrong with it. I propose the age of consent be dropped to 10.

dantodd
08-10-2010, 10:52 AM
In Gray's defense, I can see a compelling government interest in preventing siblings from marrying.

Exhibit One....

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_x2nt9AmcZKw/SmXl8GjPoYI/AAAAAAAAB3E/3uj8CvELxZQ/s400/inbreeding3.jpg

Children are innocent.

I could care less about polygamy. I don't exactly get it - one wife exhausts me.... ;)

IF we accept that preventing inbreeding is a compelling state's interest are you seriously going to say that marriage proscription is the best solution? It is certainly not narrowly tailored. Not to mention that barring marriage is no barrier to giving birth. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html) only 40% of kids born today are born to married parents anyway.

So, we have a not-narrowly tailored solution which is provably not effective anyway, to a problem that the state will have a hard time making case is any of their business.

Back to the compelling state interest, what is the state's interest in preventing kids from being born to close relations? Is it the incident of birth defects? If this is true then you must accept that the state has a compelling interest in stopping other births where a child is likely to have a birth defect. This is NOT a road you want to go down. Vox mentioned eugenics earlier, if you aren't familiar with it or its history read a little about it.

paradox
08-10-2010, 10:52 AM
What baffles me is why do Atheists and gays want to get married in the first place. Marriage in this country since its founding has been a religious ceremony. That's why our marriages are performed in churches. Honestly, I never thought the government should have ANY involvement in marriage whatsoever. I believe that if you are atheist or gay or what have you, you should get a civil union that shows hey we are together. I just do not understand why anyone non religious would WANT to get married.

I was married in my home by my county's Recorder. None of our vows nor the Recorder's speech made any mention of "God" as defined by any religion/cult/tradition.

We were married to show our commitment to each other in the presence of our loved ones and to benefit from state sanctioned rights only afforded to married couples.

I've done my part to keep my marriage out of your church, it's time you did your part to keep your church out of marriages that don't want anything to do with your religion.

Roadrunner
08-10-2010, 10:54 AM
In Gray's defense, I can see a compelling government interest in preventing siblings from marrying.

Exhibit One....

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_x2nt9AmcZKw/SmXl8GjPoYI/AAAAAAAAB3E/3uj8CvELxZQ/s400/inbreeding3.jpg

Children are innocent.

I could care less about polygamy. I don't exactly get it - one wife exhausts me.... ;)

Who cares. If brother and sisters want to have kids, who are we to tell them no. Besides, we may be seeing a new evolution of humans. Who's to say where that will take us. And who are you to judge those people ? After all they are a loving family and that's what's important isn't it ?

Vox
08-10-2010, 10:54 AM
Sharia law is actually quite relevant. If it is OK to use the bible to determine which civil rights are acceptable, why wouldn't it be OK to use the Koran, or the Talmud, or the Vedas, or Greek mythology, or Norse sagas, or bad science fiction from a megalomaniac egoist? Who gets to decide what is the proper "religious definition of marriage"?

I see what you did there... lol

But the point is well made.

Muhammad had a 9 year old wife. I'd say that would makeit traditional.Why would we in America disallow the "tradition" of marrying a 9 year old to our muslim brethren?

Because tradition doesn't mean **** if it's wrong morally. The homophobes here have yet failed to address my other point, until very recently women were chattel. How would your wife respond if you call her your property? If I were to marry your daughter would that make her MY property to beat when she gets uppity? Same logic applies. Why should we have set our wimin folk free, that's not tradition, that's not God's way.

Roadrunner
08-10-2010, 10:58 AM
I was married in my home by my county's Recorder. None of our vows nor the Recorder's speech made any mention of "God" as defined by any religion/cult/tradition.

We were married to show our commitment to each other in the presence of our loved ones and to benefit from state sanctioned rights only afforded to married couples.

I've done my part to keep my marriage out of your church, it's time you did your part to keep your church out of marriages that don't want anything to do with your religion.

Why did you waste your time going through all of that government red tape ? I mean you could have had a loving family without government consent. And if you and your significant other were just living together, she might have been eligible for government entitlements. You really screwed the pooch.

Gray Peterson
08-10-2010, 11:00 AM
Wow Gray. I didn't think you were so set against certain "kinds" of marriage you don't like. I hope you realize this is pretty hypocritical.

One's rights shouldn't be dependent upon how they are "wired." By using that standard it would be easy to outlaw all sorts of behavior unless a "genetic predisposition can be proven. Either the state has the authority to prevent adults from entering into marriage or they don't. If the state doesn't have such a right then incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, interracial marriages, heterosexual marriages and homosexual marriages cannot be outlawed.

I don't know why you seem to have a problem with polygamous marriages. Why does someone choosing to be in a polygamous union harm your right to be married? Why does it harm your marriage if two siblings or first cousins are married? It is difficult to ask people to accept your union which is outside of social norms when you then turn and try to deny the same rights to others.

You're confusing my recognition of legal reality with disapproval of what they want. All I know is that FLDS polygamist marriages are constantly used as boogey-men that will "Destroy America" by the Cultural War Profiteers and used as a weapon against recognition of my equality. It is not my business to react back and throw them under the bus to get mine.

I will not be marching down to Olympia or Sacramento if polygamist couples want to marry, either way. It is not my issue. They must fight that on their own, however you won't see me standing on a soapbox ranting and raving about the polygamists wanting to marry.

paradox
08-10-2010, 11:02 AM
Why did you waste your time going through all of that government red tape?

So we could get access to all the government rights reserved to married couples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_Un ited_States

Roadrunner
08-10-2010, 11:02 AM
You're confusing my recognition of legal reality with disapproval of what they want. All I know is that FLDS polygamist marriages are constantly used as boogey-men that will "Destroy America" by the Cultural War Profiteers and used as a weapon against recognition of my equality. It is not my business to react back and throw them under the bus to get mine.

I will not be marching down to Olympia or Sacramento if polygamist couples want to marry, either way. It is not my issue. They must fight that on their own, however you won't see me standing on a soapbox ranting and raving about the polygamists wanting to marry.

I agree, polygamy for everyone.

Gray Peterson
08-10-2010, 11:03 AM
Oh but I want to be free. I don't want any restrictions on my life. I want to marry who ever I want, I want to take whatever drug suits me, and I want to go shooting after smoking a bid fat doobie. I mean I want to be relaxed when I go shooting.

What does that have to do with equal protection?

Roadrunner
08-10-2010, 11:04 AM
So we could get access to all the government rights reserved to married couples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_Un ited_States

Well, we'll just have to change that. We'll force businesses to have insurance available for every couple that just want to live together. Oh wait, we don't have to do that. We have government healthcare now. Let the government take care of you, Go get a divorce.

Roadrunner
08-10-2010, 11:06 AM
What does that have to do with equal protection?

It's my right to do whatever I want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, right ?