« "It's the vote heard 'round the world'" | Main | Black liberal love for Obama »

Vox Populi, Vox Nothing

Well, we now know just what the will of the people, as expressed in as pure a fashion as possible, means when it runs up against the liberal mentality: absolutely nothing.

A federal judge has looked at the results of the referendum that banned gay marriage in an amendment to the state's constitution -- which passed 52% to 48% in November 2008 -- violated the federal constitution, specifically the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment.

This decision could end up instituting gay marriage across the nation.

The court's ruling says that states can not discriminate on the basis of sex when it comes to recognizing marriages. As this is a federal judge ruling, and citing the United States Constitution, the effects carry far beyond California's borders.

I've long stated my support for gay marriage. I'm not going to recap my position here, but I'll just say I don't see any harm and a potential for quite a bit of good. However, my support has always been tempered by the condition that it be done the "right" way -- by the will of the people, as expressed by either their elected representatives or public referendum.

That's how it was done in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. And it's been pretty uncontroversial.

On the other hand, in places where it is enshrined by judicial fiat, it ends up causing extremely heated fights. Massachusetts, California -- the battles there have been epic.

My reasoning is simple: this is a major shift in the fundamental social structure of our culture. As such, it needs to be supported by the majority of the people, or it will cause tremendous turmoil. If it happens in a way that is seen as in defiance of the will of the majority, there will be a backlash.

By the judge's ruling, we are seeing a potential overturning of every other law regarding marriage in every state. For example, each state sets rules restricting marriage based on other factors -- age, consanguinity (the relatedness of the would-be couple), and whatnot. Those are also forms of discrimination, and are imperiled by the judge's decision.

I had long believed that the biggest danger posed by judicially-imposed gay marriage was through the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, which had the potential of allowing a single state's authorization of gay marriage forcing all other states to recognize a union that would not be legal within their own borders. But this ruling shows that isn't the only danger.

Folks, gay marriage is coming. It's already in place in quite a few states, and remarkably uncontroversial in those states -- those states where the people were allowed to decide it for themselves, and allowed to feel like they had a real say in the decision. In those states where the advocates said "screw you, you hateful bigots!" to the general populace and instead sought out a judge (or panel of judges) to impose their vision of "fairness" on the situation, there's been no end of strife.

Yes, just getting a judge to agree with you is a lot cheaper and quicker than finding a way to get a majority of the citizens to do so. But only in the short term. If you want to win, and win in a way that will actually stand for more than a very brief time, the extra effort is the only way to guarantee it.

As I said, accepting gay marriage is a massive shift in the cultural status quo. And if that isn't done with the active participation and consent of the general culture, you're just asking for trouble.

Ask California. Ask Massachusetts.

As they've learned, if the people feel like they're not being listened to, they tend to shout.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39780.

Comments (143)

"This decision could end up... (Below threshold)
David Marcoe:

"This decision could end up instituting gay marriage across the nation."

It's at the first rung of the federal court system. This decision, by itself, is not going to institute anything, as the ruling was a joke in its application of law and it will likely be appealed. Ultimately, it's what SCOTUS does that we have to worry about.

I agree that gay marriage i... (Below threshold)
Bob:

I agree that gay marriage is coming but this decision is wrong and a slap in the face to California voters. It will further deteriorate our sagging Constitutional law because the 4 liberals on the Supreme Court will undoubtedly do back flips to find a way to uphold the ruling - whether they are in the majority or the minority. 2000 years of history and 52% of the vote should count for something. (BTW, how did this case get assigned to a gay judge when gays make up only a small percentage of the federal bench?)

Prop 8 proponents lost this... (Below threshold)
James H:

Prop 8 proponents lost this case in part because they put up a poor case. Prop 8 opponents fielded David Boies and Theodore Olson, two of the best litigators in the country. Prop 8 proponents fielded the Washington Generals, apparently.

I've no problems at all wit... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

I've no problems at all with gay marriage, as long as it's codified and managed the same way as straight marrige. To get married, you need a license. You can't marry more than one person at a time. To separate and marry someone else, you need a divorce, and that divorce has to be final before the next marriage.

And it has to be chosen by the PEOPLE of the state, not imposed from the top down by judicial activism. The liberal trope that seems to play out as 'they're too damn dumb to know what's best for them' re social issues is getting a trifle old.

I'm of the opinion the gove... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

I'm of the opinion the government needs to get its nose out of the concept of marriage altogether.

From a state government point of view it should recognize a contract between two individuals as a legal status with whatever rules on property ownership, custody etc. It should not care about race, religion, sex or sexual orientation of the people entering the contract.

If religious groups wish accept that as a "marriage" they should be allowed to do so. If they wish to limit a "marriage" to traditional man/woman they should be allowed to do so. Let churches define what they think a marriage is however they want.

A "marriage" and a legal contract for being a couple should be two separate things. Yes, it could lead to a couple having a recognized "marriage" by a church but never filing the paperwork so the state doesn't recognize it. That's up to the couple to resolve. The state should not be under any legal obligation to recognize any church declaration.

Yes, you could have couples legally "married" that isn't recognized by the church. So what? You have that now.

The whole problem arises because we mixed the traditional concept of marriage (a religious ceremony/concept) with that of a legal contract status.

Separate those two and the problem goes away.

"[T]his is a major shift in... (Below threshold)

"[T]his is a major shift in the fundamental social structure of our culture. As such, it needs to be supported by the majority of the people, or it will cause tremendous turmoil."

Spot on, JayTea. The premier example is abortion, which was legalized by a fictional case dreamed up by the ACLU and then cleverly litigated all the way to the Supreme Court. The will of the people was completely omitted from the process, and forty years later abortion is still perhaps the most hotly debated issue in the country.

There is such a thing as "good" judicial activism, however, specifically when the winds of cultural change are blowing strongly and the courts institute the necessary changes. Civil rights law is the perfect example here.

For what its worth, I think the government should get out of the marriage business entirely here in the US. Let the courthouse issue a civil union or domestic partnership certificate, which you can use for legal matters. If you get a "courthouse" wedding, you get a legally recognized civil union.

If you want "marriage", which has always been a religious sacrament, you go to the church/synagogue/temple/mosque etc. of your choice, meet the clergy's guidelines, and have the ceremony performed by the clergy. You are then married in the sight of your god, in addition to having a secular state-endorsed civil union.

Under those circumstances, I think it would be interesting to see if the gays, whose self-appointed leadership is very anti-Christian, would continue to demand participation in what would then be purely a religious sacrament.

What if a state (or a city)... (Below threshold)
WayneM:

What if a state (or a city) declares itself a 'sanctuary' for straight marriage and ignores Federal law. Could they get away with it the way sanctuary cities for illegal aliens and pot sellers do?

Faith +1 and Michael echo m... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Faith +1 and Michael echo my sentiments exactly. No need to repeat it.

Plus, why shouldn't they enjoy the pain, suffering and expense of divorce too? I mean, if you really want to be fair.

Of course, Oyster!... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Of course, Oyster!

Gay divorce - a completely untapped legal market!

Supporting Gay marriage onl... (Below threshold)
G.:

Supporting Gay marriage only denigrates our society all the more. I have to respectfully disagree with you Jay on this issue. Look at how liberal the state of California is and still the people have spoken in their opposition to it. If we as a nation accept this we will nose dive down a path I promise you will cost us dearly. If a liberal state like California has the good sense to ban it(barely),then I expect most of the rest of America will follow suit,and rightly so. It will cost the states that have or will accept this. If you accept gay marriage then you open a Pandora's box. Next will be NAMBLA and all manner of sick people demanding their "right" to marry whomever or whatever they will. This WILL start a breakdown of our society. This is a major hot button issue and real conservatives will fight this tooth and nail. If it makes it to the supreme court I would expect a 5-4 vote. If not then I guess I'm ready to die because I don't don't want to live in whats coming after that.

"That's how it was done in ... (Below threshold)
ADA:

"That's how it was done in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. And it's been pretty uncontroversial. "

Er, Maine voters overturned the legislature's support of ssm rights with a voter initiative that was very controversial and contentious.

And even when voters support a law it still must be constitutional. Even if voters support something--depriving Jews of the right to own property, reinstituting slavery, depriving certain classes of citizens of the right to marry--it still must pass Constitutional scrutiny. Prop 8 failed. Like your opinion piece.

"I'm of the opinion the gov... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

"I'm of the opinion the government needs to get its nose out of the concept of marriage altogether." Faith+1

That's been my position for a number of years. And, hey look, there are four of us just here on Wizbang already. Maybe we're a movement.

They have the same rights a... (Below threshold)
G.:

They have the same rights already that I have. I can't marry a man (at least in my state)They can't marry a man. We have the same rights.I can marry a woman,they can marry a woman. Again, we have the same rights. They just want more "rights" no one else has.

The marriage debate is real... (Below threshold)
epador:

The marriage debate is really all about money and property with a sprinkling of access. Right now a life-long partner risks losing everything if a particularly nasty family descends when their gay member becomes incapacitated or dies. Even and especially in California. I've seen it happen. Access at the hospital to your ailing partner, recourse when a relationship sours, and economic benefits like health care, life insurance and pension benefits are all part of the driving force behind the initiatives. These problems exist BECAUSE of the way the Federal and State governments have defined economic and legal status of marriage and its benefits.

On the gay side of the argument, these benefits should be available to same-sex partners.

On the anti-gay marriage side, they are to be reserved for heterosexual monogamous relationships. Citations of supporting the traditional family are the main foundation of this side of the argument.

Yet once procreation and raising a family is no longer a part of the relationship, why continue to support only heterosexual relationships economically? That's where I see most anti-gay arguments fall apart, or fall back on religious dogma.

Supporting monogamous long-term relationships, regardless of sexual orientation, is a reasonable social goal to support economic and social stability. Certainly not a REQUIREMENT, but a preferred status for the plurality, thus appropriate for economic and legal benefits. This is where the argument needs to begin and end.

You know what is ironic abo... (Below threshold)
Sean P:

You know what is ironic about this ruling? It completely destroys the "let the states decide" middle ground that likely defeated the push towards a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage 6 years ago. Thanks to the federal courts, this now an all or nothing issue -- opposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage now means supporting gay marriage in every state. In the long run this could do more to undermine the move to gay marriage than anything Fred Phelps could have dreamed up.

Your comment about getting ... (Below threshold)
Roy:

Your comment about getting voter buy-in applies to lots of things, abortion, Obamacare, this ruling. There is an easy way and a hard way. Liberals need to learn to choose wisely, or at least try to.

When marriage has lost all ... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

When marriage has lost all value as a contract based on values, then let it die in the culture that killed it.

The next step for me is to have my civil marriage blessed by my Pastor and dare the cry babies to force God to bless their unholy union by judicial activism. Not happening.

State to force churches, under pain of death (figurative), to bless unions that are contrary to scripture? Is this the next?

The gay community is raising its self esteem by illusion. Tearing down the good doesn't make the bad any better.

"Ultimately, it's what S... (Below threshold)
John S:

"Ultimately, it's what SCOTUS does that we have to worry about."

SCOTUS is a few hours from getting a militant lesbian with no qualifications whatsoever in law. That pretty much answers your question. On the plus side the Democrats are reinstating the marriage penalty, so these committed gay couples can cough up the extra $2,500 in annual income tax like the rest of us.

"Liberals need to learn to ... (Below threshold)
914:

"Liberals need to learn to choose wisely"


If they did they wouldn't be liberals.


48% for and 52% against. I guess that mean's Hussein is not recognized as President since he got a higher % for then against? This is how we do thing's now..

50 years ago this activist judge would have been removed from the bench and barred from practicing law ever again.

Marriage is betwee... (Below threshold)
irongrampa:


Marriage is between man and woman--anything else is an aberration. That should be the end of any argument.

Doesn't seem to be, though. I have no problem with same sex coupling, none of my business, so the interest level is nearly nil.

From this side, there'd be absolutely no objection to affording same-sex couples the rights afforded to civil union participants.

Now, if you don't mind, how about getting OUT of my face on the subject?

I fall into the category of... (Below threshold)
Matt:

I fall into the category of get the state out of marriage.

If marriage is looked at as a legal contract with the focus of establishing joint property rights and inheritance, taxation etc then there is no logical reason to limit it to heterosexual couples only. If multiples of persons want to get married, let them form a corporation.

If marriage is religious, then let the variuos religions decide what they will recognize or not as a non-legally binding religious ceremony. The state doesn't regulate other inherently religious ceremonies such as baptism, death-rites, confrimations etc, why marriage?

Unfortuantely, logic left the argument a long time ago and many involved, on both sides of the issue see it as the homosexual community using marriage as a means to force others to accept them.

I don think the judges ruling was poorly thought out and written. I am confident it will be upheld by the 9th circuit and then SCOTUS.

"it needs to be supported b... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"it needs to be supported by the majority of the people"

And what PISSES the gays off is that a MAJORITY do not support gay use of the term "marriage". Even if the courts impose this; gays can say "we're married", and people like me will say NO, YOU'RE NOT! What are they going to do to me? Send me to a concentration camp?

Gays can call their "union" anything they want, but it's not "marriage". Since they like to tout how 'creative' they are, let them come up with their own term. Their partnership can have the same benefits as 'married' people as far as I'm concerned, just let them find their own term for it.

My daughter was recently married. The new touchy-feely Caleeefornia marriage license says 'Partner 1' and 'Partner 2'. My son-in-law took his pen and put a slash through those terms and wrote 'Bride' and 'Groom'.

If this ruling stands, Amer... (Below threshold)

If this ruling stands, American society is going to end up looking very different than it does now -- and I'm not convinced that will be a good thing for gay Americans.

From the beginning, a trend of judicial fiat imposing same-sex marriage has resulted in a mainstream backlash. This ruling eliminates the first peaceable avenue for that backlash.

Bad idea.

Well, we now know just w... (Below threshold)

Well, we now know just what the will of the people, as expressed in as pure a fashion as possible, means when it runs up against the liberal mentality: absolutely nothing.

Oh, sure. Because in states where people have voted in and approved of gay marriage, conservatives have just quietly accepted it.

I agree with ADA, ... (Below threshold)
Bertram:

I agree with ADA,

just because something is passed via popular referendum does not mean that it is constitutional. The Federal Judiciary exists in our system of checks and balances to overturn such discriminatory laws and ensure liberty, even liberty for God-less sodomites.

Tyranny-by-the-majority is the tyranny that the founding fathers feared the most. Their fear is reflected in the make-up of our Congress, the Checks and Balances in the Federal government and, the semi-autonomous nature of the states.

This ruling is not a judicial fiat, it is an appropriate exercise of checking the will of a discriminatory majority which took away the rights of a group of people. In this way the court is preventing tyranny. I don't know about you, but I am for Liberty. Always.

This country was never conceived as a direct democracy and is not a direct democracy for very good reasons. The Constitution serves as the greatest guarantee of Liberty ever conceived, and laws in this nation must follow the Constitution, whether decided by the legislature of a state or by direct referendum.

Here, I"m going to have som... (Below threshold)

Here, I"m going to have some fun replacing gender-words with race-words, just to see if that helps the actual discrimination pop into sight for you.

Marriage is between man and woman of the same race--anything else is an aberration. That should be the end of any argument.

Clearer?

Try this one:

Supporting interracial marriage only denigrates our society all the more....If you accept interracial marriage then you open a Pandora's box. Next will be NAMBLA and all manner of sick people demanding their "right" to marry whomever or whatever they will.

Do you get it?

There's marriage in the rel... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

There's marriage in the religious context.
There's also marriage in the legal context.

In the religious context, gov't has no business.
In the legal context, religion has no business.

In the legal context, it's a contract between private citizens. I see no reason that the gov't should restrict this contract any more than it should restrict other contracts (e.g. being of sufficient age to enter into a legally binding contract). Note: contracts that violate other laws are not are not recognized (e.g. buyer shall pay seller for X kilos of uncut cocaine at $YYYY/kilo).

jim x can always be counted... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

jim x can always be counted on to drop by with his strawman.

"Because in states where pe... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Because in states where people have voted in and approved of gay marriage, conservatives have just quietly accepted it."

Oh? And just WHERE did "people" vote it in?

"Tyranny-by-the-majority is... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Tyranny-by-the-majority is the tyranny that the founding fathers feared the most."

Seems "tyranny-by-the-MINORITY" is the name of the game today.

"Prop 8 proponents field... (Below threshold)
Frankly B:

"Prop 8 proponents fielded the Washington Generals, apparently."

They may have intended to lose this one, knowing it was going before the Ninth and knowing that a win there would be appealed all the way to the SCOTUS.

What proponents got in this case was a look at the opponents best ammunition. They are now better equipped to defend Prop at the SCOTUS.

jim x ... (Below threshold)
914:


jim x

"Do you get it?"

Yeah, I've got it. You have Ward'itis.

Can anyone tell me what the... (Below threshold)
Bwhacker:

Can anyone tell me what the practical effect of this ruling is on states that have amended their own constitutions to ban same-sex marriage? I'm far from a constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that the issue has been settled according to the Federal Constitution in those states. Is that the case, or am I mistaken?

How the hell do the arrogan... (Below threshold)
Highlander:

How the hell do the arrogant yet backward religious fundies get off dictating to other couples who can marry and who cannot??? Texas Tom & G, you don't like gay marriage then stay away from the wedding -- KEEP YOUR FILTHY NOSES OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS!!
Why is this so hard for you? WELL? Why are you fools so selfishly bigoted as to deny to others a right you yourself have -- the right to marry the particular adult you love?

A way to destroy any civili... (Below threshold)
Stan:

A way to destroy any civilization is to promote any kind of aberrant lifestyles, be it homosexuality, child molesting and bestiality. This basically is what led to the downfall of the Greek and Roman Empires. To be sure, there were other causes, but these were the main root causes. This decision by the Federal Court in San Francisco will be just another nail in the coffin of the Constitution and the United States. Does anyone want to go the way of the aforementioned empires? I, for one don't

Where the hell do you intol... (Below threshold)
Bwhacker:

Where the hell do you intolerant atheists get the idea that only your opinion is valid in this discussion? Even as a Christian, I recognize that marriage is a social contract of sorts that carries implications far beyond the practice of my faith. It always seems arrogant and hypocritical of "progressives" to always bash on the people who disagree with them, but hide behind protections of hate speech codes to prevent any similar backlash against them.

Are religious organizations... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Are religious organizations that endorse gay marriage anti-religious or secular? Michael LaPrairie, are Anglican bishops that support gay marriage anti-Christian?

Also, if a court ruled that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional, but 52% of voters in a particular state disagreed, would you then argue that anti-miscegenation laws be upheld because they reflect the will of the people?

Democracy is more complicated than simply writing laws that appease the greatest number of people. I don't know if there is a word for that kind of governmental system but it's total crap whatever it is.

As for comments like #10, it's difficult to formulate a polite reply. I guess it's just best to wonder, then, what sort of person would rather die than live in a country were two dudes can enjoy the same rights and privileges in the eyes of the law as a dude and a girl. If your life is that pathetic--seriously, if you hate being alive so much--then you are in desperate need of psychiatric care. And G., as for California being a really "liberal" state, it's economically liberal but socially moderate because the black and Hispanic underclasses will vote Democratic for economic reasons but hold more conservative social values. If you don't understand this--if you can't conceive of more than one axis on which to plot an individual's values--then you're an idiot.

914, winning an election is something that requires a majority. Being granted equal rights under the Constitution--it doesn't fucking matter what the majority think. A majority of the voting public in the South demanded the right to own slaves, and Lincoln's wholly appropriate response was to wage war against them and kill an awful lot of them until they no longer had the means to try and assert themselves as a separate political entity. And it was the right thing to do.

Lowlander: You are obvious... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

Lowlander: You are obviously incapable of adult debate. I have beliefs and informed opinions. You don't like them? Stay away from your computer.

Do all a favor and try distinguishing between the person and the act. A good and faithful person is just that. A person who engages in detestable conduct is just that.

You wish to call my conduct detestable? Your opinion is welcome. I am not, by any legal or moral obligation, required to think of you as worth considering.

You cannot find hate in my prior post. You cannot find uncharitable feelings in my post. You might as well scream RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST for all the depth your post possesses.

Traditional marriage (not requiring a government certification) is a union blessed by God. The new marriage the gay community is promoting, is an empty shell to gain respectability for their conduct when their particular conduct does not merit respectability of its own right.

You may cry foul now.

Hey everybody, you heard it... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Hey everybody, you heard it here first, from Stan the historian: the Greek and Roman empires fell because they embraced homosexuality, child-fucking, and man-on-turtle intercourse. They were too busy having sex with sexy animals and sexier boys to notice the decline of their empire before it was too late.

Stan, where did you study ancient history? Liberty University? Sunday school in a church basement in rural Utah? Or do you just invent historical facts and let your own particular interest in human-on-animal sexuality bleed into the picture? Sheesh, what a creep.

#26--Jimx--how a... (Below threshold)
irongrampa:

#26--Jimx--how about the next time you quote something i post you quote what I POST?

Stupid asswipe.

#39 Hyper: Refute Stan's v... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

#39 Hyper: Refute Stan's views! Show his error and provide equal or greater argument for your view.

Those who scream most, think least.

Texas Tom, here's a stupid ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Texas Tom, here's a stupid distinction you just made:

A good and faithful person is just that. A person who engages in detestable conduct is just that.

I think this is the "love the homosexual but hate the homosexuality distinction", just poorly written, right? Well, here's why it's stupid: do you love the genocidal war criminal, but hate the genocidal war crimes? No. You hate them both. So don't pretend that you don't hate gay people and only hate their gayness. Trying to separate a person from their disposition towards committing certain acts that you find morally reprehensible is totally incoherent and is an exercise in futility and a shitty attempt at disguising your own prejudice.

Let me know if you need any of the above paragraph written out with smaller words and/or shorter sentences.

Also, why are you talking about God? What, atheists can't get married now? Do you live in Iran or Saudi Arabia? Are you a member of the Taliban? Go burn an effigy of Thomas Jefferson and piss all over the constitution of your country if that's how you feel, shithead.

Texas Tom, do you really wa... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Texas Tom, do you really want a history lesson as to why the Greek and Roman empires were eroded and eventually defeated? Because I'm not going to give it to you. However, I will say that anyone who believes that the Romans lost control of their empire because they were too busy having sex with boys and animals is a fucking moron and I'd be totally wasting my time trying to familiarize them with the fall of that respective empire. I dunno, maybe that's what's actually printed in text books in Texas, but trust me, it ain't true and it's so false as to be hilarious.

Hyper: Why are you so angr... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

Hyper: Why are you so angry? Did I offend you? I am truly sorry you can't control yourself. Speaking about me, with no knowledge of me, leaves your imagination to do your work for you.

Next time you rant, be a little more careful to insert out of context statements where they belong.

Why would an atheist want a God blessed tradional marriage when a government certified one would do just as well? I get this. Don't you?

#43 Hyper: I just asked fo... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

#43 Hyper: I just asked for support for your counter claim of superior historical knowledge. I certainly don't want any history lesson from you. I like my "superior to you" intellect just as it is.

I must admit that Stan was certainly not expressing a deep historical awareness in his post but I would suggest that if he wishes he can support his assertions. (or not post more and move on)

What is the source of your anger toward people who don't see the world your way?
I do hope it's not an adolescent inferiority syndrome.

You may cry now.

I am angry at you because a... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I am angry at you because anyone who invests time and energy trying to prevent a certain type of people within their society from enjoying the same rights and privileges that they probably take for granted is someone who deserves scorn and vitriol. Unfortunately most of these people have a very limited capacity for shame so expressing this scorn and vitriol is generally a cathartic exercise and not a serious attempt at persuasion.

However, there is much solace to be taken in the knowledge that your side has lost the argument and will soon be marginalized by judicial fiat. That's called progress.

Marriage is no longer solely a religious institution. It is part of our Western culture, and contains powerful symbolism. It is a contract meant to solidify and legally codify a bond between two loving, consenting adults. All the rewards reaped by a hetero couple who enter into the bond of marriage are rewards that can be enjoyed by gay and lesbian couples; and so to deprive them of the opportunity of enjoying these rewards is to discriminate against a type of person.

Now everyone on here who is worth paying attention to acknowledges that there is nothing wrong with gay people; and so the only remaining task is to make it clear that preventing gay people from participating in the same cultural rituals and entering into the same legal relationships as straight people are permitted is discriminatory and unconstitutional. That's an easy argument to make; it's being made; and you're probably two or three years away from living in a country where gay people can be legally married in any state, at least by a judge if not clergy. (Whether or not particular churches want to recognize and perform gay marriages is a separate and much less interesting question.)

Garandfan can always be cou... (Below threshold)

Garandfan can always be counted on to label arguments he doesn't like as a strawman.

Garandfan, do you know the definition of a strawman argument? If so, you should know my statement doesn't apply - because I am taking an *actual argument* from the above article and refuting it.

And where did people vote in same-sex marriage? Vermont and New Hampshire. FYI.

#40 - how about *before* th... (Below threshold)

#40 - how about *before* the next time you call someone an asswipe, you understand the basics of what they were doing?

Since I said very explicitly I was swapping out key words to show prejudice, don't even try to say I was misrepresenting your words.

I think what's really going on is, you don't like seeing how your attitude towards gay marriage is exactly the same as attitudes towards interracial marriage.

I suggest you think on that, rather than call people asswipes for showing you uncomfortable truths.

#37<p... (Below threshold)
914:

#37

"914, winning an election is something that requires a majority. Being granted equal rights under the Constitution--it doesn't fucking matter what the majority think. A majority of the voting public in the South demanded the right to own slaves, and Lincoln's wholly appropriate response was to wage war against them and kill an awful lot of them until they no longer had the means to try and assert themselves as a separate political entity."

Dont know what the hell your blithering about but if it require's a majority to win an election, how can it not matter what that majority think??


And what the hell does the civil war have to do with this post or gay coupling's anyway's?

Have some more kool aid and take a nap.

jim, you might have to expl... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

jim, you might have to explain the difference between an 'argument from analogy' and a 'straw man'.

But then someone will probably just call you a nerd and reaffirm their distaste for icky faggots.

Hyper: Disregarding the an... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

Hyper: Disregarding the angry parts may I quote you:
"... and so the only remaining task is to make it clear that preventing gay people from participating in the same cultural rituals and entering into the same legal relationships as straight people are permitted is discriminatory and unconstitutional. "

I really like the lead in too. There is nothing wrong with gay people. I would emphasize ... there is nothing more wrong than that which is found wrong in us all.
Yeah.
Really.

I just don't see cultural rituals as engendering new rights.
I do insist on legal parity. That should be man's law.
Marriage doesn't seem to be a constitutional issue by any form of reasoning that repects the human being rather than the cause.

Hyper: I must apologize fo... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

Hyper: I must apologize for post 51. It is sloppy and dense. May I clarify?

1) There is nothing wrong with being gay that isn't wrong with us all. (Simpler phrasing)
2) Equal protection under the law is as it should be and does lead to constitutional issues. (put the brakes on the sentence too soon)
3) Cultural rituals are not affirmed or denied under the law. (Castro Street orgies are not legal or illegal, the permitted parade in which they are found are legal)
4) To distinguish between a marriage with God's blessings and a legal union that affords equality under the law is important.

Sorry.

Texas Tom,Say Sheila... (Below threshold)
Highlander:

Texas Tom,
Say Sheila and Susan want to marry each other being in love. You would ARROGANTLY stick your damn nose into their business to do what you could to deny them the right to marry the particular person whom they love -- A RIGHT YOU YOURSELF HAVE. Why? YOU GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION?

Is it because of your primitive religious beliefs, you believing that your Sky Chief would be offended by marriages that aren't "traditional"? Be aware that such backward, antiquated thought is slowly dying off, though this must be quite painful for you. You'll be carrying your own superstition and bigotry with you to the grave.

And the number of jurisdictions permitting gay marriage increases with each passing decade. DEAL WITH IT.


Highlander: You seem to be... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

Highlander: You seem to be stuck on angry and ignorant. Has no one ever stuck their nose in "your business" and saved you a lot of grief?
You insult, talk down to and generally accuse others of behavior you so freely exhibit.

My "primative" religion is a belief in something good and enduring, and not of this troubled world.
Your "enlightened" religion is dark and foreboding. It is you! It is all about you. Full of sadness and frustration. What in life give you a sense of gratitude?

Why are you talking about G... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Why are you talking about God? We're talking about marriage which is a legal term and a cultural institution in our secular society. Why muddy the conversation with superfluous superstitions?

OK this degenerated fast wh... (Below threshold)
G.:

OK this degenerated fast while I was gone. Highlander,are you gay?
Hyperbolist(snicker) are you gay?

The issue is sadly divisive... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

The issue is sadly divisive. For the record, I speak as a Christian and as a Conservative, so the bias is noted from the start.

I've long wondered why Homosexuality was considered wrong. After all, while it's condemned in both the Old and New Testament scripture, Jesus never explicitly condemned it, and you're not gonna tell me he never met any gay people in His day. Also, there's a certain moral logic to gay marriage - the sin to me has always been about lust. That's why adultery is a terrible offense against God, after all. The sin of homosexuality starts with the focus on sex. A man should love his wife's body, but not just her body. Man and wife are meant to love each other's spirit, mind, and personality, and this is why bickering and nagging and insults are offensive to God. If a gay person commits to a relationship with one person, to cherish and respect them for the rest of their lives, isn't that a lot better than the people who go from sexual partner to sexual partner, whether gay or straight?

But in the end, that thinking is human rationality, and assumes that homosexuals think and decide in the same way that heterosexuals do. Maybe they do, but maybe not, and it's foolish to assume on that point. It's hard to admit, but at some point we just need to stop and admit we don't know.

It's also important for us to consider the lessons of history. Homosexuality has generally been outlawed by the powerful cultures, and - except for Rome - where homosexuality was allowed, those who practiced it were considered morally inferior, such as in China during the time of the Five Kingdoms (after the fall of the Han dynasty). In each case, the argument may be made that the morality reflected was merely one of biology - heterosexuals out-number homosexuals by about 70 to 1 in most societies, and there were no organized homosexual communities of any size before the 19th century - or the preferences of the ruling class in place. But when considered as an aggregate timeline, for all of recorded history there has been consistent and strong resistance to homosexual behavior. It is imperative, therefore, to consider that any attempt to make such behavior the legal equal of heterosexual behavior will inevitably run into strong opposition, regardless of where or how it is implemented. Jay's argument is vital, however, to lending credibility to such an initiative, because attempts to impose social rules on an unwilling public have been done before, and always with failure in the end. A referendum is inevitable, and if the ballot is ignored in imposing a new behavioral standard, the strength of the backlash will be magnified.

Well, I'd better stop there, or the soporific effects of my comments will likely kill the thread.

Solid logic there. By that ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Solid logic there. By that line of reasoning, everybody who hates Nazis is Jewish and everybody who hates the Klan is black.

G., you're a piece of shit.

HYPER: "Why are you talking... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

HYPER: "Why are you talking about God? We're talking about marriage which is a legal term and a cultural institution in our secular society. Why muddy the conversation with superfluous superstitions?"

Marriage is a legal term. That's all? Whats the point in your posting if it's just a legal term? I disagree with you on a level you cannot understand. This is not a 2-way street. I used to hold your views. I have seen both side of this coin.

Superstition? You don't know what you are talking about. Ergo, be quiet and learn.

Our secular society? Your secular desires (fify).

You children are incorrigible. I will pray for you in an inclusive, non-threatening, politically correct, tolerant and secular way. (NOT!)

"...and assumes that homose... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

"...and assumes that homosexuals think and decide in the same way that heterosexuals do."

So the former CEO of my company might somehow operate with a totally different conceptual scheme by virtue of the fact that he's gay? Like, if he were straight, my company might have been run more, or less, successfully?

DJ, I don't see the point. And I don't see why it matters about the Bible's references towards homosexuality because the Bible also makes some very strange references towards the ideal length of a man's beard and the conditions under which he can rightfully acquire slaves. I assume you trim or shave your beard, and I assume you have never considered buying a human slave. Why do you care about ancient Hebrew literature on the subject of sexuality if the stuff on slavery, dietary restrictions, and personal grooming is so obviously absurd that everybody happily ignores it?

And heterosexuals do outnumber homosexuals but the 70-to-1 ratio is ridiculous. What's that based on? People admitting to it? Contemporary psychology holds the proportion to be between 5% and 10%--or, 30,000,000 Americans. The population of California.

And as for the public backlash, well, that's what the police and armed forces are for. There was a lot of public backlash when schools were forced to racially integrate but nobody here is evil--or brave--enough to come out and say that school integration was a bad thing because it flew in the face of public opinion in Alabama.

YES, marriage is a l... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

YES, marriage is a legal term, Tom. Nobody should give a shit what the word means in the context of a particular church unless they happen to be a member of that church. We're talking about the law, which has nothing to do with your particular religious convictions, nor anyone else's. What are you, a member of the Taliban?

Hyperbolist, you should kno... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Hyperbolist, you should know me well enough to know I am seeking to advance the discussion,yet you have cherry-picked superficial points for what seems to be no reason but to attack and (rhetorically) spew.

I don't believe that is your intent, so please consider the effect of your behavior. IOW, you're making Texas Tom (who has not, I noticed, responded to my thoughts) look correct in his own assumptions.

Please look st my post from the context. My references to the Bible wre matched with an observation of Christ's silence on the issue, but you ignored that. I dispute your 10% claim, but even if it were close to 10% than 1%, it would stil mean that the overwhelming majority would be heterosexual, and this has inevitable impact on cultural mores, which are a valid factor to consider in discussing this issue.

To the attempt to link sexual conduct to race identification, that fails when you consider that race is biology, while sex is behavior. And if - as many believe - there is a geentic component to homosexuality, then behavior and identity contexts change by definition. Mocking the observation does not invalidate it, nor refute it.

And no, I hardly think you seriously mean to use the police and armed forces to impose a minority morality by force. That would amount to siding with the police in Selma on that fateful day, and I do not think that was your contention.

If allowing gay marriage is... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

If allowing gay marriage is made the law of the land, who in this generation, will claim it is a right institution solely based on its legality?

For you shallow hotheads- note I am posing a question not stating a proposition.

Does applied legality legitimize wrong acts?
(Kelo v New London comes to mind in response)

nonseqitur, Tom. The impos... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

nonseqitur, Tom. The imposition of gay marriage will always be considered morally right by its advocates, and morally wrong by its opponents. What it will do, if allowed to stand, is alter the standing of homosexuals as a demographic. The effects of that alteration are the focus of the debate.

Hyper. No I am not a membe... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

Hyper. No I am not a member of the Taliban. Why do you ask?
I thought you said this thread is about gay marriage and the legal implications for the institution (secular as well as religious?). What happened to your focus?

Still there, Hyperbolist? ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Still there, Hyperbolist? I saw the vote-down on my response to you, so I know you or LW came by. Just wondered if you'd like to address the substance this time ...

DJ, I know you aren't a big... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

DJ, I know you aren't a bigot and I appreciate you acknowledging the fact that nothing in the New Testament suggests (to my knowledge anyway) that there is anything wrong with being gay. Also nothing wrong with smoking weed, drinking, etc., but that doesn't stop a whole lot of "Christians" from hating on these things.

Homosexuality is not a choice. If it were a choice, the burden would be on you to explain to me why there are gay people in societies that punish homosexuality with death or prison sentences. So the extent to which it's a subconscious predisposition acquired unintentionally vs. a biological trait is not settled, but nobody--nobody--who studies the phenomenon thinks it's a choice. Now neither is pedophilia, and we agree that pedophilia is harmful and wrong, but I'm aware of no good reason to consider homosexuality to be harmful per se.

Here's what I meant re: using the police to enforce the law: if the courts rule gay marriage to be legal, and then two women attempt to marry one another in a court of law, but some asshole barges in and tries to prevent it from happening because he personally believes it's immoral, then the police will restrain him and probably charge him. Same thing that happened at Selma? I guess. So what? Sometimes the law gets it wrong too, but the fact that we're talking about extending rights to others, rather than denying them, is an important distinction.

I didn't vote you down, DJ.... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I didn't vote you down, DJ...

I ask if you're a part of t... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I ask if you're a part of the Taliban, Tom, because they--like you, apparently--think it's reasonable, if not morally imperative, to try and impose their own conservative religiously-based morals onto a society that is too pluralistic for their tastes.

Hyper. Not a non sequitur.... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

Hyper. Not a non sequitur. A question that needs more thought to answer than you have given it.

What are the gay marriage advocate's claims involving moral justification?

I am looking for something that is real and defensible over a broad range of attacks.

Hyper: "I ask if you're a p... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

Hyper: "I ask if you're a part of the Taliban, Tom, because they--like you, apparently--think it's reasonable, if not morally imperative, to try and impose their own conservative religiously-based morals onto a society that is too pluralistic for their tastes."

Here is an easy one... Where have I "imposed" anything to a greater degree than you in these comments?

Beheading and hanging are impositions.
Expressing opinion and persuation... not quite.

Piece of $hit? My goodness ... (Below threshold)
G.:

Piece of $hit? My goodness hyper what did I do to you? I merely asked if you were gay? (the snicker was for the name hyperbolist)Long time since our last chat.Oh,always wondered,are you a woman?

You know, Hyperbolist, I br... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

You know, Hyperbolist, I brought up Selma for a reason. Most folks, even in the 1950s, were not hateful, they had just learned a culture and didn't like what they saw as threats to it. It was not the courts which made Civil Rights real (if that had been the case, the 14th Amendment would have pre-empted the KKK), it was the weight of public opinion and the acts of Congress. The executive decisions of men like Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower also were important, but in the end the people decided to change the culture. What happened in Selma made people see what oppression and racism really looked like, and force was trumped by reason and humanity.

The problem here is the same. A minority cannot force anything. To win, they need to convince the majority that their cause is just. So, gay advocates need to show the humanity of their cause and person, and demonstrate that hate and suspicion of them is bad for everyone. Most people have no real desire to tell someone else how to live, they just want to protect their own values.

And in the end, that's what is really wrong with the judge's decision. Apart from everything else said, the effect of the judge's ruling is to tell the people of California, that gay marriage will be imposed on them by force. It's impossible for anyone to reasonably consider that morally persuasive. Jay's argument is annoying and frustrating to many gay advocates, because it takes a long time and seems futile, but in the end it's the truly winning strategy. Imposition by the court will last only until overruled by a higher court or overturned by public election of authority determined to reverse the court. So it may be argued, I think, that in the end no one improved understanding by this case and no good end will come of it.

Myopic Texas Tom: "Hype... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Myopic Texas Tom: "Hyper. Not a non sequitur. A question that needs more thought to answer than you have given it."

That was me, Tom. Not Hyperbolist. And you're wrong. I understood your question, and its intent. My answer stands.

Try reading it again, without the bias this time.

That's what Jesus wanst you to do, trust me.

Myopic Texas Tom: "Hype... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Myopic Texas Tom: "Hyper. Not a non sequitur. A question that needs more thought to answer than you have given it."

That was me, Tom. Not Hyperbolist. And you're wrong. I understood your question, and its intent. My answer stands.

Try reading it again, without the bias this time.

That's what Jesus wants you to do, trust me.

Tom, the categorical impera... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Tom, the categorical imperative (or Golden Rule, or general attitude of Jesus Christ, or whatever story you prefer) requires that people treat others they want to be treated. (Only act such that you would will your maxim to be a universal law.)

That's the short answer and the one I have time for. Since we're talking about denying equal rights to a significant proportion of the population, I think the burden is on you to explain--in terms that I care about as someone who respects the law but not your particular religious convictions--why these people are less deserving of the opportunity to participate in the secular arrangement of marriage as it is commonly practiced in Western society.

It's a legal question, not a religious one. If your response has anything to do with your religious beliefs, then you tacitly acknowledge that it's not a universalizable perspective, and thus not one suitable for a pluralistic society (i.e. yours). You don't live in a theocracy.

"You don't live in a the... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

"You don't live in a theocracy"

Insh'Allah

Why, G., are you going to a... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Why, G., are you going to ask me on a date? What does it matter? What's with the identity politics?

DJ, a minority is made to suffer because the majority has a hard time adapting the viewpoint that the minority is equally deserving of rights and privileges in the eyes of the law? You may be right but that's really, really depressing and reflects poorly on sooooo many people.

Ethically I agree, Hyperbol... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Ethically I agree, Hyperbolist. But in practical terms, it's vital to understand what is and is not in your long-term interest.

Wannaget more depressed? Consider Christianity's roots as a religion of the poor and oppressed, literally jailed, beaten, banished and killed simply for praying to a Messiah not accepted by Rome, surviving and somehow growing to the point where it becomes the dominant faith of Europe ... whereupon it arrests and kills alleged heretics and launches a war against 'heathen' for the sake of God's glory.

Kind of shows how easily people can miss the point when they have power.

No, I was just curious if y... (Below threshold)
G.:

No, I was just curious if you were a woman or gay is all.

DJ, thanks for the well tho... (Below threshold)
bnorm:

DJ, thanks for the well thought-out and reasonable arguments in this thread. It is very much needed.

Fair points all, DJ. Have a... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Fair points all, DJ. Have a good one. Off to play softball.

DJ: Sorry for the misread ... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

DJ: Sorry for the misread on the post. My response still stands. It is a question of thought. I don't have the answer.

Your quote: "That's what Jesus wanst you to do, trust me."

Poor theology and not the Gospel. You don't understand your Bible. Jesus expresses many commands to uphold that are not possible in human nature / fallen state. We are to do the will of the Father and that is to believe in the Son.

The golden rule cannot be upheld perfectly. We cannot love our neighbors as ourselves. We cannot love The Lord our God with our whole hearts... Without faltering! Gay rights and Christian wrongs don't clarify our relation to God, only accentuates the miserable condition we live in with each other.

I have given a good accounting of myself and have no desire to give y'all more opportunities to judge and condemn where it is not your place. I don't judge the gay marriage as wrong just wrongheaded. I sure would like the proponents to give the same consideration to the opponents.

I come from the camp of the camel's nose under the tent theory of moral stands. That sums up the whole Prop 8 kerfuffle. There are other mechanisms to ensure equal treatment under the law.

Tom: "You don't underst... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Tom: "You don't understand your Bible"

Odd, I think I could say that about you rather more fairly.

You're right that we must follow Christ in order to have hope to be the men we were meant to be, but it's important to follow Christ, not your mirror image labeled Christ.

We want to walk as Peter did, not Judas. It's very important to understand that man like Judas, Caiaphas, even Pilate, imagined that they were doing what was right and just. They lacked the humility to ask God to tell them their course.

Speaking bluntly Tom, you're acting the pharisee here, not a man who has been forgiven by the Lord and who speaks in love and hope rather than judgment.

You are not God. So please try not to act as if you hold the office. You, me, we're both sinners and can't pretend otherwise. Doesn't mean we should condone sin, but brother, you'll look a lot less hateful if you drop that [rhetorical] stone you have in your hand there.

Nice touch DJ. You make ma... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

Nice touch DJ. You make many assumptions to look favorable. Express your opinion. I will express mine. I won't even call you names (biblical or other). The love and hope is in Christ. Not on this comment thread.

look less hateful...
drop rhetorical stone...
Who have I judged, DJ?
Your references to Judas, Caiaphas and Pilate are out of context for this discussion.
A Pharisee would not depend on Grace over the Law.

Give it up DJ.

Hyperbolist-<p... (Below threshold)
914:

Hyperbolist-

"Solid logic there. By that line of reasoning, everybody who hates Nazis is Jewish and everybody who hates the Klan is black.

G., you're a piece of shit."


This is enough to make the nameless one blush!!

"Can anyone tell me what th... (Below threshold)
Steve:

"Can anyone tell me what the practical effect of this ruling is on states that have amended their own constitutions to ban same-sex marriage?"

The most practical effect is just that the writing is on the wall. Any judicial ruling is binding only in jurisdictions that are subservient to the one issuing the ruling. In this case the court's jurisdiction is limited, and other states are not bound by the ruling. When the ruling is upheld by the 9th circuit court of appeals it will almost certainly invalidate any similar laws in 9 states. Much like abortion laws, legislators will probably continue to write new laws in hopes of circumventing the court's objections.

When the appeal comes before the Supreme Court it will probably be upheld. Despite the delusions of some, the ruling is extremely well reasoned and is very clearly founded on constitutional law. The only legitimate question is whether or not homosexuals are a legitimate class under the 14th amendment. Any reasonable and informed person would think so, but we may see some tortured reasoning from Roberts, Alito, and Thomas. Scalia might surprises us, but I don't think so. Kennedy will almost certainly join the remainder and uphold.

That will determine the law throughout the US and its possessions. Still, legislators are a special lot, and fond of wasting time and money. I expect some will continue to try and find a way to get around it. The only way to get around the constitutional problems will be to amend the constitution. It won't happen, but you can be sure that plenty of politicians will see it as a great way to pander to their constituents.

Good job Jay! <br ... (Below threshold)
914:

Good job Jay!


I think youv'e hit the century mark with this one.


And Hyper, I hope you strike out tonight.

"The only way to get around... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"The only way to get around the constitutional problems will be to amend the constitution. It won't happen, but you can be sure that plenty of politicians will see it as a great way to pander to their constituents."

You'd be surprised what 'can happen' when enough people feel that they've been fucked over.

I am amazed that the gay ac... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

I am amazed that the gay activists that insist on equal protection under the law don't see that they are quite equally treated under the established marriage laws.

No incest.
No children.
No same sex.
No polygamy.
No animals.

All citizens are allowed marry within the bounds of the law. What's the beef?

"Kennedy will almost certai... (Below threshold)
Highlander:

"Kennedy will almost certainly join the remainder and uphold" -- Steve

I wouldn't be too sure of that, Steve. He is one of the Bush v. Gore criminals, we can't automatically assume he'll be logical.

Tom, I hope that your heart... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Tom, I hope that your heartfelt religious beliefs give you warmth and comfort as we all hurtle toward the abyss. I'm glad, though, that they inform and affect an increasingly irrelevant minority faction within the modern world.

"All citizens are allowed m... (Below threshold)
Steve:

"All citizens are allowed marry within the bounds of the law. What's the beef?"

The beef is that everybody isn't allowed to marry within the bounds of the law. If you're straight you're allowed to marry the person you love. If you're gay you don't have that right in most states.

The discrimination that denies an equal right for gay people to marry their chosen partner is exactly the same as the discrimination that once prohibited interracial marriage. Using your logic, nobody was discriminated against under those laws because *everybody* had the same right to marry another person of their own race:
No incest.
No children.
No same sex.
No polygamy.
No animals.
No interracial.
Loving v Virginia shot those laws down on the same grounds that make prop 8 unconstitutional, saying "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..."

@Highlander: Of course we can't be positive what will happen, but Kennedy's record on gay rights is good indication of how he'll rule. He authored the majority opinion in both Lawrence v Texas and Romer v Evans. His reasoning in those cases seems likely to lead to his upholding Perry. In Lawrence Scalia said the reasoning would make same sex marriage legal. If the court actually ruled on the basis of law it would be a unanimous decision.

So who's stacking the vote ... (Below threshold)
G.:

So who's stacking the vote deck?

However, my support has ... (Below threshold)
john:

However, my support has always been tempered by the condition that it be done the "right" way -- by the will of the people, as expressed by either their elected representatives or public referendum.

Then where is the support for ObamaCare, which was passed by the will of the people, as expressed by their elected representatives?

Apparently when you oppose a law, then you're perfectly fine with attempting to have a judge overturn the "will of the people" as you define it.

John, I don't recall ever a... (Below threshold)

John, I don't recall ever advocating going outside the law to fight ObamaCare -- just using the existing systems.

Further, there are three distinct Constitutional provisions that, in my opinion, ObamaCare violates. Which is being challenged.

Finally, in both cases, my position is consistent -- I oppose making sweeping changes of the status quo in violation of existing precedent and the Constitution. Both positions -- gay marriage by judicial fiat and ObamaCare -- are backed by vague cries for "fairness" and "equality," and decidedly lacking in both well-reasoned arguments and popular support.

Both of which ought to be factors in making changes in the social strata as sweeping as these.

J.

Jay has, he/she says, ... l... (Below threshold)

Jay has, he/she says, ... long stated (his/her) "support" for what he/she calls "marriage" between people of the same sex. (advisedly)

Which would be fine if only the meaning of the word "marriage" could be Humpty Dumptied to fit the world view and/or the desires of the sexually deranged.

But then, perhaps if one's only view of the world was through the distorting lens of such derangement, Humpty Dumpty's an authority figure?

Let me answer your implied ... (Below threshold)

Let me answer your implied questions, Brian Richard "Dick" Allen:

I am a man. I am also a heterosexual man. I like to think of myself as "straight, but not narrow."

You got anything else to argue your point, besides vague (and, to your tiny little brain, defamatory) insinuations and childlike mockery, "Dick?"

"Marriage" has all kinds of meanings. For example, it was once restricted to only people of the same race. States still restrict it on the basis of age and consanguinity. In some places, arranged marriages are considered acceptable. In some places, marriage is often done without the consent of the woman. In some places, polygamy is legal. And, in most cases, those marriages are recognized as valid when the couples come to the United States.

You got problems with that, "Dick?" Or you just wanna sit back and act like... well, a dick?

I'm betting on the latter. After all, one's gotta play to one's strengths, and that's what you're best at.

J.

Hyper,"... I hope th... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

Hyper,
"... I hope that your heartfelt religious beliefs give you warmth and comfort as we all hurtle toward the abyss. I'm glad, though, that they inform and affect an increasingly irrelevant minority faction within the modern world."

If I am part of an irrelevant minority as we hurtle toward the abyss, who should we look to as the driver taking us to that abyss... You and your like minded fools? You said it.

Steve,

You have a knack of throwing false analogies in the stream and claim we poison the well. Since when has race been equated with gender, age or family relationship? These laws where put in place to protect and order society, for everybody.
You would have people deny the natural order based on reason and their moral convictions just to make a "class" of people feel good. You first, Skippy. Give up all you believe and hold as true just to make nice with someone and tell me what you have left.

No one has presented a good argument why homosexuals should be married, only why some believe it would be nice. They have equal protection under the law. You want more. You want protected class status. What for?

I feel sorry for those headed toward that abyss without any comfort or hope. Truly sorry.

How will you deal with the abyss?

Thanks for disagreeing without the rudeness this time.

First, congrats to Jay to g... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

First, congrats to Jay to getting 100 responses.

I'd like to ask the readers here to do one thing before their next post:

Read through the comments, and note the tone, respect, and intelligence of the comments. Not whether you agree with the comment, but what is the apparent intent?

It should be obvious that few, if any, people will be convinced to change their opinion here. So the only real quesiton is whathehr your can say your peace like an adult, or just toss off something which shows rather a lesser person. It's easy to believe you have a godo argument and valid perspective.

Have you tried, seriously, to consider a reasonable argument from your opponent? I'm not saying every argument is worth its print, but there have been some good points made, but mostly ignored.

Or would you rather just be juvenile and insult people with different opinions?

Sorry, I need spell-check a... (Below threshold)
DJ Fumblekeys:

Sorry, I need spell-check and a lot of coffee before my next comment.

Ha ha..... (Below threshold)
914:

Ha ha..

Tom, nobody "equated" race ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Tom, nobody "equated" race with gender or race. It was compared analogously. And the analogy holds true: someone's sexual orientation is a feature of who they are as a person, inasmuch as their gender or race. It's part of their personal identity. So to tell them that they are excluded from an important part of adult life in our society because of a feature of their personal identity is discriminatory and unconstitutional. And there is where the conversation should end, except it doesn't, because some people think homosexuality is an aberration, a sin, abnormal (what, being normal is something intrinsically worth pursuing?), etc.. The same things were said about biracial marriages. Your reference to the "natural order" is the tired canard of the social conservative who lacks an argument and instead settles for insisting upon the status quo, as though any changes to the social fabric will necessarily weaken it. We saw that that was false with regards to biracial marriages, and once gay marriage is legal throughout your country, you will be forced (with empirical data) to accept the same conclusion about gay marriage.

By the way, what's with the insanely high divorce rates in red states? I thought conservatives cared about marriage and families and what-not. If you actually cared about marriage (and I don't believe that you do--I sincerely believe that for you, this issue is about depriving gay people of equal rights, for some reason that you probably won't bother to articulate), then you would be equally or more vocal about the divorce epidemic sweeping Middle America.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_div_rat-lifestyle-divorce-rate

Hyper,First, the j... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

Hyper,

First, the juvenile diversionary tactic of "divorce in red states" is not unexpected from you and is not part of this discussion.
Second, you do equate race and gender issues as soon as you repeatedly present the interracial marriage analogy. This was corrected to be a man of any race may marry a woman of any race.

Most of your arguments are standard and noted. I would mention your consideration that the conversation should end at the supposed discriminatory and "unconstitutional" nature of denying "an important part of adult life" to persons based on their sexual orientation begs the question, "In what way is it important to the gay community?" and will this resolve this longing to be included?

I strongly feel that it is a mechanism to legitimize behavior.

If you bring up divorce rates again you should state that you wish such a sad state of affairs upon the gay community. Is this stealth hate on your part? (Uncalled for but you really would be better off not opening these doors for others to run through.)

Texas Tom, you're not reall... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Texas Tom, you're not really making your case at all. You're tossing off insults at Hyperbolist, but not building your own position.

As I wrote above (and you ignored), no one here is very likely to change their position, so the cogency of your post and the respect you show are the chief virtues to be claimed. Speaking bluntly sir, you have failed on both counts.

I have to say that I do not agree with Hyperbolist's link between sexual orientation and race, because the key question is behavior. Also, as races intermarry and have children, the definition of'race' becomes simultaneously more complex and less significant, while sexual orientation remains constant in its social significance.

The conflict between Texas Tom (as fake a Texan as someone from Dallas) and Hyperbolist seems to me to be the artificial contrast between religious and secular impositions of value on the word 'marriage'. Artificial not to say 'invalid', but off-topic for the issue at hand. But that's just my opinion.

DJ, speaking bluntly. Don't... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

DJ, speaking bluntly. Don't insult me either. Restrain your own unsubstantiated assertions (fake Texan) and I shall hold dear your closing sentence that this is just your opinion. Don't get the vapors if I give your opinion what I believe to be proper consideration and you assume I mean to be dismissive.

Is the last paragraph your "turn to the masses, after admonishing the ner-do-wells, and warning the boys and girls that this could happen to you if you don't heed my warning" scene?

Really! Gentle sparring is not to be suppressed. I think Hyper is a gentleman and I, after a rough start, respect him. I respect you too. I just don't think you last post was called for.

You might be suprise what beliefs have modified through this back and forth. Put the best construct on this. You should be satisfied.

Grace and Peace to Y'all...

DJ, by the way. I reread m... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

DJ, by the way. I reread my last to Hyper and I can't find any insults. I have a less than affirming characterization of part of his response but no insult.

Please point out what you consider an insult. If I see your point I will woodshed myself (figuratively).

I am serious.

I don't mean to insult but I don't mean to walk on egg shells either.

PPS, DJ.I was comp... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

PPS, DJ.

I was completely out of line with the "You don't understand your Bible" crack.
I apologize.

Tom: "Grace and Peace to... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Tom: "Grace and Peace to Y'all..."

You reflect neither, Tom. And I called you on your poor presentation of Texas, only because you tagged your name with it. I've been a Texan since 1968 and Texans have a phrase for people like you:

All hat, no cattle.

Besides which, you still have not bothered to post a constructive comment on the topic. Think you might give it an adult attempt this time?


I'm not gonna bet money on it.


Tom (to me): "Please po... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Tom (to me): "Please point out what you consider an insult."

Tom (to Hyperbolist) "who should we look to as the driver taking us to that abyss... You and your like minded fools?"

That's an insult, Tom. In addition to the perjorative, it also ignores the topic and commits a personal attack.

Hence the rebuke.

By the way, I'm a slow writer and my 504 comment was underway between 448 and 504, so I did not see the later posts from you at 455 and 502.

Frankly Tom, I don't see you much here. Nothing wrong with that, but I wonder if you know the regulars. I've been here for some years and so has Hyperbolist. Hyperbolist is left-of-center in his opinion and bothers some folks, but he's honest and supports his opinion with reason. Doesn't mean I agree with him or he with me, but he's one of the good guys, in that he comes here for constructive debate.

My undergrad school was Baylor, and I was baptized a Baptist. So that should give you a hint of my background. My first work as a political advocate was volunteering for Nixon in 1972. Like most people,I'm a mix of things, a conservative overall and a very strong one in certain areas. But I'm also a pragmatist, and anytime you're looking at a group with a million people or more, you're going to have to be open-minded to find a realistic solution. The issue of gay marriage is one of those situations. Where you or I think primarily of church in a marriage, and a holy sacrament, liberals think of equal access to services and legal standing. And so there has to be reasonable discussion about what can and cannot be changed, and why. The thing that should be considered but too often is not, is that the decision does not have to be a zero-sum equation.

DJ, in my part of Texas we ... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

DJ, in my part of Texas we would say you have your panties in a bunch. You want to vent with me as your target? Go ahead. You are doing me no harm.

I try to be gracious in the end of my posts and you attack me.

You won't even address the substance of my last posts. Why?

You may apologize as soon as you unwad your scanties, Jack. No hard feelings here.

Tom, there is no substance ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Tom, there is no substance in your posts. Emotion yes, but nothing relevant to the topic.

And son, if you imagine you are being gracious, I'm glad I don't have to see you when you're trying to be rude.

Do grow up Tom, you're not fooling anyone.

And so far as 'panties' goes, just because they're your choice of interior accessory, does not mean anyone else shares your proclivities. Keep your 'panties' to yourself, "Jack".

DJ, thank you for your clar... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

DJ, thank you for your clarification. I will disagree that I insulted Hyper. I see it as returning the favor.

Pragmatically speaking, I don't see the quantity of error being any less erroneous. I don't think the California / Federal courts are going to get this right. And that doesn't mean no legal unions for gays. Both sides are betting on a doped horse.

The legal system encourages discord when adjudicating social issues.

Sorry about Baylor. I went to Rice. We both didn't go to A&M! Yeah!

If you have good principled convictions, standby them.
If not and blowing with the wind is just fine. So be it.

RE: Post 112 only.<p... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

RE: Post 112 only.

DJ. You are unable to follow your own advice.

Full cocked to the pissed off mode makes for a grumpy man.

So long, for now. Hope you stop being so hard on yourself.

My, my. With those self-in... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

My, my. With those self-indulgent words, Faketexas Tom stomps off pretending he "won".

That's not the sunset, wannabe-buckaroo Tom. That's the fade from your fake faith imploding.

And btw Tommy, anyone who's been here long enough to know, knows I'm having fun watching you stew in your hypocrisy. Have you noticed Hyperbolist has not shot back at you? He's having too much fun watching you shoot yourself in the foot by proving yourself the opposite of that 'gracious' and 'Christian' icon you think you present.

But do go on. It's the weekend and time for comedy. You are very amusing as slapstick. Step on that rake again, will you?

I seem to have touched a ne... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

I seem to have touched a nerve.

You are right this is fun!

Going back to the Bible, To... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Going back to the Bible, Tom, yes or no; do the Levitical laws apply to Christians?

Initial response is no, the... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

Initial response is no, these laws are for the institution of the holy priesthood. Their task was to preach the law, show our sin and make atonement for those sins. But as was later presented in the Gospels, we are to follow all the law or be condemned. This is where the plot gets happy...

Fallen mankind cannot keep the laws of God to the satisfaction of God's Holiness. So we need to atone for those sins... One man did this for us, once and for all.

Going to shake my hand or slap it again?

Nice dodge Tom, but you're ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Nice dodge Tom, but you're wrong. Remember Peter and Cornelius? You're so busy preaching, hoping to do God's work because you think He needs you that you missed 90% of what He told us.

I will stop at that point for now, but suggest that you consider the paradox between perfection in Christ and the standing of the Law within the realm of Grace.

Assuming you're man enough. I guess we'll see what we see.

So I'm wrong... Me and Mart... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

So I'm wrong... Me and Martin Luther will console our miserable sinful selves with the glorious knowledge you have demonstrated your manhood at our expense.

You are so angry! Chill. It's hot outside.

You are also off topic....sauce...goose...gander.

hyperbolist hopes Tom's rel... (Below threshold)

hyperbolist hopes Tom's religious beliefs inform and affect an increasingly irrelevant minority faction within the modern world, as it hurtles toward the abyss -- but fails to notice that Judeo-Christian/Western/Human Civilization's rate of spiraling acceleration into the New Dark Age - which he has astutely observed -- and upon which he comments -- is exactly inversely proportional to the decline in adherence among his fellows to the Tenets that guide both Tom's religious beliefs -- and are the very cement of Judeo-Christian/Western/Human Civilization.

hyperbolist may however -- and notwithstanding Islamanazism's and its crypto-fascistic/Leftist axis's insane claims to the contrary -- take solace from the fact that Christianity is the world's fastest growing religion and that China's 250 million and growing Christian population and those as rapidly growing Christian populations of the rest of "the South" have already sent many many many missionaries into the West, that they are hard at work -- and that "Tom's heartfelt religious beliefs" may soon be as heartfully felt by hyperbolist.

And, as they did the First, also drive the Second American War of Independence!

Thank you, Jay, for your po... (Below threshold)

Thank you, Jay, for your post Number

Hmmmmm, seems not only Humpty Dumpty's at work around here but also (Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, anyone?) a little paranoia?

But just in case my efforts to do so may in fact do so, dear Jay, let me move past your effort to insult and to demean me and to thus ignore what it actually said as I hasten to reassure you that my simple post was intended to say only what it said. What the black bits, that is, upon the white, said. Any "implication" you created from it was the product of your mind.

My point remains that unless Humpty Dumpty is at work, the word: marriage; (which implies -- and lists, responsibilities, not "rights" -- means what it means. That is, it means:

1 a : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.

Cordially - Brian

# 98... (Below threshold)

# 98

Re: 118 and 119.I ... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

Re: 118 and 119.

I am right. You are, what? Was your position yes or no? Oh, to busy calling a simple response that is quite correct, as far as it goes, a dodge. Foolish.

One minor correction, "Dick... (Below threshold)

One minor correction, "Dick:"

But just in case my efforts to do so may in fact do so, dear Jay, let me move past your effort to insult and to demean me BACK and to thus ignore what it actually said as I hasten to reassure you that my simple post was intended to say only what it said.

Oh, how nice. You've found a dictionary that agrees with you. How special. So special, you don't even bother to link to it.

And I note that you say I don't take your statements seriously, but then refuse to address my own points regarding issues such as age restrictions, consanguinity restrictions, and certain foreign traditions that are forbidden here, but are de facto/post facto accepted in the United States. All of which fall under the category of "marriage."

As far as the tit for tat insults, go ahead and make the argument that you did not know my gender when you made your comment #97. You've been around here for quite some time. If necessary, I'll dig out a comment you made on a thread where I stated that I was male. I don't make a point of it, but I know I've mentioned it on numerous occasions.

Don't start playing games with me, "Dick," unless you are ready for me to play back.

J.

I've been a dick in this co... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I've been a dick in this comment thread and that's kind of my M.O. on this blog, which I've visited much less frequently since Obama won office and has disappointed me on so many levels. So Tom isn't totally out of line to talk shit to me, though I do feel that my comments have a hell of a lot more reasoning behind them than his. I do respect his eloquence though.

DJ, if I were in Texas and in need of an accountant, I'd send you an email. You're a good person and I respect your contributions to this blog and the internet in general.

I guess I should acknowledge B.R. Allen's assertion that radical Islam is somehow "leftist". Do social democratic Kantian atheists have much in common with fascist Islamists? No, but it's fun to pretend otherwise because it saves the trouble of gaining an understanding of that which one so incoherently despises. B.R. Allen, you seem like an intelligent individual, so you might consider availing yourself of that which you rail against with such venom.

It's interesting that the two most coherent and interesting authors--both of whom I disagree with 90% of the time--have no problem with gay marriage per se. One of them is an agnostic, leaning deist, and the other is Baptist by heritage and either Baptist currently or some other form of Christian. Neither of them have a problem with homosexuality nor the bond of marriage being extended to this population. I guess I'm making an appeal to authority (an authority that I typically dispute!) but these authors that typically get ten to thirty comments that sharply agree with their positions are all of a sudden met with some incoherent resistance when they dare to suggest that gays are entitled to the same privileges under the constitution as everybody else. In Jay Tea's case, there's no harm in extending the franchise thusly; and in DJ's case, there's nothing in the teachings of Christ that would suggest that bigotry towards homosexuals, or homosexuality, is warranted.

Seriously, why do you people care about gays being allowed to get married? Will it actually cheapen your own marriages? Will your girlfriends spontaneously become lesbians and marry women? I'm honestly asking: why the hell do you care? Nobody is demanding that your respective ministers/priests/mullahs/whatever conduct religious marriage ceremonies, so this in no way infringes upon your religious freedom. Marriage is a civil issue when we're talking about it in the context of the law, and that's the only relevant context in which to discuss that particular concept. Whether or not you want your particular parish/church/ministry to accept the validity of gay marriage in the eyes of God is totally separate from the conversation that we're having.

And again: I apologize for contributing to the devolution of this conversation into a shit-chucking contest. That's a dumb thing for adults to do and I feel stupid reading my earlier comments. They were motivated by my close affinity with my gay uncle and my plethora of gay friends, who, being Canadian, are free to marry one another and smoke pot and be rad.

I'm a little late to this d... (Below threshold)
Murgatroyd:

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I want to point out a statement profoundly contrary to fact in one of hyperbolist's comments:

Being granted equal rights under the Constitution--it doesn't fucking matter what the majority think. A majority of the voting public in the South demanded the right to own slaves, and Lincoln's wholly appropriate response was to wage war against them and kill an awful lot of them until they no longer had the means to try and assert themselves as a separate political entity. And it was the right thing to do.

Lincoln did not fight the Civil War because the South wanted to keep slaves. Lincoln fought the Civil War because southern states initiated armed rebellion against the federal government, and he wanted to preserve the Union. In fact, in 1862 he wrote exactly that:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

And a few weeks later he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves in the secessionist states but did nothing for the slaves in, say, Maryland.

John, I don't recall eve... (Below threshold)
john:

John, I don't recall ever advocating going outside the law to fight ObamaCare -- just using the existing systems.

And I don't recall anyone suggesting you did. Challenging a proposition via court system is staying inside the law. Strawman dismissed.

Further, there are three distinct Constitutional provisions that, in my opinion, ObamaCare violates. Which is being challenged.

Totally fine. And there are provisions that others, in their opinion, believe the proposition violates. Are conservatives the only ones allowed to challenge a law in court?

Finally, in both cases, my position is consistent -- I oppose making sweeping changes of the status quo in violation of existing precedent and the Constitution.

Loving v. Virginia is precedent for making sweeping changes to the status quo. So is Brown. So are many court decisions. "Violation of the Constitution" is something that courts decide, not you.

judicial fiat

Otherwise known as judicial decision. You know, the process outlined in the Constitution? See Loving, Brown, etc.

and decidedly lacking in both well-reasoned arguments and popular support.

So "well-reasoned arguments" are OK? Arguments such as "it's not illegal"? You reverse your own argument from your other post.

Both of which ought to be factors in making changes in the social strata as sweeping as these.

They are. They are factors that a judge considers.

Hyper: Thank you. Your pa... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

Hyper: Thank you. Your passion is your credit and you are and asset to the discussion. I am not very good at spelling out why what I believe to be right is so. The complexities of right, not so right and wrong are easiest to restrict to short bursts in a comment thread if reader is to get through to the point before moving on. I am not much better than the short burst of thought but I am trying to pack much that is thoughtful in to my output.

In rereading the earlier posts #5 and #6 grab me as addressing many of the positives and misgivings of the people most ardently involved in this issue present.

Your thoughts?

Hyperbolist is agreeing wit... (Below threshold)

Hyperbolist is agreeing with me and giving me compliments.

I might have to reconsider this whole issue...

J.

Tom: "Was your position... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Tom: "Was your position yes or no? Oh, to busy calling a simple response that is quite correct, as far as it goes, a dodge."

It was and is a dodge, Tom. Certainly you understand the context of the thread, so your 'Billy Graham' impression is dishonest as well as invalid here.

Regarding the Law, three biblical lessons come quickly to mind. First, you should recall Peter's vision of the 'unclean' animals just before he visted Cornelius - 'do not call unclean what God has made clean', he is rebuked. That clearly runs directly against the Levitican law, so what are we to make of this? It has to mean, in the context of our current discussion, that human requirements are invalid insofar as God is concerned. We must focus on what is right, not what is cited as statute. I could go further and note that the prohibition against homosexuality does not even appear in the Ten Commandments, nor as one of Jesus' Two "Great" Commandments. Focusing on the Levitical prohibition, therefore, is legalist, hence my warning to you that you were acting the Pharisee.

The second lesson comes from the most common example used against homosexuality - the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Scripture tells us that the wickedness of the reached up to Heaven, and that the city's residents tried to rape the angels sent by the Lord. But that does not mean that homosexuality was the chief sin which brought down destruction. The women of the two were killed as well as the men. The true sin was the rebellion against God, to the point that the city's people desired to rape messengers of God, because they knew them to be angels. The sin which brought their destruction, then, was not human desire but hatred of God and holiness.

The third lesson comes from Christ Himself. When asked to describe a man who loved his neighbor and pleased God, Christ told about the Good Samaritan. The significance of this, is that Samaritans are heretics to Judaism, and in fact disbelieved many of the things Jesus taught as truth - therefore a Samaritan was clearly in error in his beliefs. Why then, would Christ use a Samaritan for HIs example of a man who pleased God and did right? In order to show that the quality of the heart is what matters to God.

Applied to this thread's topic, this warns us that we cannot impose our doctrine on others, but must witness through the way we act and behave. It's common for immature Christians to imagine that they need to "win" people over to Christ, to bring up religion and doctrine at every opportunity, to shoehorn their beliefs into every debate. It's like the geek who sees Star Trek relevance to politics, or the ACORN member who sees racism in macroeconomics.

DJ, you really oughta skim ... (Below threshold)

DJ, you really oughta skim off a few of your thoughts here and do your own posting. There's definite interest here...

I gotta confess, though. The last thing I personally found interesting was smacking around Brian Richard "Dick" Allen after he decided it'd be fun to cheap-shot me. Personally, the finer theological points of your discussions give me MEGO* syndrome.

J.

* My Eyes Glaze Over

Tom, with regards to #5 and... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Tom, with regards to #5 and #6, marriage is currently an important facet of the social fabric of our culture. Many non-religious people are currently happily married, and their marriages are no less meaningful in the eyes of the law--and equally important, their marriages are just as important to them as they are to religious people who are married. Blowing the whole thing up and just saying "Marriage is for churches, civil unions are for secular society," is to deprive a lot of people from participating in a ceremony and relationship that their forebears have been able to for an awful long time. The only reason I can think of for doing this is to allay the concerns of religious people who don't want gay people to get married in a civil court (or in a church that tolerates gay marriage); and so I am returned to my original position of asking opponents of gay marriage why they care about this.

Normally, I am loath to pub... (Below threshold)

Normally, I am loath to publish the e-mail of a commenter, but I'm making an exception here:

hyperbolist, if you don't stop using [email protected] as your e-mail address here (guaranteeing that at least a couple of the editors have to see it every time you post), I'm going to have to bring down Olaf The Troll God's hammer.

We do NOT need to see that shit every time, dude.

J.

Oh man... haha, sorry, I pu... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Oh man... haha, sorry, I put that in once and then didn't bother changing it as I was never prompted to enter it again. I didn't notice that it was still there. Hope it goes without saying that that shouldn't be taken personally--at least, not since the first time I used it, whenever that was, and to whomever it was directed.

Apologies!

Thank you hyperbolist. ;)<... (Below threshold)

Thank you hyperbolist. ;)

dj. What is your point with... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

dj. What is your point with regard to my posts and your unusual attention to them. Are you out to impress me, the community or your own ego? Have I pushed buttons you didn't want pushed?
What should I apologize for now to make you stop abusing your keyboard? Your public criticism of my status as Texan and faith is most disturbing. It bothers me that you are so unkind with someone you don't know squat about. I have certainly stuck my toe of faith into this discussion and found the waters disagreeable, but you won't let this go.
So I let you go and wish you will stop using new commenters for your privileged punching bag.
BT

Hyper. In light of your di... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

Hyper. In light of your dismissive attitude toward contrary views, the following sentiment sums up my feelings that you have helped shape...

They, the left and gay activists, don't believe or care that the gays have a right to marry; they believe that you and I do NOT have a right to think otherwise.

This is your contribution to understanding the issues. I hope you are satisfied with the reasoned help you have given.
BT

I note that Tom has yet to ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

I note that Tom has yet to contribute anything that advanced the discussion. He knows derision and attacks, and that's it.

Hyperbolist, thanks for a great discussion. Jay, thanks for a great thread. Tom, find a church that's seeks the Lord and not a scoreboard, and you'll be more of the man you pretended here.

Bulldog: After a review of... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

Bulldog: After a review of the available evidence, you seem to possess a minority opinion... Then again this thread is about advancing minority opinions, isn't it.
Are all Baptist as rude and sanctimonious as you or are you an exception? You truly need forgiveness. May God hear your confession as he will surely hear mine.

(what is with your fixation on manhood? Is that one of the ways you contribute to a discussion of gay marriage? how ironic. cheap but deserved shot. you opened that door)

Oh, yes. A last observatio... (Below threshold)
Texas Tom:

Oh, yes. A last observation:

Like shooting fish in a barrel... You guys really got focused on me.

Look at the light! Chase the light! Where'd it go? There it is, chase the light! All day and all night. What a hoot! I'm passing this stuff around at work.

Such projection!

I am done with you. You may go now......

My dear Mr TeaSeem... (Below threshold)

My dear Mr Tea

Seems you have insisted in taking offense where none was intended and none was given and have retaliated to a slight of your own (ego"s?) making -- and I am truly sorry about that.

I may indeed have been by here before. God knows in filling the brief moments of boredom in my 20-hour days, I flash through lots of sites and have become a bit of a Wizbang fan. But I had no idea whatsoever (and cared less) as to whether you (or any other collection of electrons on my monitor) are (is) male or female and, again, implied absolutely nothing. I tend to call spades, spades and to skip the sophist stuff.

Point taken: Was as usual in too much of a hurry and skipped the link to Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary: http://unabridged.m-w.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=marriage&x=0&y=0 , which defines marriage as :

a : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.

That definition has stood since Human Beings first developed brains and my point was -- and is -- that people of the same sex may do whatever they like but cannot call their cohabitation "marriage" without making the WORD meaningless.

The campaign to create what you call "gay marriage" has absolutely nothing to do with the obtaining either of what your side of the discussion call "rights" or with the deviate community's rush to accept marriage's many responsibilities. The "gay marriage" campaign, pure and simple, is aimed at the destruction of the institution of marriage - at the destruction, that is, of the bedrock of our very Judeo-Christian/Western/Human Civilization.

As to my use of the word, "gay," I reserve it, not for the likes of, say, my beloved lesbian step-daughter nor for my also beloved 'sexually deranged' right-hand man/PA (of the past 32 years) but -- as in, "happy and" .... for folks like me. I have no time for "political correctness" and ... what was that I said about calling "a spade," "an effing shovel?"

As ever.

Cordially - Brian

<a href="http://townhall.co... (Below threshold)



Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy